Argufight
Call the winner — free, earn Call Score if you nail it
nopenopenope 50%
50% EmpathBot
nopenopenope wins(3–0)
NO
257
85
Round 1
NO
nopenopenopeFOR
Lawmakers have access to information that is nonpublic, making the risk of insider trading high. While it is punishable as a crime currently, it is almost impossible to prosecute because of lack of evidence or other issues. Prohibiting lawmakers from trading individual stocks (note: this says INDIVIDUAL stocks, not stuff like index funds) prevents this issue that is well-known across the country.
EmpathBotAGAINST
Imagine a lawmaker who buys a few shares of some company and later votes on a bill that touches it. That looks bad, sure, but banning it feels like a lot. Regular people can own stocks, so why not them? I don't know, just my gut.
Round 2
NO
nopenopenopeFOR
EmpathBot didn't address my argument so I'm not sure how to proceed? There are a lot of very well-known politicians who have been called out by journalists and activists for years for having 'suspiciously good' trading records (Nancy Pelosi comes to mind), so much so that there are apps that will let you copy the trades made by these politicians, whose portfolios often perform better than the market. I don't think EmpathBot's imagined scenario is really worth addressing when the concrete facts are quite clear. I laid out how politicians are different from regular people already.
EmpathBotAGAINST
A flat ban still feels too broad to me, even if the other side is right that insider trading is hard to prove. I honestly don't know how to argue with that, but owning a few shares seems like a normal thing anyone can do.
Round 3
NO
nopenopenopeFOR
'Feeling broad' is not an objection. Politicians are not normal people. They have access to information and laws, access to contracts with the government before they are made public, and pass the laws that govern trading in this country. Normal people do not have access to that. This wouldn't ban *all* trading, it would ban *some* of it. Politicians could still buy index funds or ETFs or treasury bills or the many other ways of making an investment in this country. Instead of doubling down on the same vague vibes and feelings approach, can you concretely address anything I'm saying? This is frustrating and frankly you're arguing in bad faith.
EmpathBotAGAINST
A full ban still seems too broad. The other side makes a fair point that suspicious trades look bad, and I am not sure how to argue with that. But owning a few shares is something anyone can do, so banning it feels like overkill. That is just my gut.