on balance does the supremes court decision in citezens united harm the election process

Well, this debate has gotten very interesting. My opponent has seem to have broken his own rules. He said that the fourth round was to show why we are winning certain arguments and a summary speech. But instead, he decides to refute my arguments. And even though you usually use the last rounds to refute your opponent, my opponent created rules where you do otherwise. So, I will show why I am winning each argument as the rules shows.His first contention says that exposure to ads will possibly increase voter turnout. I prove that in 2008, the last presidential election, there were 130 million voters. But in 2012, after the passing of the ruling of Citizen's United and the most recent presidential election, that there were only 117 million voters. This proves that this ruling does not improve voter turnout. I believe that my opponent is trying to accuse me of the Fallacy of Miscausation, but we must realize that my opponent has committed three fallacies in one argument: Over Reliance of Authority (based on what people say and not true, hard evidence), Priori Fallacy (looking at moral instead of evidence), and Begging the Question (making unsupported claims). Proof that he has committed these fallacies:Over Reliance of Authority: Instead of using statistical evidence to prove that this is increasing voter turnout, he uses a quote from a man that thinks it may increase voter turnout. Dr. Hillguys himself says " exposure to ads increased intentions to vote by 18 percentage points", but it never proved that they did vote. Intentions means the thought to do something, but that doesn't mean they actually voted. Priori Fallacy: he is denying the evidence that proves that voter turnout is not increasing, but yet decreasing voter turnout. Also, voter suppression was to target African American and Hispanic voters. There are over 200 million white people in the United States. So, lets say 75% of them are able to vote. There will still be about 150 million white people that can vote, give or take a few. They could have in fact voted. Why did they not?Begging the Question: The evidence that he provided trying to prove that it increases voter turnout didn't even prove voter turnout. It said they were likely to vote. That means there is still some uncertainty that they will probably not vote.I am actually winning this argument because he has not proven with statistical evidence that it is increasing voter turnout, because it isn't.His second contention says that because of Citizen's United, voter's are more informed, but I proved that because corporations are treated as people, they are given the right to not tell you information. On wikipedia, they say "The basis for allowing corporations to assert protection under the U.S. Constitution is that they are organizations of people, and that people should not be deprived of their constitutional rights when they act collectively.[5] In this view, treating corporations as "persons" is a convenient legal fiction that allows corporations to sue and to be sued, provides a single entity for easier taxation and regulation, simplifies complex transactions that would otherwise involve, in the case of large corporations, thousands of people, and that protects the individual rights of the shareholders as well as the right of association." Because. they are treated as people, and people have the right to not reveal any information, then corporations have the right to withhold information. That doesn't help inform people. I am winning this argument because corporations don't have to reveal information because of corporate personhood, which is a direct contradiction to his argument there. His third contention says that it will increase transparency by allowing corporations to disclose financial information,but this is simply not true. Because of my refutation to his second contention, they are treated as people. Therefore, they don't have to disclose anything because they have the fourth amendment on their side, which prevents searchs without a warrannt. In fact, Kim Barker, reporter of reportergary.com, says, "Instead, this is the disclosure world that exists. Someone who gives up to $2,500 to the campaign of President Barack Obama or challenger Mitt Romney will have his or her name, address and profession listed on the FEC website for all to see. But that same person can give $1 million dollars or more to a social welfare group that can buy ads supporting or attacking those same candidates and stay anonymous.I am winning this argument because corporations aren't disclosing their information. In fact, Forbes magazine tried to find out how much money does the Koch Brothers give to politicians, and they told them no! In the recent magazine, all they have is a big ? because they can't force them to tell the information. Now to counter refutations. My opponent has failed to prove that this ruling increases transparencymy oppenents gives no justification for this claim so i dont's see the need to respondThis is a very weak counter refutation. I have now provided evidence that proves that people will not be able to find out how much a corporation gives to politicians. Because of this court case, corporations are now viewed as people. And because of that, they have the right to keep all information to themselves.again my opponent provides no evedince or justification for this claim and if tou cross apply my third contetion you see this statment is patently false.Question: So just because your contention says it does create more transparency, even if it doesn't, we are supposed to accept it to be true. He also contradicts himself in trying to refute my argument. He says and I quote "does not allow corporations or unions to donate money directly to a canadite but requires them to establish third party political action commitee's that are required to operate independently of any party" What this is simply saying is that corporations can't donate money, but the corporations can get a group of people from the corporation to donate the money to the politician. This is proving my point in saying that a person, or a group of people, can donate the corporation's money to the politician. So in fact, his refutation fallshere my opponent straw mans me and completly misinteprets my statements. what i was essentialy saying is that corporation can't donate money to politicians thats itAs you can see, my opponent decided to not clarify what he meant. As I said, he contradicts himself because as I said earlier, corporations can get people, that could be from the corporation, to donate to politicians. The superPacs, in his statement, are the middle man. At the end of the day, corporations can still donate money to politicians and that is where he contradicts himself.my oppenent claims i straw man him and asks my to give his exact quote so here are his words "because it comes on TV, they will most likely believe it" im sorry if you belive i minsterpreted your words but regardless essentialy what my opponent is saying is that televisions ads are the predominante voting factor and thus i feel my prevous refutaion still stands. My opponent fails to realize that I didn't say they will believe what came on TV, but they will most likely, which means there might be a chance they wont believe it.My opponent says that this ruling helps inform voters, but that is not true. In fact, some of these ads that my opponent talks about do not inform voters, but simply slander the opposing candidate.Here my opponent purly speculates and provides absoloutly no warrant to justify his puly speculational claim while in my second contetion i demonstrate how a free media creates a more informed voter thus my second contetion stands. Here is a link of a slanderous campaign ad.I ran out of characters. Sources in comments. http://www.youtube.com...