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

My opponent is trying to get me to prove framework, however let me remind my opponent that it was HE who didn't open the round. Furthermore my opponent has yet to prove why a South Korean TV show produces more super-villains than a full amount of something. My opponent has NOT REFUTED MY DEFINITIONS therefore he has forfeited the round to that framework. My opponent has clearly failed, because his entire case is off-topic to the framework that he himself has accepted. I have clearly used accurate definitional sources for my sources, (remember my opponent never even provided definition for his case), thus my opponent fails in the regards of actual framework. Finally, remember my opponent is the instigator, my job is merely to prove his case false, it is not my burden to provide a counter case. (he never establishes this, remember he dropped the first round and REMEMBER HE DROPPED THE PREVIOUS ROUND and in any PF round if you drop a round all your arguments are over) (To humor you I will refute my opponent's meaningless contentions anyway) (1st paragraph just repeats everything) 2. It's a commonly stated principle that there are people who do not like the American government as of now. Ask any person who doesn't like Obama or just turn on the media and you will see many washington scandals. I don't have to prove a commonly accepted principal. My opponent has made no other refutes other than that. My opponent is clearly just throwing in a person's opinion on the debate case which doesn't prove anything. He has not proved why ONE PERSON can represent the entire American Majority. 3. If earmarks are hidden how are we aware that they exist? My opponent clearly is lying here. Furthermore the AMERICAN PEOPLE vote for congressman to help themselves. A fundamental principle America was founded on is the idea that all Americans vote in there own interests (which is very often true). If my senator from MA helps my state I'm happy. So clearly I don't see how more HARM has been done by allowing a state to benefit themselves. Furthermore if we are to accept that this is a commonly used principle then EVERY STATE has the ability to do this. Thus, the harm is minimized by the fact that all states are able to do this. Thus, the only thing left is the good where even projects like the bridge to nowhere, help some x amount of people. My opponent's argument has clearly failed here. 4. Ummm our founding fathers didn't even trust the people to vote for the president, because they saw them as "the uneducated majority". Furthermore, our country has prospered while our economic system has boomed. We are clearly a capitalist country, my opponent's refute is dead here. Furthermore, I don't see what is wrong with helping our banking system that protects our PEOPLE. My opponent is clearly trying to harm the American people. His entire argument is on faulty logic just by him stating that we are not a capitalist country when we clearly are. Clearly we care about our banking industry and thus we are helping our economy which is GOOD. My opponent has not mentioned any actual harm that is done to the American people in his refute, and thus no harm is done. Thus my opponent gains no ground here. 5. My opponent cleanly dropped my refute to argument 1, he has already lost this. 6. Overall,my opponent is trying to arbitrarily put an unfair burden on me by telling you I needed a case. My opponent has forfeited TWICE his rounds (the initial and the previous). Thus, I am allowed to frame the debate in any way (my opponent provided no rules). My opponent has never refuted my original framework about the South Korean television show cleanly proving that my opponent has not upheld the resolution. If you look at my opponents case it is completely flawed as I've proved. He does not prove to you why lobbying does more HARM than good. Even if you accept there is some "x" harm look through my opponents entire refute he has never proved why more HARM is done than good achieved. I have cleanly showed you that our economy benefits from lobbying and thus you vote off that. You vote off my opponent failing to refute my original frame work. My opponent is only trying to get a vote off the fact that I never show you a case. Well to be honest, (I'm sorry if this was rude), I am insulted that my opponent 1. failed to provide an opening case 2. Failed to actually argue in a civilized manner other than petty name-calling 3. Failed to actually prove any points in a debate. 4. Acts as if my logic is not as good as his which I find very stupid. 5. He completely has the never to drop the previous round meaning that all his arguments are dropped anyway.