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

Voters, my opponent has some nerve saying that I do not provide good sources when he cleanly offers you random definitions with no clearly defined source. Furthermore my opponent gives you a random biased organization, and he does not tell you why it is more credible than wikipedia. Furthermore, my opponent has forfeited the point that this is a PF style debate. Ask any debate judge/coach and they will tell you if you drop a round all arguments are extended. My opponent dropped completely round one and thus all my framework is cleanly extended across the flow. Thus, my opponent has yet to prove why a South Korean TV Network produces more of a fictional super-villain than actually achieving a full amount of something. I am deeply offended that my opponent is willing to drop all my arguments, because he deems them "unworthy". My opponent is an elitist at best and he is to blame himself for lacking framework. Thus, all my points are cleanly extended over; at the instance that my opponent is not upholding or affirming the resolution in all cases what-so-ever, as is his burden, you by default vote neg. (Just to humor you I will refute my opponent's meaningless arguments) 1. My opponent never proves why organized lobbying does MORE HARM than good. Even if you accept his points he has only proved that lobbying does harm; yet he doesn't prove why it does not do MORE harm than good. 2. One of the U.S.'s main power sources is CAPITALISM; our entire economy is based on making sure our company's prosper. If a government is keeping there economic system stable they are clearly doing more good than harm. Personally, I'd rather have money spent on making sure a bank doesn't go bankrupt, rather than wasting it on useless government programs. 3. "Lobbying is bribery and corruption" This is a completely ridiculous opinion; 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. 4. Lobbyists waste our money on junk right? That's why they manage to convince a MAJORITY VOTE in the senate and the house to vote for the proposition. The whole point of the U.S. federalism government is that we place power in an elected representative body. In order to ensure a stable rule and society it is in our best interest to allow them to rule. Thus, my opponent is basically saying our entire elected body is easily bought and corrupt and is willing to do whatever anybody else wants. Now then who votes for the government, the people. My opponent is trying to say that the U.S. people are so incompetent that they can't even vote for good people. My opponent's entire argument is based on flawed logic and clearly does not prove why political lobbying does more harm than good. "The Bridge to Nowhere" my opponent defines as a waste, but it was clearly helping a group of people. Thus, it is clearly gaining a positive and a good achievement. My opponent wants a gridlock government that does absolutely nothing and this would do way more harm than good. Voters, you vote Neg, because of how I have formed the structure initially which my opponent cleanly drops. He has not proved why the South Korean tv show produces more super-villains than actually achieving a full amount of something. You may vote Neg right off of that. If you don't buy that you can clearly look at all his points and you clearly see they are flawed and do not even prove why lobbying does more harm than good. My opponent has not affirmed the resolution in any way and thus you may easily Negate.