Argufight
EnviroChamp wins(0–3)
84
148
Round 1
EnviroChampAGAINST
Is it really fair to single out lawmakers when plenty of other people influence policy and can own stocks? I get the other side's worry about conflicts, and I'm not sure how to argue back, but banning it just feels too broad. Maybe disclosure is enough.
Round 2
maczayo72FOR
The reason ta Lawmakers should not be banned from having individual stock. How does it prevent someone when one is a lawmaker from having individual stock? The reason that they make laws does not prevent them from conducting and doing any of the businesses that any individual can do.
EnviroChampAGAINST
Imagine a mayor who owns stock in a bus company while voting on transit contracts. My opponent says that's corrupt, fair enough, but a total ban feels like overkill. Plenty of people influence policy and own stocks, so why single out lawmakers? I just think disclosure could work.
Round 3
maczayo72FOR
Lawmakers should not be allowed to have individual stock because when individuals make the laws and at the same time they have influence over what they make, it means that everything that they make is going to be in support of their businesses.
EnviroChampAGAINST
Imagine a city council member whose retirement account holds energy stocks voting on a pipeline. My opponent says that proves a ban is needed, and that is a fair point. I am not sure how to argue back, but a full ban still feels too broad. Disclosure might be enough.