Average citizens are not going to be pilloried if we scrutinize the private life of a candidate for public office. In fact, we should not scrutinize that candidate s life in any other circumstance except that five month period when they are running for office. Second, candidates private lives are relevant to their possible uses of governmental power. Candidates can use public office to cover up their private troubles, or even their past abuses of office. The negative might have the ground to argue that problems of the candidate s private life should be investigated, just not by the public.
Smear campaigns are hurtful to candidates and their families.
Independent or internal institutions might be better watchdogs. They could recommend indictments for illegal behavior or could disclose the relevant information to the public without the embarrassing and irrelevant details. Also argue that public disclosure deters potentially good candidates from running for office because they are not willing to go through the pain of media mudslinging. Modern arguments by the Supreme Court for greater state power might provide some good ground for the affirmative to research, but do not forget the Federalist papers and the responses to them. Decentralized power might appear best because its institutions are closer to the voters, reducing the risk of tyranny and making democratic institutions more accountable to the people they represent.