resolved : that organized political lobbying in the united states does more harm than good

I thank Con for the response. I would be even more thankful if he had saved me some eyestrain by including paragraphs, which I hope voters will consider in their S&G vote. Roadmap: Resolution interpretation, Pro's contentions, counterexample extenstions. Resolution interpretation: In the Round 1 resolution, Pro never clearly stated that he was arguing that lobbying was bad in most cases, rather than bad in all cases. He may have meant to, but debates are conducted on the basis of what is written/said, not what was meant[1]. In this case, I have argued that what was written clearly indicates that the resolution should mean "all lobbying is bad" and I ask the voters to extend my R1 arguments related to that. Pro has not addressed those arguments, instead claiming that he stated "in most cases, it does more harm than good." I invite the voters to re-read Pro's R1 argument, and you will see that he has never stated that. Pro has failed to defend his interpretation of the resolution and so Con's should be accepted. Pro must defend that all lobbying does more harm than good. However, even if you reject this argument, Pro still fails to meet the lower burden of proof that most lobbying does more harm than good, as will be discussed below. Pro's Contentions: Contention 1. Pro claims that I have not addresses his argument that lobbying undermines representative democracy. I ask the voters to extend my arguments that lobbying as defined is protected by the First Amendment, and rather than undermining democracy, is a vital component OF democracy. Pro has ignored my arguments which clashed with his, instead repeating his R1 arguments as if I had said nothing. Thus voters should accept my arguments, as they have passed unchallenged. Furthermore, Pro shows no harm from this contention, which he must do if it is to support his point. If this contention was given completely to Pro, it would show that organizations which have more lobbyists influence more politicians. This is not inherently negative, as shown by my examples of positive lobbying organizations in R1. In addition to addressing my arguments against this contention, Pro must link a harm in order for this contention to have any weight. To win this contention, Pro needs to show that ALL lobbying is harmful to democracy. Pro has yet to show that ANY lobbying is harmful to democracy. Contention 2. This contention claims that lobbyists are immoral, mafia-esque thugs. Pro has still not provided any evidence that this is the case, and so contention 2 can be dismissed immediately on that basis. I will go further and point out that his recourse to the semantics argument is mistaken. As Pro has defined it, bribery is defined as offering something to gain an illicit advantage. Lobbying is conducting activities to influence public officials. Lobbying can only fit into this definition of bribery if lobbying is accepted to give an illicit advantage, a claim which is part of the basis of debate. In order for Pro to claim lobbying is bribery, he must assume that lobbying is illicit, and in doing so assumes his conclusion and invalidates his argument. To win this contention, Pro must show that ALL lobbying is unethical and harmful. Pro has yet to show that ANY lobbying is unethical and harmful. Contention 3. Pro continues to claim that lobbying harms the interests of the majority in favor of the interests of the minority. Pro continues to fail to support that claim, citing no sources or evidence. Pro's own source in R1 countered this claim by showing a balanced picture of industry lobbyists negotiating with the government in balancing benefits for them with benefits for the nation. To win this contention, Pro must show that ALL lobbying hurts the interests of the majority. Pro has yet to show that ANY lobbying hurts the interests of the majority. Counterexample extensions: First, extend my ACLU example as it passed unchallenged. NAACP. Nothing in the definition of lobbying used in this debate specifies that lobbyists must be paid. Moreover, NAACP employees ARE paid [2]. Pro argues that the only real lobbyists are those which support minority interests. This is an attempt to pull a No True Scotsman fallacy to sneak Contention 3 through without support, as that was never a part of the definition of lobbying either. Pro also argues that the NAACP is only one example and so can be dismissed as an irrelevant outlier. In response I say that I've given three examples. That is three more valid examples than Pro has given and Pro has given no evidence that the majority of lobbying is harmful rather than helpful. To win, Pro must show that all lobbying is harmful. As yet, he has not yet shown that ANY lobbying is harmful. Petitiononline. As Pro notes, the definition of lobbying is to conduct activities aimed at influencing public officials. Nothing in that definition states that those activities must be reliable and successful. Since those were Pro's only objections to this example, his objections can be dismissed. Summary: Pro has not has not defended his resolution interpretation, adequately supported any of his contentions, supported his claims with evidence, or shown in any way that ANY lobbying is harmful. [1] http://www.kent.k12.wa.us... (page 7, paragraph starting with 'Interventionist') [2] http://www.naacp.org...