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

MY OPPONENT'S ARGUMENTS: The majority of his arguments seem to be based on his statement about comparing a U. S. with organized political lobbying to a U. S. without it. Though I see how he came to his conclusion, I want to make one thing clear. This debate should not be drawn solely into a string of hypothetical scenarios to evidence our points. This argument is not whether organized political lobbying is justified. Real-world warrants must be used to establish credibility. I will attempt to point this out more as I rebuttal his case, but I just want to remain on the same page. Also, it may be true that Pro has the "burden" to prove that the harms outweigh the good, but Con's responsibility is just as great. Just as Pro must prove that the resolution is true, Con must prove that it is false. Con must prove that that either the harms and good are equal (which is mathematically improbable), or that the good outweighs the harm. Saying that "no conclusions have been drawn" doesn't help either side in this debate. In the second round, my opponent repeated his statement suggesting I did object to his saying that 1000 people calling Congress would be organized political lobbying. Since it meets the definitions, I do not object. When defending his first contention, my opponent attempted to reinforce his point by saying that people gathering to protest IS a good in itself. He cited in Round 1 the Vietnam War protests and MLK marches on Washington. My question for him would be, what have the protests DONE that are beneficial? He says the underlying idea is good, but we are not discussing whether said protests are justified. Until I see some concrete examples concerning beneficial EFFECTS stemming from these protests, his contention cannot be upheld. My opponent goes onto state that "the public cannot be heard in a world without OPL. .. because of the ineffective nature of petitions. " Actually, the public can make itself heard. It's called VOTING. The public made itself heard loud and clear on November 4, 2008, when Obama was elected our first African-American president. We elect those who we believe will best represent our ideals. Of course, lobbyists ruin this concept, as I have shown in my case. It is my opponent's second contention where things get tricky. My opponent used the three definitions I provided and combined them (incorrectly I should say) to create his own definition of organized political lobbying. Although I agree with my opponent that an entire debate should not hinge on definitions, the integrity of the topic must be upheld. It is therefore crucial that I do not let this issue slide. I said in Round 2 that my opponent's argument about ballot initiatives didn't meet the definition of lobbying. In his response my opponent claimed it met HIS definition. His definition is incorrect. First, he attempted to use the definition of "political" to alter the definition of "lobbying. " He used that action to justify broadening the scope of the word. However, because "lobbying" by definition is already organized and political (with the exception of referring to specific attributes of government while leaving other characteristics out), the term "lobbying" is no different than "organized political lobbying. " Having the words "organized" and "political" in front of the word doesn't alter the word "lobbying" because of this. Therefore, "organized political lobbying" is NOT "a systematic, large scale, organized attempt by members of the public to influence governments, a government, conduct of government, politicians or public officials. " It would simply be the same as the original definition of lobbying. If my opponent continues to contest this, I would like to appeal to the voters. Whose definition is more credible: one that my opponent fashioned on the fly, or one by a peer reviewed, world renowned lexicon such as Oxford dictionary? Either way, I will still rebut my opponent's substance arguments for his second contention. a) "Voters vote on initiatives every couple months or even every couple years for those with enough support signatures to get on the ballot. It's not tedious. " said my opponent in the last round. If his statement is correct, this proves my point that special interests have more influence than the public. Professional lobbyists exert their power daily in Washington, while the public is only voting on a measure once in a very long while. When it comes to lobbying, the harmful effects of corporate lobbying clearly outweighs, and I'll go into more detail when I return to my case. b) "In the Status quo, the initiative process balances out disproportionate corporate voice. "-my opponent in Round 2. How so? He has not provided any examples of special-interest legislation that has successfully been defeated by a public initiatives, and neither do his sources. His Wall Street Journal article rather shows how special interests are harming public influence, supporting the Pro side. Until examples on successful initiatives can be provided, and until a direct correlation can be shown in how initiatives equalize corporate lobbying, his argument has no merit. MY ARGUMENTS Contention 1: My opponent asked me the extent of the distortion by corporations when it comes to lobbying. I gave an example of tobacco. I will be happy to provide more: 1. Lobbying and corruption in the financial system was an underlying cause of the global economic crisis. The influence of ratings agencies, Wall Street Financial Firms and private business lobbyists resulted in the U. S. Congress and the E. U. to deregulate their respective firms (1). This is clearly a harm and a widespread one at that. 2. In the recent health care overhaul, the pharmaceutical lobby successfully lobbied for more restrictions on generic consumer drugs, raising the cost of prescription drugs for everyone (2). 3. The AIPAC spent almost three million dollars lobbying Congress in support of anything and everything Israeli, effectively undermining U. S. foreign policy (3). My opponent then said that lobbying by the tobacco industry is good because it makes tobacco more widely available, an increase in freedom of choice. Okay, first, there is no constitutional freedom of choice. Second, laws exists to deter "choices" from potentially harming society. The evidence that smoking is a detriment to public health is almost indisputable. Also, my opponent claimed that since I didn't prove the EXTENSIVENESS of illegal acts of lobbying, "it isn't a big harm. " Whether it is big or small, it is still a harm, and I don't think that there is any dispute that illegal acts of lobbying do more harm than good. My opponent cited some organizations as examples of "positive lobbying," yet has failed to cite what specific beneficial RESULTS have occurred. I will be happy to debate this point once he has done so. Contention 2: a) I see the point about Blackburn's endorsements, but the fact remains that even if she disagrees on one issue, Blackburn must follow the NRA platform to the teeth in order to keep their campaign funding. b) The harm in the line-item veto example is that taking funds from the energy budget and investing in "peanut flavors" is a complete monetary waste of our taxpayer dollars. Contention 3: This argument was barely touched by my opponent. My point on the English referendum has remained unchallenged so far. Also, my point on checks and balances show that if lobbyists affect one public official, that influence will stretch to another government branch. For example the Pew Hispanic Center lobbied heavily for Obama to appoint Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court simply because she was Hispanic. (1). http://business.timesonline.co.uk... (2). http://www.cbsnews.com... (3). http://www.opensecrets.org... (search AIPAC