PAC Ranch

Hello, I will be taking the affirmative (or pro side) of this debate. Before I begin with my definitions, value and VC, and then my contentions, I would like to bring forward several observations: 1. This is (far) clearly a spam debate. 2. The person who wrote this was either dropped on their head as a baby or given the wrong medication. 3. He enjoys writing pointless blocks of spam-text, a hobby I am asuming few share with him. Definitions- My opponent failed to offer any definitons in his case, so therfore he concedes (the aff concedes) to my following defintions: PAC Ranch- Upon research, I came upon the true defintion of PAC: Political Action Commitee (http://en.wikipedia.org...) My value for this round will be justice, defined as rendering unto each their do. My value criterion for this round will be rights of the citizens. Therefore, my opppnent must debate IN FULL that political action committies are not just as they do not uphold rights of the citizens, and therefore do not uphold justice. My first contentions will be that PAC committies are acting fully within the federal guidelines. There is absoltutely no reason why a PAC or a private company cannot give money for an election of an indiidula . Under the Federal Eclection Campaign Act, these companies are also checked for legitamncy when over 1,000 is donated, so if there are unlawful; exchanges, the government will have full knowledge. Therfore, PACs are justified under governmental acts, while still uupholding the rights of the citizens to do with their money as they please. Thus, the neg would be pro for restricting te rights of the people with their money, to donate as they please, and would take away cictizen's rights, thus not ensuring justice. My second contention is judidical acceptance. In a landmark 2010 case Citizens United v. Federal Election, it was made legal for corporations and unions to spend from their general treasuries to endorse political candidates., meaning the government achknowledges their legitamancy. Even if my does not accpet this and countinue on the neg, I have quite a few PAC alternatives rthat will no doubt satfisy odds and ends. Therfore, we see that rights of the cictizen's are ensured in landmark cases where the governemnt acknowledges their use, and under restrictions, are completely just. My opponent brought forth no defintions, value, VC, or contentions, so I have nothing to refute. In closing, I would like to quote "The Lwerd", a very well respected, #1 debater on this website from the very controversial "eagles should be forced to where shoes debate": " My opponent is a troll who presumably has no life and no friends outside of teh internetz, so he created this spam debate for attention because he's too insecure to see a psychiatrist or school counselor about his problem (if he even acknowledges that he has a problem). He may even be a college student, which in turn makes him more pathetic (Askbob - is that you?). Nevertheless, he obviously had no intention of arguing in a debate-like fashion leading one to presume that he took this debate for lulz @ whoever accepted this debate and tried to argue it legitimately as I have just done. In reality, I have nothing better to be doing at the moment (my girlfriend is cooking me breakfast and I'm killing time before we eat) so responding senselessly to this is really not a bother. I type fast anyway. In the end, I don't really care if Pro is lulzing away at me so lulz right back. I win. I win this debate, and I win at life. Ciao! " Thanks you, and vote Aff, skookie5.