Polticans expensies in the UK are outrage and should be stopped.

now unless my opponent can justify were in a country like the UK politicians are expected to shell out ï¿½93,000,000 of their own money so they can do their job , remember you claimed that this money was for the good of their job you therefore have the burden to prove that the 93 million pounds they claimed , helped them do their jobs and take into consideration the amount of mp's in the uk before you answer. MY RESPONSE: if all I have to prove is that the expenses that mps claimed was used to assist them in doing their job to win this debate, this should be an easy win for the negative. This is not only because they spent it allow them to do their job, but because that is ALL that they spent it on. Here are the charts for the amount of money that MPs spent last year and what specifically they spent it on http://videos.icnetwork.co.uk...'allowanceexpenditure.pdf notice that these funds go into doing things like running the office and staffing their offices; all work related. if politicians spend the money on anything other than assistance within their jobs they run into trouble with the British parliamentary regulatory committees. (see Smith Example in R2.) thus, this money is only used to do their job. AFF SAYS: have proved my first point , I have gave the burden of truth that ï¿½93 million is outrageous. unless you care to argue that spending ï¿½93 million in a current credit crunch , is acceptable when it has been widely acknowledged that , the majority of their spending are not work related. RESPONSE: 93 million euros may seem like a lot of money, but when it costs tens of thousands of dollars to run an office, pay staff, travel, and purchase resources for EACH MP that adds up quite quickly. times that by 646 (the number of people in parliament ) and you get the 93 million that the affirmative speaks about. NOTICE that the affirmative makes the claim that" it has been widely acknowledged that, the majority of their spending are not work related." this has NEVER been proven by the affirmative in any way, is not widely acknowledged, and is just plain not true. if mps have any suspicious activity regarding their pay, they are immediately put under investigation by the regulatory boards I have mentioned in this speech and R2. these politicians spend what they need to, to get the job done. AFF SAYS: If we set up large cheap hotels near parliament , then thats where the polticans can live. therefore they have no reason to claim expenses for houses , if we provide them with a couple of large buses to tansort them , it will elimate the need for mp's to spend thousands of pounds on taxi's EACH. MY RESPONSE: okay great! lets do set these hotels up! lets provide these huge buses! however the fact is these hotels aren't there, they aren't going to be there, (unless you step in my friend!) and the mps need the means to travel and do their job in parliament. to do so would only mean a portion of these expenses would be reduced to conclude, the stance taken by the affirmative has completely traveled out of the realm of logic and factual based debating, to one purely composed of emotion. as such, the affirmative does not fulfill either their burdens which were presented in R2, and has thus lost the debate. those burdens were again: 1.) the pro must show that on balance, these political expenses are in fact "outrageous" as prescribed by the resolution. 2.)the pro must show that discontinuing these expenses would be justified. the sheer neglect of empirically based argumentation has been absent from this round, and as a result, you must negate. thanks.