Parliament should be a voluntary role instead of politicians being paid

Deconstruction:"This is my opportunity to reject my opponents claims which in part I will do, I will also prove to you that MPs are paid far too much for what they do."I would first like to point out that my opponent is clearly moving the goal posts here. The debate was whether or not Members of Parliament should work as volunteers, not whether or not they are paid too much. One could simultaneously accept the premise that MPs are paid too much while also accepting the premise that MPs should not work as volunteers. You're supposed to be making the argument that MPs should work as volunteers, not that they are paid too much. Had you simultaneously made the argument that MPs should work for free, this would not be of concern. However, you have failed in this round to effectively argue anything but the fact that MPs are overpaid.Following this introduction, my opponent goes on to say,"13.5 million people in the UK are in poverty just to make that clear that's almost 25% of the entire population of the United Kingdom. The average salary in the UK is just over "20,000 and yet the basic annual salary for an MP from 1 April 2014 is "67,060 ($105527USD) as well as expenses and somewhere to live in London. (according to http://www.parliament.uk......) Do you genuinely believe that the politicians that are 'mucking things up' should be the ones that are rewarded for their 'hard work' I know I don't."The responsibilities that Members of Parliament have do merit greater pay than the average Briton. In order to be an effective legislator one must be well versed in the law, one must have an understanding of fiscal policy, and must have a grasp of foreign policy. These credentials exceed those of the average profession.Moreover, this is simply a normative opinion. I could have just as easily cited the same statistics and concluded, "given the harsh economic conditions in the UK, is it fair to expect people to now work for free?" This simply boils down to a normative opinion on inequality. However, given that you do attempt to prove your case on objective grounds, this criticism is perhaps not as scathing as it would be otherwise. Problematic however, is the fact that the substantive arguments you launch are quite lacking. Let's address them."The University of Chicago booth school of business found that if you want better politicians then you should pay them less. Although this sounds a bit of an irrational it is backed up by several more studies such as a study by Professor Emir Kamenica, along with colleagues from Columbia University, Princeton University, and DONG Energy, raising politicians salaries is likely to result in worse governance. Perhaps in theory, and in a rational market, it would make sense to pay politicians more. Doing so would generate increased competition between candidates, attract better applicants, and secure better politicians. But politicians 'not market forces' are responsible for setting their own salary levels, one reason why the political labor market veers toward irrationality."To begin, you are actually citing one scholarly article, not several. Here is the online news article Pro is citing for anyone who disputes this claim: http://www.chicagobooth.edu...Secondly, the issue here is that all your evidence concerns whether or not paying politicians less would improve the quality of candidates. Paying someone less and not paying them at all presents two very different ball games, and each comes with it unique imperatives and incentives—the two are not analogous. Moreover, the study you cite has some severe short-comings. Primarily, it only deals with the short-term effects of lowering wages. Anyone who disputes this claim should consult the original study in question. On page 28, the researchers invite other academics to examine "the longer-term consequences" of salary change (http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu...)."They should not get cars to drive around in, they should not get all of their expenses paid for them, they should not get any money from taxpayers for their ideas, they should not have free houses in London..." Pro begins this section with a normative statement that he does not substantiate with any kind of logical argument. That which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. Goodbye. After this, Pro goes on to assert"not paying politicians should make them honest! That way, only people who truly believe in ideas will make the effort to promote them."Pro has presented no evidence that making Parliament a voluntary body would make politicians more honest. The scholarly article he cited early dealt with the educational quality of politicians, not with their ethics or honesty. Next.After this, Pro goes on to make another normative statement, which he does not qualify with any kind of substantive empirical or logical argument, instead he asserts"After all this I believe that politicians and all those elected should not be paid for ideas in which they were elected for."As I have demonstrated that the evidence you have presented is not damn and does not even necessarily concern the debate at hand, it seems to have little reason to come to this conclusion.Reaffirmation:As my opponent has actually addressed by initial argument, I shall take the time to reaffirm them here: "Even if one removed the salary that members of Parliament receive, it would not remove the opportunities for self-enrichment. One of the most powerful tools lobbyists have at their disposal is to hire former politicians provided they champion causes favourable to lobby interests. So long as this is the case, there are still opportunities for self-enrichment, regardless of whether or not MPs are salaried." Correction: In the previous round I bungled my footnoting.This link substantiates the claim that most Congressmen are millionaires in the own right: http://www.opensecrets.org... In the previous round, footnote 2 ([2]) was actually meant to substantiate the claim that the basic salary of an MP is £65,738.