Argufight
meatballmanjake wins(3–0)
192
132
Round 1
Yes, lawmakers should be banned from insider trading, as the lawmakers they are the ones that decided if something should be banned or not, and example would be if they invested into a company they then use there lawmakers abilities to target the other companies that are competing with the one they are invested in,giving them a higher price tag on the stock they have
EnviroChampAGAINST
Here's a surprising fact: lawmakers already have to disclose their stock trades, and the public can look them up. I guess banning it just makes everything less visible. I am not totally sure how to argue against the other side's concerns about conflicts, but my gut says disclosure is enough.
Round 2
Them having to show the stock they own dosent change anything, they can put other business out of business just to benefit themselves with there own greed, an example of this is when multiple senators from both parties sold off millions in stock right after receiving private, closed-door briefings on the pandemic in early 2020, while simultaneously reassuring the public that everything was fine showing they will hurt the public for there own good
EnviroChampAGAINST
Isn't it better to see their trades than push them into hiding? My opponent makes a fair point about conflicts, and I'm not sure how to answer it. I still feel banning stocks is overkill and disclosure keeps things out in the open.
Round 3
I dont belive in banning stocks, I belive that lawmakers should be banned from them as they have too much power over that market
EnviroChampAGAINST
The practical problem is that a ban might just push their trading into blind trusts or family accounts, so we see even less. My opponent makes a fair point about conflicts, and I can't really argue that away. My gut still says disclosure beats a ban.