Earmarks

Framework: In order to prove that earmarks are, on balance, bad in the United States, then that means that a world without earmarks is better than a world with earmarks. If a world with earmarks is better than a world without, then clearly earmarks are, on balance, good. Note: We only have one round left in this debate. My opponent didn't respond to any of my points, so you can extend them to the end of the debate. As I am short on time (I am at a debate tournament) I will merely refute his contentions. Since he hasn't refuted any of mine, and since the resolution uses the words "on balance", I'll weigh the contentions against each other and show you why you vote con. C1. Earmarks need reform. This contention simply doesn't apply in today's debate- I don't advocate that earmarks are perfect. None of the methods used by government is perfect - they all come with their imperfections. Earmarks allocate funding to programs that would otherwise be ignored. Extend my contention regarding reforms and transparency from my case - these go unrefuted and since my opponent isn't specific about what exactly needs reform with earmarks, then his contention has no tangible impact and is thus dropped. Also note my opponent's use of swearing and dock him on conduct. C2. Earmarks are corrupted. " How do you expect there to be any transparency when literally, thousands of earmarks are being passed by Congress every year" You check online if you want to check about what's happening. My opponent being skeptical proves nothing. Thousands of earmarks are passed. .. and thousands have information posted online. Transparency exists. " Even if someone “checked up online” and found something they didn't agree with. Who says that it will stop Congress from passing the earmark? " Transparency doesn't mean you have to agree with it; it simply says the system must be without corruption. If someone disagrees with an earmark, that doesn't make it un-transparent. This doesn't prove corruption - drop this point. " Without much transparency, earmarks are subject to backroom wheeling, lobbying and influence-peddling. " He hasn't proven that transparency exists. Drop this impact as well. " “Jack Abramoff Indian lobbying scandal” and the “Former NASA Chief of Staff earmark case. ” " Every system has some examples of corruption. Does that make it, on balance, bad? Consider cars. We have car accidents. Toyota produced a bunch of cars that had random acceleration problems. Cars often have malfunctions and people die. But ultimately, on balance, you can conclude that cars are good for society because of the net benefits they provide. My opponent doesn't respond to my benefit of earmarks and thus you can extend those to the end of the debate. C3. Earmarks are wasteful My opponent lists two examples of earmarks and then asks: Is this what the Con refers to as “allocating funds that would normally not receive money? ” I ask my opponent - can you prove they would receive money otherwise? He doesn't. Thus, my point is proven and should be extended. --- This was a rather hasty and unimpressive debate. Ultimately, however, earmarks. .. . 1) Have been reformed. My opponent isn't specific about the reforms he wants, so drop his point and extend mind. 2) Are transparent. Simply because people disagree with them doesn't mean they aren't transparent. 3) Aren't wasteful. My opponent doesn't prove that the programs he discusses would have received money without earmarks. Remember that my point is that earmarks allocate money to programs that would not have received the money to begin with. The con fulfill the burden of debate.