args

The process of voting should not be used to establish federal laws in the United States

I have one argument, of why it is impossible to affirm. [Definition - Voting] 1. a choice that is made by counting the number of people in favor of each alternative. 2. a method for a group such as a meeting or an electorate to make a decision or express an opinion Now, why does this lead to a negation, simple: My opponent has expressed this: "Basically, the more ideal system I propose entails the use of more vigorous debate. Simply, instead of halting a debate before it comes to a conclusion and then voting, the House and Senate should COMPLETE a debate in progress. For example, let us assume federal lawmakers were considering whether or not to implement a law regarding universal health care. Likely, most of the democrats in congress would vote for it, while the republicans the contrary. However, some type of debate would be pursued regarding the particular bill, but this debate, likely, would not come to a conclusion. That is, both sides (proponents and opponents of the bill) have not reached any type of mutual conclusion. Logically, if a debate were to be pursued vigilantly, with everyone having the chance to debate and create rebuttals against other claims, congress would be able to deduce, with mutual agreement, a shared conclusion to the bill." My Response: Voting will always be done. Looking at the definitions of "voting", even my opponents proposed plan is voting, for it is "a method for a group such as a meeting or an electorate to make a decision or express an opinion". Once the congress comes up with said mutual agreement, then they all have voted pro/con for a proposed bill. After all the debates have be done, what will happen? According to my opponent they will have a mutual agreement. THAT IS VOTING, because each member has either agreed or disagreed with the bill (Like I said before). Thank you ladies and gentlemen.