Mps

I will now construct an affirmative case arguing for the existence of "MPs".Premise: Representative Democracy MPs exist in a political realm wherein there is representative democracy (or indirect democracy): "A representative democracy is a system of government in which all eligible citizens vote on representatives to pass laws for them" [1]. In other words, officials are elected to office by the people in order to represent the people.Premise: We need a political structure; what is the alternative?While it is reasonable to be critical of certain political structures, we need to consider what is best for a country, not what is necessarily ideal as the ideal may not be possible. Representative democracy is best for the countries that currently have it (as I will substantiated with my later arguments). If my opponent thinks otherwise, then he/she must argue for a better alternative, or even argue for no government. Elsewise, it stands that representative democracy is the best form of government these countries can have, even if it is not ideal.A1: In a democracy, the informed should steer the ship As the great philosopher Plato made his analogy involving politics in The Republic, politics is much like a ship [2, 169-170]. A problem with voting, outside of representative democracy, is that the average voter knows little or even cares little about politics. Would you trust the average sailor (voter), who knows very little about navigation (politics) to steer the ship (make correct political decisions)? I think that no reasonable human would think so, hence it would be unwise for the ignorant to be given so much impact in political matters.Now, if you consider the alternatives (say direct democracy, wherein voters vote on the policies themselves), why is the person, who has never held office or been involved in politics, making decisions on whether a certain political decision is sound? Do you hire a plumber only to tell him how to do his job? Or do you pay this plumber to have the expertise and knowledge to do the job without your imput?Let the informed steer the ship, or else we will capsize or wreck. Voters should choose who they best think will lead, not on intricate details of politics of which they have no experience to relate. The average MP is far more fit for politics than the average, untrained voter.A2: Save timeTo understand a position in detail would take much time. A simple Google scholar search on "Gay marriage" returns "About 457,000 results" [4]. There are simply so many facets and intricacies on every political topic that to learn about these, the voter would require an enormous amount of time in order to be informed. Remember that this is only one issue! Imagine how much you would have to know about politics in order to be competent in deciding political decisions!Also, to listen to hours, upon hours of detail that is required to have a firm idea of an issue is simply not feasible. According to a Stauffer, Frost, & Rybolt (1983), "on average, viewers who just watched and listened to the evening news could only recall 17.2% of the content when not cued" [3]. Clearly, information would have to be repeated several times in order for the listener to understand, and I am not even taking into consideration the more complex topics that require higher I.Q. to process quickly.Alternatively, MPs are professionals who can spend this huge amount of time researching, understanding multiple areas of politics and being involved with the processes involved in law-making and cutting red-tape for policies to be enacted [6]. People simply do not have the amount of time to do both a PM's job and their own job. Thus, a need for PMs is created.Counter-arguments"MPs can lie in front of parliament, after swearing on the bible to tell the truth with all the other mps there...So what's the point in voting if we can't trust them?There in it for the money.They don't care about us they care about themselves."My opponent merely provides a list of bare assertions, in that there is no evidence or sustained logical argumentation provided to reach any of these conclusion. Moverover, this is a fallacious kind of argument [5].My opponent not only needs to provide evidence for his negation claims, but he also needs to argue what would be better, as all countries need some kind of political system, even if it is lack of one (if that would be best).References[1] http://education-portal.com...[2] http://www2.hn.psu.edu...[3] http://d1025403.site.myhosting.com...[4] https://scholar.google.com.au...[5] http://www.toolkitforthinking.com...[6] http://www.parliament.uk...