The Instigator
SuicidalManiac
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
serp888
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Any political standpoint other than apathy is inherently corrupt.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/22/2013 Category: Education
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 897 times Debate No: 34062
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

SuicidalManiac

Pro

Burden of proof is on Con.

Burden of definitions is on Con.

I honestly don't give a crap whether you use round one to accept, to post pornography or even to disrespect me.

Do whatever the hell you want.

I'll go along with it.

You can even try and push the burden of proof onto me. I'll deal with it.

I'm not bothered about winning.

I actually secretly wish that I would lose so I'd have a reason to kill myself once and for all.

Go ahead, smartass, tell me something I haven't heard before about this wonderful world of polishits.
serp888

Con

I mainly decided to accept this debate because you seem highly depressed and need help. Talk to the suicide prevention hotline if you feel the need to talk to someone in person.

Although you say you're not bothered about winning, you clearly seem to be bothered by losing, as that would give you another pessimistic reason to end your life.

If you aren't affected by winning, then you there's no logical reason you should be affected by a loss either.

Even though what i'm saying might be cliche, I take it you're a " glass half empty person'; the kind of person who doesn't really react to positive situations, but indulges his negative emotions when something bad happened. You probably do this by blocking out the rest of the world and focusing on that negative event as another justification for why your life sucks, or whatever.

My point is that you shouldn't even consider killing yourself over something like debate, but rather use it as an opportunity to learn and improve yourself, so eventually you can use better communication to improve your life from what it is now.

Also, for this debate, it wouldn't make sense to push the burden of proof onto you since it is my job to come up with a counterexample of a political standpoint that is not corrupt.

Some definitions-
po"lit"i"cal (p-lt-kl)
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or dealing with the structure or affairs of government, politics, or the state.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

stand"point (stndpoint)
n.
A position from which things are considered or judged; a point of view.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

According to these definitions used together, political standpoints refers to a position where the structure or affairs of government, or the state is judged. As you can imagine, there are a diverse variety of ways that you judge government and the state. So in theory this means I could have a political viewpoint that maximum transparency is essential and that corruption is bad. Thus, my political viewpoint would be inherently incorruptible by virtue of maximum transparency, meaning that every knows what you're doing at all times, so corruption is impossible.
Debate Round No. 1
SuicidalManiac

Pro

I mainly decided to accept this debate because you seem highly depressed and need help.

Prove it.

Talk to the suicide prevention hotline if you feel the need to talk to someone in person.

I do not take orders from my opponents.

Although you say you're not bothered about winning, you clearly seem to be bothered by losing, as that would give you another pessimistic reason to end your life.

Appeal to motive fallacy of logic is present here.

If you aren't affected by winning, then you there's no logical reason you should be affected by a loss either.

This is correct as well as absolutely irrelevant to the debate.

Even though what i'm saying might be cliche, I take it you're a " glass half empty person'; the kind of person who doesn't really react to positive situations, but indulges his negative emotions when something bad happened.

If you don't indulge in negative emotions when something bad happens then you must be clinically insane as to feel positive about a bad thing happening is very dangerous indeed.

You probably do this by blocking out the rest of the world and focusing on that negative event as another justification for why your life sucks, or whatever.

How precisely does one 'block out the rest of the world'? I would like to have such a magnificent superpower as to transcend reality with a swift block.

My point is that you shouldn't even consider killing yourself over something like debate, but rather use it as an opportunity to learn and improve yourself, so eventually you can use better communication to improve your life from what it is now.

Your point is not relevant to the debate's resolution at all.

Also, for this debate, it wouldn't make sense to push the burden of proof onto you since it is my job to come up with a counterexample of a political standpoint that is not corrupt.

Well done, genius.

According to these definitions used together, political standpoints refers to a position where the structure or affairs of government, or the state is judged.

Yes, well done.

As you can imagine, there are a diverse variety of ways that you judge government and the state.

As you can imagine, pigs can fly. Imagination can transcend truth and therefore this is an invalid argument.

So in theory this means I could have a political viewpoint that maximum transparency is essential and that corruption is bad.

In theory, this debate could all be in your head and never have happened outside of your schizophrenic hallucinations.

Thus, my political viewpoint would be inherently incorruptible by virtue of maximum transparency, meaning that every knows what you're doing at all times, so corruption is impossible.

Just because everyone sees what is going on doesn't mean that their reactions cannot be stifled. If you would argue that their reactions would not be stifled then you have failed to understand how politics works.

Just because you can see the corruption doesn't mean that it's possible to overcome it. Just because the economic, human rights and ecological aspects of that government's rule are transparent to all and the method of running is shown to all, it is still prone to failure and error in order to benefit the majority of people seeing the corruption regardless of this matter. You see, if a genius saw the transparent corruption and a moron saw it, it would mean that the genius could corrupt it anyway and this is therefore corrupted.

Thanks for the debate, you lost at the first hurdle.
serp888

Con

"Thanks for the debate, you lost at the first hurdle."
We'll agree to disagree.

"I do not take orders from my opponents."
Suggestion, not an order. Notice how I never said order.

"Your point is not relevant to the debate's resolution at all."
I specified at the beginning that I accepted the debate because you seemed depressed, which clearly implies that it wasn't referring to the debate resolution.

"As you can imagine, pigs can fly. Imagination can transcend truth and therefore this is an invalid argument."
Irrelevant to the debate resolution, it was used as a tool to improve the transition into my main point, which was completely ignored.

"In theory, this debate could all be in your head and never have happened outside of your schizophrenic hallucinations."
Irrelevant, for the same reason as above.

"it is still prone to failure and error in order to benefit the majority of people "
The entire point of government is to benefit the majority of people.

"If you would argue that their reactions would not be stifled then you have failed to understand how politics works."
Irrelevant to the debate resolution, ad hominem

"You see, if a genius saw the transparent corruption and a moron saw it, it would mean that the genius could corrupt it anyway and this is therefore corrupted."

What about all the other moral geniuses on the planet who can also see the corruption and try to stop it? In addition, maximum transparency includes that everyone around the world has access to factual information, so no one would start being corrupt because they'd be implicating themselves in a crime. If everyone in the world knew what you were doing the moment you did it, then it would be nearly impossible to be corrupt before being stopped, and so it would be pointless.

Furthermore, according the definition of inherently-
in"her"ent (n-h"rnt, -hr-)
adj.
Existing as an essential constituent or characteristic
A political standpoint need not have corruption as an essential constituent according to the definition of political standpoint I supplied, and my opponent agreed with. The essential constituents of a political standpoint are completely defined by the language used to describe them, and no rule of logic says that a political standpoint has to be inherently corrupt. The debate is not whether humans are inherently corrupt, but whether the standpoint itself is inherently corrupt.

Although I said earlier than my opponent would not need to cite evidence, that was under the assertion that I was only trying to provide a counter example of a political standpoint that was not inherently corrupt. It's likely my opponent will highlight the fact that I'm changing my position slightly, but I now amend my position--that con needs to provide evidence for one case. If my opponent disagrees with the assertion i made in the last paragraph, then since I had to prove political standpoints were not corrupt, it is also stands reasonable that my opponent needs to prove that apathy is not inherently corrupt.
Debate Round No. 2
SuicidalManiac

Pro

SuicidalManiac forfeited this round.
serp888

Con

serp888 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.