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

First of all i would like to state that my opponent never even stated his case just a framework which is absolutely ridiculous. Second of all his attacks on my case were completely weak and were all based on his opinion no evidence no nothing to back up anything he said! Even though he has weak attacks that don't even hold up i would like to state again how his framework is a complete fallacy and being as my opponent has not stated his case neither any points to prove WHY POLITICAL LOBBYING DOES MORE HARM THAN GOOD not only that but he never refuted my case andwhen he tried to he used again opinion. Now for this only you must vote PRO. 1) my opponent attacks my case by saying i never prove how lobbying does more harm than good. Well obviously i have just by looking at my case. I will go through them to clarify with my opponent as well as the voters why lobbying does do more harm than good. I say business lobbying groups are more powerfull than public interest groups. Now public interest groups are the lobbyists that get my as well as your voice heard in washington. Now when business groups have ore power and money they have more lobbyists to get their voice or "Products heard" rather than the publics thus doing more harm than good. Now i bring up in my second point that lobbying is bribery and corruption. It's bribery because the lobbyists bribe the congressmen and women with hundreds of thousands of dollars and sometimes millions to make them vote how the lobbyists paymasters want. My third contention is about how lobbyists are responsible for earmarks and pork barreling, meaning that earmarks/pork barreling which is all those added parts to legislation on a waste on things our country as a whole not just one area are being forced down congress' throats and putting us farther into our recession which is definitely more HARM than good. My opponent attacks my 2nd point by saying its an opinion. well i provided the evidence to back it up and my opponent didn't use any to say otherwise. Now he says "To be honest there are many people who would say the U. S. government is bribery and corruption. Thus, the blind are leading the blind, my opponent's arguments holds no ground. " DO YOU SEE ANY PERSON SAYING THAT he says there are many, well he didn't state one! My opponent attacks my 3rd point by saying that basically since there was a majority vote that because of these congressmen can basically see and not vote for it if there's earmarks. Well that's the whole point of earmarks. They put these earmarks in large legislation that basically congressmen can not pass up just because there's an earmark and not only that but they are usually hidden and can hardly be seen or looked at so yes they can get through without being known. now he also brings up valid pint saying the people vote them in so basically it's the people being represented. Well congressmen and women can choose what they want and usually they put earmarks in to benefit ONLY their state or county to basically look good from their public's prospective and hopefully get reelected. Which is wrong because they are only benefiting some and doing more harm to the united states. He says that the bridge to nowhere is clearly helping some people. One he doesn't say who and two it was a waste project which helped no one and wasted MILLIONS OF DOLLARS that our country needs. My opponent states that he would rather make sure money goes o a bank so they don't become bankrupt rather than waiting it on useless government programs well those programs my friend are earmarks and you just agreed with me. Not only that but our country is not pure capitalist actually. He says that our entire economy is to make sure company s prosper well what about the PEOPLE and in a capitalism country it's actually to make the people prosper not the business so you are sadly mistaken. Overall you can clearly see the pro has one. My opponent never showed you a case. Never proved to you why lobbying does more good than harm and never brought up evidence once. His framework was flawed and he never supported his framework anyways!