Political Advertising Does More Harm Than Good

Rules It's too late to try and add rules to the debate after its already started. I do not accept my opponent's last ditch attempt to silence me. If my opponent wanted to make a rule concerning the third round, she should have established it before I accepted the debate. Again, it's too late to change the rules in the middle of the game. Even MORE PLAGIARISM To my opponent's credit, she's cut back on her plagiarism this round. Unfortunately, she hasn't given up the practice. Take for example, her paragraph beginning with: The overall volume of broadcast and national cable television ads is actually down slightly from the 2010 election, largely because fewer House races are in play, according to data from the ad-tracking service Kantar Media analyzed by the Wesleyan Media Project. This is word for word from the same CNN article she keeps plagiarizing. Does she use quotation marks? No. Does that mean she plagiarized, yes. REBUTTALS Thankfully, my opponent did finally give us some arguments of her own to consider. Having said that, I didn't find them to compelling. Let me explain: Before I do, let's all remember what we're debating. We're debating whether or not political advertising does MORE harm than good. In order for my opponent yo win, she must establish why what political advertising does actually produces harm. If she can't establish that harm is being done, she can't possibly win. Here's why: If she can't establish harm, then obviously political advertising can't do MORE harm than good. At worst, the amount of harm (0) would be equal to the amount of good (0). If that's the case, then the Con position is correct. With this in mind, I will go over her assertions one by one. R1 Pro asserts political advertising discourages voters, but doesn't tell us why we're supposed to see this as a bad thing. Not really anyway. She says that if there are no voters, there would be "no America". That is obviously false. This country would still exist if no one voted. It may exist with a different kind of government, but it would still exist. So in reality, Pro hasn't given us any reason yo believe this harms us. R2 Pro says political ads hurt democracy by lying. There's only one problem with her argument... she doesn't offer any evidence that political ads tell lies. Not one example. This leaves her second argument as nothing more than a bare assertion. I know she'll understand if the voters reject this argument as the baseless claim that it is. R3 Here she simply states "It hurts or nation", but doesn't explain HOW she thinks it hurts our nation. How does vitriol hurt our nation? My opponent doesn't say. Another bare assertion. As Christopher Hitchens was famous for saying, "That which can be asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence." [1] R4 This was the least compelling one. "There are no rules". That's it. That was the extent of het alleged argument. No mention why this is allegedly harmful. Just the latest in a long line of bare assertions. My Argument Not only has my opponent failed at offering us any evidence that political advertising does any harm, I suggest that it actually produces good outcomes. Here's how: Political advertising creates jobs. In order for any advertising to exist, it takes at least one person to create the ad. This person doesn't do it fir free; someone hires that person to do the job. The money paid to the ad creator stimulates the economy when he or she uses that money to purchase goods and services. This helps provide money to purchase food and water. Food and water are essential for our survival. Our survival is a good thing. Without it, we'd cease to exist. Sources 1. http://philosophy.stackexchange.com...