Money should be in politics

"I'm not talking about the money that the government pays politicians to do their job"Okay, so we only take some money out of politics? Because last I checked, giving money to politicians is exactly what you're advocating against. So you're either a) really confused about what you're arguing, b) don't know what you're talking about, or c) trying to change your advocacy in the middle of the round, which is highly abusive and highly unfair to me. Refute the resolution wholely or don't refute it at all and concede. Don't play both sides."With your argument you are saying that politicians won't be paid for their work."Hey, reading comprehension! Yes, this is exactly my argument. If we take away all the money from politics, this takes away their salary, as it is money flowing into politics. If this happens, then the government entirely collapses, anarchy starts, all that bad stuff.I'd also like to point out that you never really refute this. You summarize it, sure, but you don't really do anything to refute it. As such, my case can be clearly extended across the flow as conceded to."If money remains in politics, how will the independents who could lead the country better than Mitt Romney get their word out?"I didn't realize this debate was about should we give independents as much ground as the two primary parties. How is this relevant, again?And actually, I'd argue that if we took all the money out of politics, it would not only prevent independents from getting their word out even more, but it'd also prevent every other politician from getting their word out. Without money, there's no television ads, no signs on the sides of the street, no radio ads, no speeches and rallies. Nothing. No way at all to get their word out. With money, at least SOME politicians are getting their word out. So your own argument a) is a reason to affirm rather than negate, and b) makes my impact outweigh yours because I'm at least getting some people their voice. "You have not refuted my argument from before, still."I'm pretty sure I did...I'll re-mention them down here in case you didn't see them, as well as the explanation for both arguments.1. Doesn't apply to the resolution. While influnece and corruption are bad things, they don't necessarily apply to the resolution. The resolution, as I explained last round, is about whether politics should be free to participate in or should cost money to participate in. You're not proving why politics should be free. I'm proving why it should cost money. Thus, this is why you're going to lose this round.2. If we go with your plan, we remove all money from politicians and politics, effectively removing our government and causing anarchy. This was never refuted in my last round, you only summarized what I was saying and proceeded to move on and ask me the independents question afterwards. Never refuted it. This is another reason why you're going to lose this round. "You have not argued that it should influence politics and people."And, voters, here is all the evidence you need to prove that by him trying to frame the way he wants this resolution is set up, he's trying to push me into a "Bribery and corruption is good" debate. I already explained how that didn't apply, and went on to affirm the ACTUAL resolution. So I don't have to fulfil this ridiculous burden he placed upon me. So the round breaks down in a few easy ways:1. He's not refuting the actual resolution.2. I'm affirming the actual resolution, despite his insistance that I debate some different resolution other than the one stated.3. If we negate, we cause irrevocable harm that contradicts his entire case (no money gives people voice). Without money, NOBODY has a voice. So by affirming, I prevent the harms listed by the con debater.4. He hasn't actually refuted my case. Since it's the only case talking about the specified resolution, it's the main reason to affirm.Before I conclude, I'm going to talk for a bit about how there shouldn't be new arguments in this next (and final) round. New arguments in the last round are abusive because there isn't as much time to debate on them, and thus can lead to skewing of the debate. For example, if I were to go into my last round and then spend 7000 out of the 8000 characters listing off new reasons why my opponent's argument fails and why my side is the correct side, my opponent wouldn't be able to respond to them. That would, technically, make them go conceded, and thus would be reasons to vote for my side. But this is highly unfair since he can't respond to them. Thus, since it's unfair for me to make new arguments, it should also be unfair for him to make new arguments. In order to keep the debate completely fair and even, the debaters should both be constrained by the same limitations and rules. If I can't post new arguments in the final round, neither should he. Thusly, the last round should only be for summarization of the round and re-stating your points. If he posts new arguments in his next (and final) round, deduct a conduct point and do not weigh them. Only pay attention to the arguments that have already been stated.Thus, I'll stop here and urge a rightful vote in affirmation of the resolution.