Should negative political ads be banned

=Negative case= Negative ad- an approach to advertising that focuses on negative aspects of a rival product or candidateObservation: You prefer the status quo to change by default. You need a very compelling reason to change the sqou not just because what works in the present will likely work in the future, but also to compensate for unintended consequences. For example, while the passage of the lend-lease act and the oil embargo on Japan seemed like good ideas at the time, in reality they led to US involvement in WWII and cost thousands of American lives. 1: Unconstitutional The United States Supreme Court has ruled that freedom of speech can only be restricted when there is a "clear and present danger"[1]. Since my opponents arguments are US specific, he needs to weigh it under this criteria: that is, what damage do attack ads do that they violate the National Security of the United States? Given that he has not, he already loses the debate by default because the resolution can only be affirmed if there is a practical chance of affirmation being implemented. Without that, we have no way to weigh the effects of the changes from the status quo and therefore no debate. People, including politicians and their campaigns, have the right to speak as they choose. To deny this is a mountain to climb for my opponent. 2: No objective metricMy opponent has failed to explain what qualifies as a "negaitve ad" and who gets to decide this. Do attacks on an incumbents record count as an attack ad? Until he clarifies the meaning of this, he cant win the debate. I argue further that he still cannot win since there is no objective metric for "rude" "attack" "negative" ect. 3: Undermines political process Attack ads are often unfounded ad hominems, but on occasion they are the exposition of legitimate flaws in the policies of ones opponent. Part of coming to an intelligent decision is the evaluation of the strengths/weaknesses of the candidates in question. It should be overwhelmingly obvious that politicians will only show their strengths. Banning political ads would cause a candidate with a glaring but hidden flaw to go unvetted since campaigns would not be allowed to outline the weaknesses in their opponent. Consider my opponents plan similar to if in this debate we were not allowed to attack eachothers arguments, just present argument after argument in our own favor. That is not a debate, it's madness. Kritik: The resolution presumes that banning negative ads would end negative campagning. That's foolish, even if their was a ban on attack ads, the attacks on opponents would get even nastier to compensate in speeches and door-to-door capigining (refer to his England example as a premium glimpse into a post attack ad world)=Affirmative case= C1: Apathy--> Correlation causation fallacy. My opponent claims that his study supplies casual links, but he doesn't name it nor cite the article itself. Throw out the entire contention on this basis. --> No stats on if attack ads increased while voter turnout decreased. His argument lacks not only causation, but correlation as well. --> No impact argued on lower voter turnout, he presumes it's inherently bad. I argue that is an individual cannot come to a decision when confronted with the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate than their vote is likely irrational. So TURN: attack ads keep voters from voting specifically on the way candidates portray themselves.--> The reason that politicians are generally portrayed as corrupt is because they are corrupt. Democracy ensures that only dangerous and power hungry individuals will rise to power.--> My opponent makes a lot of assertions. Lets address these. A1. No attack ads keeps media from focusing on petty things. He misunderstands how the media works. It exists to sell itself, not report the truth. There is no reason to believe that banning negative ads will lead to the media refusing to report whatever scandals politicians are currently in, and even less reason to desire that result. A2. Has voters more informed.False. Banning negative ads forces voters only to look at the positive sides of each candidate, reducing elections to popularity contests even more than they already are. A3. Banning neg ads makes politicians connect to more votersHe gives you only shallow reasoning to believe this, resting the entire claim on the assumption that attack ads are meant to demoralize a politicians base. This is unwarranted, because attack ads are meant to convince swing voters that a candidates opposition is an unacceptable choice. He gives no empirical evidence anyway. C2: Candidates are out of control --> He argues that candidates need to be controlled in order to behave properly. This is illogical. Why would voters choose a candidate who can't behave respectfully? They likely wouldn't--> He begs the question as to who will regulate the candidates free speech. Governments around the world are so inept that they can't even keep their finances in order, yet he expects them to come up with an objecive and fair way to evaluate if an ad is negative or not? Lets get real. --> Literally his only example doesn't even apply. Going door to door and insulting your opponent is not an ad, so it isnt something that could be regulated under the resolution. Counterplan: Media choice If a campaign runs an offensive ad, the media likely would not air it, and the only press a candidate would get from it would be negative for daring to run an ad so offensive. --> My opponent brings up the famed Democratic Daisy ad against Goldwater, but argues no impact from it. Johnsons campaign insinutated that Goldwaters libertarian policies would weaken the US against the USSR and cause war...so what? Why does this matter? The fact is that Goldwater WOULD HAVE been softer on the USSR than Johnson was, and could have allowed for Soviet hegemony because of his isolationist policies. Again, TURN: attack ads highlight weaknesses. C3: Bad government--> My opponent posits that if attack ads were banned, actual policy discussion would be the rule of the game in policial campaigns. He needs to prove that this has worked in another country before he can cite it, because we all know that the most damning flaw of democracy is that most voters have no idea on proper policy and economic law. Until he proves that it would lead to voters making decisions based on rational thought (as if), he gains no advantage.--> My opponent argues: "If a politician wins on a positive platform- by promising to implement new policies and reform existing ones- then his chances of re-election will be affected by his success or failure in bringing about those changes."Lolwut? Failing to keep a promise is a negative aspect of a candidate and would not be allowed in the affirmative world. Again TURN: No attack ads doesnt allow voters to see weaknesses in a candidates positions. --> He gives no argument on why viewing politicians as evil is bad, considering that most if not all of them are utterly corrupt. --> He tries to argue that politicans spend less money on having an actual platform. 1. It is far more likely that without attack ads politicians would spend their money not on touting their platforms, but rather touting themselves. They would portray themselves as heros more than they aready do, since voters generally do not base their vote on anything rational. 2. No impactm his argued impact is fallacious because it presumes that a candidate running a negative campaign will govern in that same way. He gives you no reason to believe that.In conclusion, without attack ads there is no way to look at the weaknesses of an opponent. Voters generally don't understand how to implement successful policy, but they do know the damaging effects of failed policies. For this reason, attack ads have value as political tools. Citations:1. http://en.wikipedia.org...;