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

In the last round I wasn't necessarily disputing your logic on the "world without OPL bit." I was just making sure we understood each other. But be aware that because you are focusing on that assertion, negating my case doesn't necessarily make that assertion true. You in effect created a whole new "resolution" so to speak, so the burden of proof no longer applies strictly to Pro. We also clearly do not see eye to eye on your claim that "inconclusive evidence" means that Pro loses. Think of it this way: the resolution can either be true or false. If "no definite conclusion" has been reached, the resolution has been proven neither true nor false. "Argumentum ad ignorantiam" would not apply because evidence has already been provided on both sides. DEFINITIONS: You are correct in saying that government conduct is relevant to organized political lobbying. But in your example of lobbying for an anti-corruption law, though it does have to do with government conduct, the underlying meaning of said lobbying is trying to get POLITICIANS and PUBLIC OFFICIALS to pass the law, so the definition of lobbying is upheld. Since ballot initiatives has nothing to do with directly influencing politicians or public officials, it is not organized political lobbying, as I have already shown. MY OPPONENT'S ARGUMENTS: Contention 1: Yes, protests may be a good in itself, but that argument is not valid. Yes protests may be good in concept, but if in reality the beneficial accomplishments of protests were only negligible, a U.S. without them would not necessarily be worse. That is why I'm using concrete examples in my contentions. Let me give another example. Most people would agree that charity is a good thing. But if conditions in society have not been marginally improved as a result of charity, it wouldn't really matter if the concept of charity exists or not. Sure, the idea of being charitable may be a "good in itself," but if, on balance, lives have not been changed for the better, who cares whether people are charitable or not. The same applies to protests. Contention 2: a) I have already proved that initiatives are not examples of organized political lobbying, so on that basis the argument really is not valid to this debate, as I have repeatedly shown. b) All the same, even if the topic were relevant, my opponent has not shown any good that has come out of these initiatives. What initiatives have been voted on and passed that have positively affected society? My opponent has given to examples, so the argument would be meaningless in any debate. c) Initiatives cannot equalize special interests if my opponent has not provided any examples of how these initiatives counteract the detrimental legislation passed on behalf of lobbyists. Because of this, as far as we are concerned, the initiatives have no effect. MY ARGUMENTS: Contention 1: My opponent claims that my examples of negative lobbying haven't proved how distortive lobbying is. Seeing how my opponent has only given ONE example of POLITICIANS, PUBLIC OFFICIALS, or LEGISLATION that have resulted in more good than harm as an example of lobbying (the civil rights movement), we can assume that by including of five examples in my first case of negative lobbying, five out of six examples given have resulted in more harm than good. This is certainly great distortion. The other three examples of lobbying (PETA, MADD, and the ACLU) have not been provided with successful legislation that has occurred because of a result of these lobbyists. Until you provide some, these groups have no affect on this debate. Regarding tobacco, "freedom of choice" is non-existent. Laws exist to deter people from making "choices" that hurt society as a whole (e.g. murder, stealing, public indecency, etc.). Now my opponent asked why it matters that smokers choose to harm themselves. The answer is they don't just harm themselves. Smokers kill 53,800 each year via secondhand smoke (1). That would definitely intrude on the nonsmoker's right not to partake in the hazards associated with tobacco. Finally, as I have already said, no matter the extensiveness of the illegal lobbying, it is still a harm in itself, which still supports the Pro side of this debate. Contention 2: a) Marsha Blackburn voted "yea" on the right to carry guns both in bars and public parks. These two resolutions clearly harm society (guns + alcohol and guns + pre-school children). Blackburn could have voted on these because of the NRA's platform. Even if she voted on HER own platform, the NRA would still do harm spending hundreds of thousands of dollars campaigning to get back into congress a congresswomen who does not represent the interests of society. b) Salted peanuts may be tasty, but it was in no way appropriate for them to be present in a bill reserved for the Energy Department Budget, as was shown it my original case. $286,000 of our taxpayer money that should be used to power our homes hardly would be put to better use pumping flavor into peanuts. That hardly fits the role of efficient government. CONCLUSION: My opponent has accused me of not using "distortive" enough arguments to show how corporate lobbying harms society. Yet he has shown ONE example on positive legislation taking place as a result of of beneficial lobbying. I have shown his points on protests being a good in itself does not really matter because if the effects are negligible, society would not be hurt without them. Furthermore, I have demonstrated that my opponent's contention on ballot initiatives is not only irrelevant, but unfounded. Therefore, because my opponent spent pretty much the entire debate claiming my points don't outweigh the good, yet has provided no concrete examples of his own, the resolution has been affirmed. Please vote Pro. Sources: (1)http://www.no-smoke.org...