In the United States, wealth inequality is detrimental to democratic ideals.

Value: Democracy. Interestingly enough, I'm going to quote Lincoln in this Lincoln-Douglas style debate. Like Lincoln, I also believe that "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth."[1] I believe in democracy and that no other form of government can be a legitimate government, for in order for a government to derive power over a group of people, that people must consent to such a government. Contention 1: Opponent failed to sufficiently argue their point thus far I would like to point out that my opponent has brought up many points about how no government can be perfect, and that we already don't live up to democratic ideals, however neither of these contentions support their claim that wealth inequality isn't detrimental to democratic ideals. My opponent seems to be arguing for something entirely different. Contention 2: Political contributions primarily control the direction of the government, voting does not. The primary way in which wealth inequality ruins democratic ideals is that it gives some people more of a say in government than others. How does it do that, one may ask? Well, let us look into the effect voting, interest groups, and donation has on policy. In a study conducted by Princeton University, looking into the effects each of those three things have on policy, it was found that average voting and the average American has little to no effect on policy decisions in the government of the United States. [2] Furthermore, the groups with the most influence over policy decisions were economic elites and interest groups [2]. Of the four political theories, electoral democracy, economic-elite domination, interest group majoritarian pluralism, and interest group biased pluralism, economic-elite domination and biased pluralism are most present in the American system. [2] Contention 3: Political donations are almost unregulated in the United States Ever since the disastrous Citizens United v. FEC supreme court ruling, non-profit corporations can donate unlimited funds to political campaigns.[3] This gives these corporations much more control over policy control, for a politician can not easily reject giving favors to such corporations for donating to their campaign in the form of passing a bill that would be in the interest of the corporation. Conclusion: The fact that corporations and economic elites are the ones with the most influence over American policies, and that political donations are nearly unregulated, this puts the average American at a huge disadvantage in influencing the government the way they would want. This inherently limits democracy, and the fact that the elites have so much more money than the rest of us, they have much more influence and say over the government since we can't donate to a politician as much as they can, so the politician will be more interested in helping the one who donated to them the most. We are essentially a plutocracy and not a democracy. Electoral Democracy: Political theory in which the electorate, the people, average people, have the most influence over policy making [2] Economic-Elite Domination: Political theory in which economic elites, the most wealthy, have the most influence over policy making [2] Interest Group Majoritarian Pluralism: A political theory in which interests of all people are generally represented [2] Interest Group Biased Pluralism: A political theory in which corporations, business associations and professional groups dominate [2] Plutocracy: A government ruled by the wealthy Sources: [1] https://www.brainyquote.com... [2] https://scholar.princeton.edu... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org...