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

in 2008, about 130 million people voted. But in this presidential election, there were only about 117 million voters. That argument should be dropped and is false. while this may seem like a valid refutaion of my first contetion but on closer inspection we see this fails. my first contetion can essentialy be simpilified to this. 1) super pacs increase advertisments 2) advetisments increase voter turnout 3) thus by the transitive property super pacs increase voter turnout now my oppenets arguements is completly correlational and doesn't actually refute any of my arguements thus we must assume that they stand. With that in mind what we see is that is completly feasabile that super pacs increase voter turnout yet are offset by other factors such as voter intimidation or lack of political intrest. Thus my first contetion still stands. 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. My opponent says that this court ruling prevents both corporations from getting the upper hand, but that is not true at all. It allows the person with the most money and the most money to spend to have the greater advantage. That was proven in this presidential election. President Barack Obama not only had 100 more million dollars than Mitt Romney, but he also spent more money than Mitt Romney. And as you can see, President Barack Obama won. I have two responses to this: 1) I would like to direct your attention back to my case where i show that election spending tends to by cyclical "matt bia a correspondent for the new York times campaign spending tends to be cyclical since when one party increases its spending the other party tends to mobilize and increase its spending" thus we see that we are not actually giving anyone a unfair advantage 2) even if we were to assume that spending is why canditates win elections and not because of popular will what we see is that citezens united actually advances this cuase. if we look to the 2008 election what we see is that oboma spent "$847 million in funds for the general election. while Mr. McCain and the RNC spent $550 million in the general election"[1] this means that citezens united is actually leveling the playing field by allowing outside to contribute to the election. Thus by my opponents logic you will be voting con. My opponent has failed to prove that this ruling increases transparency my oppenents gives no justification for this claim so i dont's see the need to respond . He has failed to provide a definition of what transparency means in that argument. I thought what i meant was pretty obvious but here's a defenition if you want "free from pretense or deceit"[2] 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. My opponent refutes my first contention with the argument of USA's murder rate in comparison to UK, but the problem with that is that UK has far less people than the USA for people to murder. if you look at my evedince you see it's based on a PER CAPITA evaluation and not raw numbers thus it does paint and accurate picture. My opponent said that I said that citizens will automatically believe anything on TV, but I never said that at all. I said that if given enough exposure, people can be made to believe things on TV. My opponent is altering the words I say to prove his point, but if I were to tell him to pull one quote from my case in which I say those exact words, then he would not be able to because I didn't say that. 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 says that this court ruling doesn't allow corporations to donate to politicians, but fails to realize that because of this ruling, superPacs and corporations were able to donate about $50 million to President Barack Obama. i feel as if my opponent misunderstands the ruling. again citezens united DOES NOT ALLOW coporation or unions to give direct donation but requires them to establish third party PAC's to run advertisments. 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 falls here 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 it. . http://online.wsj.com... . http://www.merriam-webster.com...