uhh neg is screwed

Negg is not screwed, Jack Abramoff and his associates give Lobbying a bad image. there are a lot of positive lobbyists. Such as envirnmental preservation and anti smoking.

Initially I’m feeling a bit more inclined to to aff, but like Jason said, first read then decide which is actually better.

I was the person who submitted this topic to NFL for potential selection. Not only are there great arguments and examples on both sides (for every oil company lobbyist there is someone who wants to save endangered species) but lobbying reform will be in the news beginning Jan. 1 when the press begins to discuss Pelosi’s proposed lobbying reforms. It should make for an interesting and evolving debate over the course of the month.

this topic suffers from the same problem as the multinational diplomacy topic, in that there isn’t any way to say that all lobbying is beneficial or vice versa. The real answer is that some lobbying is good and other types aren’t. There is no way you can pass judgement on things like this. More topics should be like Kyoto, and intelligent design since we can actually debate wheter a policy should be enacted rather than just pass judgement on things that really can’t be judged.

I really like this topic…there is good lobbying and definitely bad lobbying such as tobacco, and oil.

I see NOTHING wrong with lobbying-pro is going to be the harder of the 2 if you were to ask me. Hurray that I know a lobbyists!!!

I think that the neg has some strong evidence…probably stronger than aff. But the resolution is still way too ambiguous

I think people are misguided about this topic, especially in terms of the Neg.

The are two reasons that this is a balanced debate:
1. Lobbyists get a bad rap because the bad ones are the ones we hear about, but the neg can show that the net benefit, overall, lobbying is good people, trying to help the political process. And proving that there is more good than bad should not be too difficult.
2. The neg can also argue that what would lobbyists do w/o any information regarding what they are voting on: they would be voting uniformed making bad decisions for their constitutients (spell check.) What we learned in my Government class is that the purpose of lobbyists is to provide information.

I think this topic is very balanced and I give kudos who ever thought of it.

can somebody put a good case saying that lobbyists are good if you can think up of 3 good points and post them then i think that i will believe that this is a good resolution to debate about

Great pf topic guys i think all the info ive got is enough to to win me a few debates. :)