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

>>FRAMEWORK << My opponent thinks that my points are empty hypotheticals, he fails to answer the logic behind the statement "If OPL does more harm than good, then a US without OPL would necessarily be less desirable than a US with it [,all other factors held constant]." By proving that a world without OPL is less desirable than a world with OPL, I am also necessarily proving that OPL does more good than harm. The two go hand in hand. It would be ludicrous to say that if OPL does more good than harm, the U.S. would be less desirable as a result. By analogy, I am saying that if I can write with a blue pen, then I can also write with a black pen. Until my opponent directly addresses this (which he has not, he only acknowledged its existence with 1 sentence in the last round, and completely ignored it before that), his argument fails. Unless harms vs good is EXACTLY equal, then it's either more or less. This is true. However, the reality must be faced, we are not gods who can calculate with such accuracy. If I win that it is reasonable to conclude that the harms vs good calculation is equal, then I win, because "reasonably equal" is the most accurate calculation possible. To put it another way, if the voters believe that the good v harm calculation comes out inconclusive, pro doesn't win, because he has failed to prove the resolution. The Definitions Argument – The difference between our definitions is that mine includes influencing "conduct of government" in the definition of OPL, and yours does not. Thus, if an attempt to influence "conduct of government" does fall under lobbying, my definition should be used. Of course it is lobbying, an anti-corruption group can LOBBY for no corruption law, which does affect govt conduct. I would also like to appeal to the voters to see if they believe this is the case. And initiatives would fall under this category. >> MY CASE << My opponents want benefits of protests. The Vietnam protests ended the war, saved money and lives, and stopped the draft. MLK's marches were key to ending segregation, to racial equality. But it goes beyond that. When I say that the right to petition as a group is a good in itself, that's exactly what I mean, not that "it's justified", whatever that means. My point just is that the right to petition IS the beneficial effect, is an end in itself. My opponent must prove why this right to petition cannot be seen as a beneficial effect in and of itself. my opponent still needs to prove why the prevention of a harm that would have otherwise been done to the rights of the public (the right to petition) shouldn't be counted as a good done by the existence of OPL, a concrete good at that. Moreover, a world without the right to petition (OPL) is a far less desirable one than a world with the right to petition. Hence, I also win this debate by effect, as I have explained in my framework. This good far outweighs any individual instances of harms, because, as I have said throughout the debate, the overall good of the existence of the right to petition far "outweighs its sometimes ‘abusive' use by some parties". My claim that a world without OPL would effectively destroy initiatives because there would be no way to get the signatures necessary went completely unanswered. In a world without OPL, initiatives don't exist. a)Voters don't vote on initiatives every second, but neither do politicians (clearly highlighted by the year long attempt to get a vote on healthcare). Under my opponent's logic, in order for the influence of initiatives to mach lobbyists, they would have to vote on an initiative whenever there's lobbying? Thats simply absurd. If, more logically, you only count the times when politicians pass lobbyist-trenched bills which isn't even every bill, remember), and compare it to the frequency of initiatives around the country, then the influence does even out. b) Initiatives allow people to write the laws that affect them, and every such law is a law that lobbyists didn't write. No matter how uncorrupt politicians are, there's simply nothing more direct than the people writing their own laws. My articles do acknowledge special interest influence, but my opponent ignores the fact that the conclusions of these articles is that INITIATIVES ARE IN FACT KEY IN EQUALIZING SPECIAL INTEREST INFLUENCE. This is what matters when we do the harm v good calc. "examples on successful initiatives [must] be provided" Every single time an initiative passes, it's successful. Do I need to prove that initiatives do pass any more than I need to prove bills do pass? >> OVERVIEW << And this leads to the significance of this argument. If the direct influence provided to the people through initiative votes does roughly even out lobbying, then the harms v good calculation with initiatives weighed against all my opponents points, even if uncontested, would result in no decisive conclusion. In a world without OPL, even though the harms of OPL would cease, the initiative, which equalized the situation, also ceases. The end result would be the same as before. Add to that that OPL upholds the good of the right to petition and the right to protest, and the good again outweigh the harms decisively. >> HISE CASE << Contention 1 - The Distortion Argument - My opponent cited some distortions caused by lobbyists, but this is not sufficient. He needs a statistic that cites how large the distortion is. That is, what % of bills passed is due to lobbyists who lobby contrary to the public opinion? Successful lobbying that turns out to be on the side the public would take anyway obviously doesn't count as distortion. 3 examples only show the extensiveness of distortion only if it's measured against something, hence the need for a %. 3 out of 3 would prove grave distortion, but 3 out of a million doesn't. Until he proves the scale of the distortion, this argument is null. Tobacco - Freedom of choice is not in the constitution, but it is a good nonetheless. My opponent needs to explain why the good of the freedom of choice is outweighed by the harm of bad health, and why bad health should be considered a harm at all when a person willingly chose it, just like someone has to explain why the harm to one's skin outweighs the good of freedom of choice and style a tattoo offers. Illegal lobbying - Illegal acts of lobbying do more harm than good. But my opponent fails to prove how extensive illegal lobbying is. If illegal lobbying is a tiiiiiiny portion of OPL in general, then the harm it does is tiny. Since this debate requires us to WEIGH the harms against the good, it necessitates that we analyze how big a harm this is. If illegal lobbying is very infrequent, little weight should be put on the harms side of the calculation. Positive lobbying – too many to count, so I'll give links NAACP – "crucial to the civil rights movement". Need I really explain this? PETA – protecting animal rights http://www.peta.org... MADD – prevent drunk driving http://www.madd.org... ACLU – protecting rights for over 90 years http://action.aclu.org... contention 2 – a)My opponent needs to prove that there was ever a time where Blackburn voted pro-gun because she doesn't want to lose NRA endorsement, not because she's extremely pro-gun. Until then, this is pure speculation. b)My opponent needs to prove why putting money into peanut flavors is a waste of money, and hence a harm. Society benefits from tastier peanuts. Until then, or until more examples are provided, LEV shouldn't be seen as a harm. Contention 3 – As I have said in round 2, contention 3 simply reinforces and gives examples about what was said about lobbyists distorting representation, addressed in contention 1.