Public Appointed or Elected Officials Forbidden by Law and Constitutional Amendment is a Conflict of Interest.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After not so many votes...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Twelve hours
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
The position of Pro will be the the position in favor of removing all Private interest money from politics. The pro position's purpose would be to prove an improvement in every aspect of the quality of life just on this change.
- As the description states: "The position of Pro will be the position in favor of removing all Private interest money from politics. The pro position's purpose would be to prove an improvement in every aspect of the quality of life just on this change."
- Thus pro must prove an improvement in every aspect of society that exists, and must give an argument that we should remove all private interest money from politics, including individual donations or someone using their own private money for their campaign. Burden is on pro.
improvements would occur systemically, and not on an individual basis. In other words, like Dominos falling in a chain reaction.
- Well, these rules state you need to prove an improvement in "every aspect of the quality of life just on this change," so you would be incorrect in precluding an individual basis from this. Individuals are certainly an aspect of the quality of life, so hopefully, there is an argument for the effect of improving such for all people rather than some or a few.
The pro position can be best proven if enough empirical evidence can be presented that all three branches of government have been corrupted by allowing private contributions to be a widely acceptable practice in our electoral, and legislative process. By proving this, the pro position believes that private contributions lead our elected officials to make decisions that do not represent the American voter and instead represents private interest.
- There are a lot of issues with this set of propositions. For one, you are using "corruption" in an unclear way, and no definition of the word has been provided.
- Second, there needs to be an argument that having/accepting private contributions is corruption. Would this apply to a charity or a homeless shelter? Maybe next round we can get the set of premises and conclusion for the claim that accepting any form of donation is corruption.
- Thirdly, not only are there more gibberish words like "private interests" (I am not sure what that means and the term is not defined) there is a weird, unwarranted assumption that private interests must be different than the interests of the "American voter." Interest groups like the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), NRA (National Rifle Association) etc. are private groups that donate a lot of money to the Democratic and Republican parties respectively, and their interests represent the interests of millions of voters. If there is an entailment that a private group must have different interests than a collection of voters, what is the argument for that?
- Lastly, removing all private donations applies to any individual donation, so it seems like your own position does not care about individuals showing support for their own interests. If the view is truly concerned about the interests of voters, why can't an individual voter contribute to a campaign of his choice? Regardless, we are yet to see an argument mid-way into the debate.
- We need to get clear descriptions of some of these terms I feel may be often skimmed over, but turn out to be gibberish upon reflection. We need an argument for a series of claims and implications such as:
- The interests of a private group must necessarily be different from a collection of voters.
- Any form of political donation is corruption
- As well as the main claims on the table:
- Banning all forms of donations into politics will improve every aspect of quality of life
- so you would be incorrect in precluding an individual basis from this. Individuals are certainly an aspect of the quality of life, so hopefully, there is an argument for the effect of improving such for all people rather than some or a few.
- Secondly, there needs to be an argument that having/accepting private contributions is corruption.
Nowadays, we seem to choose to do the easy things. We ignore the fraud, the indecency, the cowardice, and the indignant ways we treat each other. For instance, African Americans make up 12.2% of the U.S population, but they make up 40% of the prison population. People may argue the reason is that they violent people and criminals. That is a lie. Anyone look up any high income Black community such as the community in Los Angeles known as Baldwin Hills or (the Dons). It is primarily Black Community sitting just above the epicenter of the L.A Riots. I'll spare you the suspense, there is little to no crime in Baldwin Hills. Now, inversely you might be surprised to discover high saturation of crime in communities that are predominantly white all across this country. Seeing as African Americans only make up 12.2% of this country's population. White's makeup approximately 70% of the US population. If crime only happened 12% of the time I might agree with you that black people are criminals and violent. Obviously that is not the case.
I use those factors as evidence to support the pro position, because any example of mistrust, descent, Injustice, racism, bigotry, or intolerance, derives from politicians, judges, authorities, mayor, governor, etc etc etc.. that are on the take. Or put more plainly accepting bribes. Do not fool yourselves into believing that charity, or non-profits are for the good of the people. I would even challenge someone out there reading this to see for yourself, look up how a non-profit works, via YouTube tutorial or one of your top results from Google. Most explanations speak of how much you can make from a non-profit, or how many ways tax exemptions will save you annually. the last portion of information you will receive when watching these explanations are how much you actually have to put into the cause of your non-profit. For example, you had a non-profit that donated to hungry children of America. The description of how much you must donate is a "reasonable amount." That is all.
Everything has been reduced to this in this country and abroad. My opponent who takes the con position as far as I understand has a problem understanding what corruption is, and how it would affect people's lives. I don't think most of us would disagree that we understand what corruption is and how to define it. We would also agree that corruption at the highest levels and every level of authority right down to the dog catcher would affect the quality of life of all people, whether it's individually, or as a country, or even as a world. My opponent also wasn't sure if private donations could be considered corruption. To answer that we can go back to the Supreme Court decision for FEC versus citizens united. They agreed with the FEC that campaign contributions should be limited and capped. That decision is confirmation that private interest could sway the results of an election, while public interests fall to the wayside. In other words they admit that free speech cost money if you want to your voice to be heard. That to me is what should be considered special interest funding to your representative is corrupt. However in the same breath the Supreme Court ruled that unlimited and anonymous funding is what's right for every other reason other than an election. But the only other thing our Representatives have to do other than win an election is to pass legislation. So the Supreme Court by not making private interest contributions capped and limited for all things they allow contributions to sway votes directly in the Congress and the Senate and even in the executive office. That is why corruption in this country is out of control.
- The interests of a private group must necessarily be different from a collection of voters.
- Any form of political donation is corruption,
- Pro hardly gives us any sort of coherent valid argument to work with for the resolution. and mostly types out long irrelevant essays.
- The definition used for corruption, for example, is "as dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery," but is unclear as to how any form of political donation entails this, and pro has not presented any evidence in favor of a single notion of corruption, nor is the argument for how every aspect of society would improve by banning public donations.
Then, they draw non-profit fund raising tax exemptions, with administrative fees, on top of pac donations, stock options, investors of all walks of life, in return for pork spending bills, and contracts throughout the private and public sector. etc ... All of which at some point they could personally influence direct or indirectly, including lobbyists, judges, and other influencers. In other words, the opportunities to generate income personally as an elected official far out number the extremely bureaucratic process involved to pass legislation that is good for the many. Combined with the fact that there is no motivation in regards to the latter.
- Pro goes on rambles like this, and it is unclear as to what the inference is. If the reason for banning any private contribution is "In other words, the opportunities to generate income personally as an elected official far outnumber the extremely bureaucratic process involved to pass legislation that is good for the many," this does not change by banning private contributions and most likely becomes worse as only the rich candidates will have the resources to make strong campaigns, which makes it unclear as to how this improves anyone's quality of life.
But the importance of thier vote does hold more importance than the average vote when a donation of unlimited amounts from an anonymous source, deemed free speech by the Supreme Court (FEC vs Citizens United).
- Pro even admits here that donating to candidates is classified as free speech, but what does it mean for "their vote does hold more importance than the average voter." If all that means are certain issues are placed into consideration above others this could be applied to anything. The black vote could be more important to Democratic candidates than the white vote, does this entail black people should be banned from voting?
effects the outcome...
- Under this, you could ban anything that affects an election outcome, including campaigning itself, advertising, speeches etc.
- "Private contribution and corruption is not synonymous."
- "Private interests are not different. "
- With both points conceded I will just point out that there is not a clear argument given for the claims in the resolution, and that pro's case is not only peculiar to read but leads to weird conclusions pro would likely disagree with.