We Need More Representatives in the House of Representatives

I am a little disappointed that my opponent resorted to calling my arguments as immature, especially as his own contradictory comments help my case as they weaken his own. With that in mind, let’s now look at R3 comments and expand on them: Con attempted a straw man argument right off the bat. Con started his last round by saying that there aren’t enough experts at politics to fit 10,000 representatives into one building. I agree; we don’t need a political expert to fit 10,000 representatives into one building. Political experts don’t build buildings, carpenters build buildings. I believe Con meant to say that we would need a carpenter, so I’ll correct the meaning for him now. A bigger building is not necessary. We could have Congress remotely connect to each other. Just as Congress is an environment where individuals debate and vote on issues, this very website (Debate.org) creates an environment where individuals debate & vote on issues. Debate.org currently has accounts for almost 58,000 users at this time (1). Modeling an infrastructure such as this website would pose no difficulty in handing any number of users. Even if we stick with Con’s R2 argument of having 10,000 Congressional users, a website infrastructure similar to DDO would not pose a problem to increase the size of the House. The Constitutional Framework Called For More Reps. Con affirmed this in R2. In R3, Con wrote: "More Reps would more closely resemble the makeup of the American people." Is not sufficient reason to change an embedded philosophy of the constitution.” Con’s R3 statement contradicts his own understanding of the Constitution as he presented it in R2. In R2, Con said that he thought 1 Representative to 30,000 constituents was a good idea, consistent with the framework as set in the Constitution. Con has not conceded his R2 argument. As I mentioned, a ratio of 1 representative to 30,000 constituents would greatly increase the number of representatives. In Con’s R2 comment, Con has now joined me in affirming the resolution. In R2, I provided the source which created the House of Representatives as it came via the Great Compromise. The House was created to closely resemble the makeup and needs of the American people, as I cited in R2. But even without my R2 comments, I wouldn’t need to prepare a rebuttal for Con. Con’s R2 statement rebuts his own R3 statement. We both agree that we should follow the framework of the Constitution which called for more Representatives. My argument meets the burden of proof as supported by my arguments and the tacit endorsement of Con in R2. Con attempted a straw man argument to rebut campaign finance issues. Con has not provided an argument that rebuts campaign finance issues, only an argument that more Representatives may create more conflict. Con’s argument is another straw man argument but it is still worth addressing. Congress has conflict now. Adding more Representatives in the process has the same effect that adding more voters does in a DDO debate; it allows for more opinions and conflict but also stops a single voter from unduly influencing the outcome. Not only did Con fail to rebut my argument, but he posed another argument that is easily negated by the first-hand experiences of those who will be voting on this debate. Just as DDO makes requests for voters to counter a vote bomb by asking more members to vote on a debate, more Reps in Congress would give Americans the ability to achieve better outcomes in the House by having more Congressmen voting on issues. We ask for this in DDO and we should expect it from our government. Con attempted circular logic in his final argument. Finally, Con said that: "More Reps would minimize, or eliminate, the issues occurring between the popular vote & the Electoral College." the problem is that there are simply not enough reps to do it and it is thus extremely impractical to do.” The reason we do not have enough Representatives is the purpose of this debate. Not have enough Representatives is the problem that is being addressed. If Con believe that the problem is that there are not enough reps then he has again endorsed the resolution. In summary, Con had an opportunity to refute my valid points. Instead of addressing my issues directly, Con resorted to petty insults, illogical straw men arguments that were easy to disprove, and weak circular logic to refute my points. I affirm my prior arguments, as well as Con’s R2 argument about the Constitutionality of having 10,000 representatives, and await my opponent’s response. Sources: http://www.debate.org...