The Instigator
Con (against)
7 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
7 Points

Corruption Is A Tax On The Rich And Does Not Affect The Poor

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/12/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,662 times Debate No: 5359
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)




corruption affects one and all...the poor are affected the most by it as they don't have enough money nd resources to bribe in this corruption-seeped world...


Well when one does not have the money to bribe, say like the poor, would not be able to bribe and therefore would be the least effected by this "Corruption." They wouldn't have the ability to become corrupted when the access to money is so small, they would have to work to get something done, they could not slip their boss a couple thousand dollars for that new promotion, or bribe anyone to help them, they would have to do it the Good Ol' Fashion way, work. The Rich on the other hand would be very susceptible to this as they have all their money and want things fast and easy. They would be more likely to become corrupt by bribing others to get things done easily. So basically the poor have a much harder path into becoming corrupt then do the rich.
Debate Round No. 1


i certinally disagree on that.....u say that d poor don't have enough money to bribe and thus they are not affected...but hey..take a look at their condition this way...
there's some flood-affected area...n funds from all over the country are collected for the people's help...but only 1/4th of the relief fund ever reaches there? what about the rest? the money is lying in the bank accounts of so many different corrupt officials..
now won't u say that these poor people are certainly affected by the rate of corruption??
even the judges..whose word is law...those people who we look up to n those who give us a hope of justice and help have steeped down to bribes.........aren't the poor affected by it?they can't afford to bribe they lose cases where dey were bound to win...


You make a great point sdeora, however I disagree on many points.

1. "u say that d poor don't have enough money to bribe and thus they are not affected" I did not state that, if you look back it says basically the poor have a much harder path into becoming corrupt then do the rich. Which is not even remotely near that. This is more to clear up any misunderstandings though.

2. The part about the flooded areas and the money never reaching them, and it affecting the poor. I have done some research in this area and found the following on this website in a section of this they cover if money disappears into the pockets of the "Corrupt." To summarize what they say in the World Bank study in 2005 found that money given to countries was being used for its intended purpose not to raise up the "Corrupt" it even states that "In addition, withholding debt cancellation will only penalise ordinary citizens, not the corrupt leaders. Turning our backs on the people who live in countries where corruption is a problem will only make matters worse."

3. "judges..whose word is law...those people who we look up to n those who give us a hope of justice and help have steeped down to bribes." Now I do believe that some judges do steep to bribes, but these judges are quickly found and removed. From the website I quote. "Judges are in charge of trials. They make sure that trials are fair. They resolve differences between lawyers. They read the law to decide what lawyers can and can't do....They also tell juries about the law.....To make their decisions, judges research legal issues. Judges also write about their decisions and legal opinions. Sometimes, they ask lawyers or law clerks to help with research." So the judges word is NOT law, but what they say is law in the sense that it already is a law and they are upholding it. They can't simply go Poof this is now a law, hit their hammer and say guilty. Now while some cases are decided by a judge, not all countries in the world have a jury, but most do, so in that case you would have to bribe several people. In some cases not represented by a jury you will have three judges. Once again I state that a judge represents the law, not makes it, and that accepting bribes is a crime!

4. "they can't afford to bribe them [Judges]" while this is true they couldn't their are ways to protect against this, including those already mentioned above. One may appeal in a court of law, which means that the briber would have to bribe several judges instead of one. So the poor who can't bribe the judges will be fine they simply request an appeal and if their is a valid reason, say the Judge erred in the application of the law (Bribery), or many others they will go to a new court with a new judge who will hear this case.
Debate Round No. 2


"poor have a much harder path into becoming corrupt"
we are discussing how corruption affects the poor and not how they have aharder path into becoming corrupt due to lack of money. corruption needs to be minimised so that it DOES NOT afect the poor at all.....the rich have an easy way to get their things done...jus handing down money n voila!. it isn't that the poor have no aceess to education at all...loads of poor people are more learned for some jobs...if not more let me say equally learned and educated..... don't you think they should be given a fair opportunity for some job? but for that same job some rich guy bribes whosever is concerned and gets the job easily...
dont' you think this is affecting him?

in the second point you talk about "withholding debt cancellation will only penalise ordinary citizens, not the corrupt leaders." 'that money given to countries was being used for its intended purpose not to raise up the "Corrupt" '
if the money was actually being used to raise up the corrupt...half of the relief fund money won't be missing..and its not just money...even other commodities these suffering people require somehow just reaches in a really small amount

"We saw the lorry of food relief arrive and the chief told us two weeks later that one-and-a-half bags had been received for distribution to 116 households."
Kwale, Kenya 1996 [1]

i don't agree fully with you on the point of judges following the law and not making it ..but just to tell you it was an expression.....if you lose a case in the local court you can go to the high court fro another trial...and if you lose it their as well..and if given the permission i could go to the supreme court....the highest court in a counrty...and tell me..if the person you are fighting against happenns to bribe the jury/judge do you expect to win your case?
you say that corrupt judges are found and removed.....but even if a poor guy asks somebody for help and tells him about this corrupt judge and all...exactly how many people do you think will actually believe in him and decide to help him..i think ver few..and those very few may not have the power..


Yes I thought about that after I had posted it, so we will discuss the Poor becoming corrupt no more.
True it isn't all money, but don't the corrupt need others to survive? One corrupt man really couldn't do anything on his own, so it is in everyone's best interest to allow all the relief efforts to go to where they are supposed to go, if they keep it all it's only a temporary fix. The quote is very interesting, however can you find one that is more recent, because changes to the system have been made to it so that it helps those who need it, ten years is quite a long time after all.

If you make it to the Supreme Court because of one man bribing EVERY court judge/jury along the way then you are extremely rich, let alone if you somehow manage to win over the Supreme Court with bribes they are going to be found out removed and replaced with someone better who won't accept bribes. Let alone the odds, while not impossible, but highly unprobable that every judge/jury on your way up will accept bribes, is slim to none.
If a poor man accuses a judge of accepting bribes to the right people, say the police or an agency responsible for that, whose jobs are to do stuff like that, then I am sure that they would have no problem in getting it investigated, and the guilty found out.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Sweatingjojo 9 years ago
Yeah seriously.

The highest ranked Indian is in the 80th percentile, the one who did the debates about the 'world Indian loosing its meaning.'

Very odd.
Posted by beem0r 9 years ago
India: The homeland of the finest debaters this world has ever seen.
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago

Posted by DucoNihilum 9 years ago
Um.... What? Corruption in what, government? Corporations? Youth?
Posted by Rezzealaux 9 years ago
Where In The World Is Pac-Man?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Chunshwi 9 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70