Resolved: In the United States, organized political lobbying does more harm than good.

>>>>>>FRAMEWORK<<<<<< a)Correct, but you didn't get what I was saying. If OPL does more harm than good, then a US without OPL would necessarily be worse than a US with it. It would make 0 sense if a world where OPL does more good than harm is worse than a world where OPL does more harm than good, all other factors held constant. Thus, if I win that a world without OPL is less desirable to one with OPL, I win. I'm not debating pure good/bad, just clarifying what the calculations mean. b)Since there its impossible to calculate harms v good to decimals, if it is reasonable to conclude that the harms vs good calculation could go either way (indecisive), then I win. As pro, my opponent has the burden to prove the resolution definitively, so if no definitive conclusion is reached, I win. My job is only to negate, I don't have to, but could, definitively affirm something else. >>>>>>MY CASE<<<<<< Contention 1 – "Any attempt to organize 1000 people into a group and make the group as a whole call congress every week would be OPL." - me in round 1. This went uncontested, I'll assume my opponent agrees. My opponent's response can be boiled down to corporate lobbyists have disproportionately more say than the people. He is missing the point of my argument. My arg is that the good OPL does is to uphold the right to petition, including protests. Yes, my opponent has already stated that this debate is solely regarding a calculation of good & harm done by OPL, regardless of what it's SUPPOSED to do, but my argument is that simply upholding these rights is a good in itself. In a world without OPL, I could not organize those 1000 callers. Upholding OPL, then is an upholding of the good of fundamental freedoms of petition in a group. I'm saying that the good that OPL does in the form of rights outweighs the harms done. The right to petition, in itself, is a good that outweighs its sometimes "abusive" use by some parties. My opponent must definitively prove why the harms of individual situations of "abusive" use is more than the overall good of the fundamental freedom of petition in general. Moreover, the voice of the public can't even be heard in a world without OPL, because of the ineffective nature of individual petitions, which I have discussed in my first speech and which my opponent has not responded to. Thus, the only potential good of a world without OPL, the voice of the public, is hindered by the very fact that theres no OPL. Contention 2 – "OPL- A systematic, large scale, organized attempt by members of the public to influence governments, a government, conduct of government, politicians, or public officials." – me, round 1. My opponent failed to challenge this def, so I'll assume he agrees. The initiative process would indeed fall under this definition 1)A referendum is a systematic, large scale, organized attempt by members of the public to influence government and conduct of government. Example: proposition 8 influenced conduct of government towards gay marriage 2)Even if you dont buy that, initiatives are a specific kind of referendum. In an initiative, a member /members of the public must propose the law and get a number of signatures in support before it gets on to the ballot. An initiative is really referendum + process to get it on ballot. And to gather the tens of thousands of signatures required, a systematic, organized, mass effort must be made, or else it'd be impossible. And because this effort is made by the public in an effort to influence government and/or conduct of government, it is indeed OPL. 3)Even if u dont buy that, since no initiative would ever get on the ballot without OPL (signatures), the initiative would be destroyed whether or not its OPL. In my opponents response, he used his def of "lobbying". But the resolution revolves around OPL. Using the def of OPL is more appropriate than just the def of lobbying, since the resolution doesn't just talk about "lobbying". He could have given his own definition of OPL in his last speech, but he didn't. To contest the definition of OPL in round 3 would be abusive and shouldnt be allowed. First, it's built on his definitions. Second, I've built ï¿½ of my case on this definition in round 1, and he had plenty of time in round 2 to object. To object in round 3 would be tantamount to letting me argue on 1 thing for half the debate (my OPL def) without objecting, then telling me the debate is on something else (his potential OPL def). That's just unfair. Moving on to substance args. a)He says we shouldn't make voters vote on millions of bills, but that's not what the Initiative process does at all. Voters vote on initiatives every couple of months or even every couple of years for those with enough support (signatures) to get on the ballot. It's not tedious. b)In the Status quo, the initiative process balances out disproportionate corporate voice. Sources: http://www.buzzle.com... http://online.wsj.com... By giving direct power to the people, they can write and pass law themselves when angry, circumventing politicians. Thus, the initiative process is the great equalizer which keeps corporate power in check. In a world without OPL, then, initiatives and corporate lobbying wouldn't exist. But since the initiative equalizes and balances out corporate power, to take both away would in effect do nothing to the power relationship, all other things held constant. The kind of corrupt lobbying my opponent cites would cease, but corporations would no longer have power constrained by initiatives. >>>>>>>OVERVIEW<<<<<<< Thus, even if I completely concede the corruption and disproportionate voice args in my opponent's responses & case, this would all be equalized by the initiative. The harms v good calculation would be evened out. But add to it the fact that OPL also does tremendous good in upholding the fundamental right to petition, and we can see that OPL does more good than harm. … But I wont concede his case >>>>>>>>>HIS CASE<<<<<<<< Contention 1- My opponent fails to cite any warrants for his arguments. a)He fails to say how distortive OPL is. If it's only distortive by 1%, then it's obviously a small harm. Being pro, and being the one who brought it up, my opponent has the burden to prove that distortion is as bad as he thinks it is. b)Making tobacco more available simply means those who choose to smoke tobacco can more easily do so, an increase in freedom of choice, which is a good, even though the choice might be harmful. c)My opponent fails to provide ANY evidence regarding how extensive illegal OPL is. Abermoth doesn't prove extensiveness, in the same way that Watergate doesn't prove presidents like hotel break-ins. If illegal OPL isnt extensive, then it isnt a big harm. And again, my opponent has the burden of proof. Counterexamples – The existence of OPL allowed all the following good to exist. NAACP : lobbied for civil rights and equality of all Americans, crucial to the Civil Rights movement. PETA: lobbies for animal rights laws, against animal cruelty Mothers Against Drunk Driving: lobbies for alcohol control ACLU: lobbies for the protection of civil rights My opponent must prove definitively why this good is outweighed by the harms caused by OPL. Contention 2 – a)He has 0 proof that Blackburn voted for gun rights because the NRA endorsed her, instead of the NRA endorsing her because she is pro-gun. The same applies to all other instances of endorsements. c)He failed to prove why money for peanuts is a harm, and so failed to prove why similar actions are harmful. Until he definitively proves harm, there is none in this debate. Contention 3 – Most of this was the disporportionate voices arg, see response 1a a)How is Obama assigning a judge (check/balance) affected by lobbying?