The Role of Propaganda in the Media.

"To rebut my opponent"s claim, "the best interests of the voter do not and should not matter in a democracy", a statement verging on the edge of naivety, the best interest of the voter forms their opinion. " Incorrect. For example, some people want to smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol even though they know that cigarettes are harmful to their health and best interests. A less controversial example is that many poor people choose to gamble or buy lottery tickets even though these are against their best interest. In America, people have the freedom to pursue happiness however they please, even if it involves going against their best interest. Just because voters sometimes act in their best interests does not mean they should always have to. However, by definition, voters must and ought always act according to their opinions and decisions. The only possible problem is when voters change their mind after voting, undermining the democratic process and causing the will of the people to be misrepresented. "Since we cannot possibly know the specific reasons why every individual voted for their respective candidate we must assume the logical incentive of income. " Incorrect. This is what approval ratings are for. Assuming that income is the primary incentive for choosing one candidate over the other is not at all "logical"; in fact, I argue that it is illogical (1). "For instance, an eligible voter earning $30,000 a year with no post-secondary education would logically vote for the candidate adhering to their best interests. " Nope. Not at all. It is trivially obvious that "eligible voter[s] earning $30,000 a year with no post-secondary education" include members of parties supporting and opposing the group's best interest. Income and education level are not the only voting factors that matter. Pro needs to provide proof of this assertion. "This is where the separation occurs, the phenomena in the US at present is that the least educated, lowest income earning citizens support candidates who advocate policies opposite of their best interests. " Just because you think that these candidates advocate policies opposite of their constituents' best interests does not mean that they do. It is clear that what these so-called "least educated, lowest income earning citizens" want differs from what you want. However, I contend that these individuals know what they want better than you or I or anyone else does. This contention is supported by the fact that most of the time, approval ratings are above 50% (0), meaning that more often than not, the people as a whole (including "least educated, lowest income earning citizens") know what they want. " "This occurs through a series of self-reinforcements which confirm our pre-existing bias. " Confirming our pre-existing biases is a good thing. For example, if a Republican voter was not convinced to vote Republican by propaganda on Fox News and instead decided to flip a coin, resulting in him voting for a Democrat, he would be more likely to disapprove of the Democrat (President) than he would be likely to disapprove of a Republican (President). Voting Republican would better express his true beliefs and opinions. "For my point to be clear and concise I will not have to prove whether or not a particular candidate"s approval rating is low, as this is itself an example of manufactured consent. " Nope. A candidate's approval rating is not "manufactured"; it is determined through mathematically sound polls that accurately and democratically reflect the will of the people (within a margin of error). Something to think about: a President has never ever been removed from office (by impeachment). "Rather the use of misinformation and rhetoric to improve perception of specific policies. " This is my whole point. So-called "misinformation and rhetoric" (propaganda) is good because it improves public perception of specific policies, unifying the country. "This was determined to be false. [. .. ] This was, quite simply a lie [. .. ] used deliberately to misinform voters. [. .. ] The solution is [. .. ] to enforce some level of accountability to providing accurate, objective information. In an effort to inform the public and not manipulate them as is presently the case. " First off, why do you care about truthfulness/deceit and intention? Nowhere is the tenets of democracy is hyperbole outlawed or intentions regulated. People are free to think and believe whatever they want and to act deliberately or spontaneously. Secondly, what is the problem for which a solution is needed? Thirdly, what is wrong with manipulating the public, if the public wants to be manipulated? In conclusion, if the people really care, then they can vote in candidates that are transparent and truthful and vote out ones that are not. They can also pass laws and amend the constitution. However, this is unrelated to the alleged harmful effects of propaganda on democracy, which Pro has failed to show exist.