The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
3 Points

Is it right to vote for a politician who is seriously morally 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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/25/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 weeks ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 266 times Debate No: 105282
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)




In today's society many people will vote for politicians only for what the politician will do in congress and not his actions for or against society. An example would be Roy Moore and his sexual allegations or Bill Clinton and his sexual promiscuity in the White House. I believe voting based on the morals of the politician is much more important. Don't get me wrong however...If I had to choose between Stalin and a sexual predator, I would choose the latter. But if I had to choose between a good minded democrat and a republican with based sexual allegations, I would choose the former and side with republicans. In my opinions if we punish one side, that side will learn to be a more morally sound side, and I can side republican while being able to sleep at night with that choice.


There are times where a politician without morals still will achieve moral change. In this debate, let us assume that the field of politicians are American ones, and not ones where there are possibilities of dictators, due to the fact that this is about voting for these people.
The numbering of arguments will indicate when a separate point is made, for the purpose of clarity.

1) Lets talk about Bill Clinton. Especially due to last year's elections, there has been many a controversy over the Clintons. Bill Clinton was charged with sexual misconduct and clearly is known for his tendencies to be either misogynistic or immoral, and as you stated, he is an example of corruption. However, Bill Clinton enacted incredible change to help those in poverty, as well as giving the economy an enormous boost.

"Following [Clinton's 1996 Welfare Reform Act], millions of people left the welfare rolls (a 60% drop overall), employment rose, and the child poverty rate was reduced. A 2007 Congressional Budget Office study found that incomes in affected families rose by 35%. The reforms were "widely applauded" after "bitter protest. " The Times called the reform "one of the few undisputed triumphs of American government in the past 20 years. " (Source:

The mere fact that Clinton, an incredibly immoral president, would be able to succeed in leading one of the strongest triumphs in American government proves that an immoral president does not lead an immoral government.

Moral advocacy and personal morals are two very different things in the world of politics, and the idea of static morality itself is flawed. How do we define morality? In history, morals have been defined as many things. Homosexuality in Western culture was immoral. Woman being independent is immoral. And, while I am not saying that I have no idea of my personal morality, and I do 100% condemn the actions of people such as Roy Moore and Bill Clinton, morality is too vague. Thus, my opponent, as the creator of the debate, must be brought upon to give an identity to morals, otherwise no debate is possible.

Sources: Homosexuality: Leviticus 18:22"30 (at least in the Old Testament, I'm not sure about complete Christian bibles)
Women: Titus 2 (This, I believe, is the New Testament)

3) Going back to moral advocacy: moral advocacy is where the morals that people present as their platforms dictates a sense of morals. Moral advocacy is /not/ personal moral corruption, and that's where the line is drawn between someone like Bill Clinton and someone like Roy Moore (Or, if it is easier to understand, Hitler). It, unlike personal morality, is a voting issue, since otherwise, what do you vote on?
-Clinton champions the eponymous Clintonism faction of the Democratic Party, one that champions a system of transitioning people in poverty into positions of high earning comfortable, in a semi-welfare system, and also advocates for compromise and protection of equality. Thus, politically speaking, Clinton's morals are defined by equality and hard work.
(Source on Clintonism:
-Roy Moore, however, serves as the "bombastic voice of right-wing conservatism". His morals are clearly defined as being against equality and against Islam (and Judaism if you dig a bit deeper). This is /indisputably/ , no matter how subjective the idea of morality is, against American morality, as the Constitution advocates for the freedom of religion. Thus, if Roy Moore was given a position of power, he would advocate for the banishing of other religions, a moral violation of the Constitution.
(Sources: Roy Moore-
Freedom of Religion-

A footnote: By saying that you should vote for these people despite their moral misconduct does not mean that it is condoned. They still must be brought to justice as every citizen is, just that their moral advocacy and personal morals are two separate issues)

Ok, now that a constructive foundation for the Affirmative has been established (on difference between moral advocacy and personal morals, as well as set the difference between Moore and Clinton), Let's address some points my opponent made.

a) "If I had to choose between Stalin and a sexual predator, I would choose the latter"

This is an example of my opponents personal moral basis, but they only further contribute to the concept that moral advocacy and personal morals are two separate things. Here is why that is a problem:

b) "If I had to choose between a good minded Democrat and a Republican with based sexual allegations, I would choose the former and side with Republicans"
Here is where the problem of personal moral corruption and moral advocacy clash with eachother and create problems. In this case, the opponent would have voted for whoever was a better person, /not/ whoever aligned with their views. If everyone were to view their candidates in this manner, there would be no set ground for their personal views, just that they don't murderers and rapists in office. If someone with no sexual misconduct charges steps onto a podium to run for Congress and states that all Muslims are inherently evil and thus must be banished, this is a clear representation of what they advocate, and neglecting that (because as I've stated, they are two separate things) creates a worse environment, and will eventually stab them in the back on their foundation for morality.

c) "If we punish one side, that side will learn to be a morally sound side"

Assuming that this point is claiming that a witch hunt for personal corruption creates better morals, my opponent neglects to include the detail that morals are very abstract and subjective. It's difficult to find a needle in a haystack, but imagine if the needle sometimes just fazed out of existence. It's impossible to find.

Until my opponents defines what their moral advocacy and personal moral bases are, there cannot be sufficient debate on their end. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1


You"re not in jail so I think you know what morality is. Western society has certain morals that people can agree on, such as theft, rape, and murder. Things like I listed before would make me vote the other way. Some could say you vote for the representative to represent your vote, but I say if everyone voted like that then politicians would have no consequence for being morally corrupt. Bill Clinton and JFK started this moral corruption and no one cared until it was the opposite party doing it. Now you see everyone and their uncle bashing Clinton on news media only because it furthers their party. Look at congress, they have a whole section of their budget dedicated to settlements in court with sexual assault. If we Americans band together and vote in those who don"t have rape allegations on them (ect.) then we will only get cream of the crop running in elections. This is near impossible, so perhaps just forming movements against this would work. Why would you vote for someone to represent for you if you knew they were a theft, murderer, or sexual predator because that in itself is morally wrong to reward a villain.


I'll begin by highlighting a few things my opponent stated:

a) "You're not in jail so I think you know what morality is. Western society has certain morals that people can agree on, such as theft, rape, and murder"
This isn't more than a nebulous description of morality with too many holes to be considered as a reasonable moral base, morality is not defined exclusively by crime, and even crimes such as theft rape and murder go on. Hitler never went to jail, for example. Additionally, Bill Clinton cheated on his wife, this is immoral, correct? However, it is not illegal. Because of this, saying that one "thinks (sic.) [the aff knows] what morality is" is not a position to clash on. My morals and my opponent's could be very different, and only be clinging to the laws in place. Additionally, who is to say that laws define morals? There was a genocide on Semitic and Rromani people under German law, an Armenian genocide under Turkish law, etc. One cannot pin morality as whatever the state's morals are, that's what we are debating, right?
To quote: "Second, some laws are immoral, usually because they are unfair but sometimes because they are counterproductive or harmful; in some cases, egregious and reprehensible. Many laws about Jews in Nazi Germany and many laws concerning women and blacks in early U.S. law were morally wrong. Many apartheid laws in South Africa were morally wrong."
(Source: Rick Garlikov,

a2) "Things like I've listed before" [that] would make me vote the other way"
Again, we have only argued on sexual misconduct and a leader who killed those that didn't conform to his legion.

b) "Some could say you vote for the representative to represent your vote, but I say if everyone voted like that then politicians would have no consequence for being morally corrupt."
Politicians have severe consequences. Nixon and his Watergate scandal led to his resignation. Bill Clinton's reputation has been tarnished by his unfaithfulness to his wife. The position to advocate is that one tries to push one's agenda, because this is what democratic government is. One wants change, one votes on what enacts that change. The problem arrives with representative democracy. Individuals must vote for whoever represents them most in order to push an agenda, and it goes against government in every way to try and vote on things outside of politics. We would get nothing done, this leads to my next point:

b2) "If we Americans band together and vote in those who don't have rape allegations on them (ect.) then we will only get cream of the crop running in elections."
This is untrue, and even if this ideology were to be enacted, it would be devastating. To organize:
1) if you outlaw survival, only the outlaws survive. Electoral candidates will put money and effort into making sure they can sweep their scandals under the rug, and cherry-pick minor moral violations of their opponents to try and win their position. By promoting this behavior, we only get a lack of state officials.
2) /Even if/ we were to assume that this would lead to only 'moral' officials being elected, imagine the period of time where we were only electing moral officials. There would be very little done, as no one would be worried about actual policies that they advocate for. A democracy doesn't work if no one has anything to say. This leads to a stagnant government that does nothing.
3) If everything is about morality, sure you'll only be electing moral officials, but these officials will be branding their morality much more than their political agendas. We will push away from even thinking about what it is they have to say.

footnote) "Western society..."
Saying that Western society is the gold standard for morals shows a neglect for those that dont hold Western values in the U.S, thereby proving even further that my opponent's understanding of morality is limited. Voting for officials based on a limited understanding of personal morals does not help to provide constructive debate.

c) A generic note on "Morality"
My opponent stated that compared to all moral compasses possible, the U.S. has a fairly consistent one. This is simply untrue. There are plenty of people who advocate for the genocide or the general destruction of certain groups of people. Taking 10 people with clashing political perspectives and asking what laws should be make on LGBT rights, one will say murder, the other imprison, 3rd fine, 4th not recognize, 5th recognize, 6th protect under law, 7th give superior citizenship, etc. The reason that the U.S. is well formed is based entirely on the fact that we dont have an incredibly vague moral compass that we all must follow.
All of these are constructive arguments that say that is we resolve to fight for only moral officials, then we get a moral government. However, my opponent did not give a very clear definition on morals. Morality is /way/ too subjective to ever be reduced to just generic Western law. They also neglected to comment on moral advocacy, so let's review:
-Moral advocacy is not the same as personal morality in many ways, including that the people should vote for officials based on advocacy, not personal morality. There are a few reasons to this:
1) Moral advocacy, as defined in this debate, is the moral belief of the platform that you represent, or advocate for. Because of this, morals such as equality and hard work may go into a platform, such as the Democratic one.
2) People should vote on moral advocacy because it's what motivates policy. A bill to introduce protection against discrimination of, say, Muslim people shows an advocacy for religious freedom and equality, particularly for Muslim-Americans. Thus, logically, one concludes that this would not likely be the platform of a Republican official. Government officials should represent these platforms to get elected by the voters who agree with those platforms.
3) While people may align their personal morals to moral advocacy, they are /not/ the same. Your political beliefs and personal ones may coincide, but they are not one. For example, if I asked someone what they thought of gay marriage, they may say "Oh, I don't agree with it personally (due to faith or whatever purpose), but it in the U.S, we champion freedom". In this case, they have a personal moral base from their holy book, and a political base of equality.

I propose instead to vote on moral advocacy. This way, one does not get a "villain" in office because a villain advocates an awful moral structure, but at the same time, people and their representative officials all vote on platforms and still encourage democracy to move forth. Thus, resolved: the People have a moral obligation to vote on officials who represent their platform on the basis of moral advocacy. As I've stated, this solves problems of morality in a much better way, by encouraging people to support platforms instead of a vague unilateral concept of "morality", promoted by a vague, American, Western philosophy.
Some notes to use while voting the debate as it has gone now:
-My opponent never stated that Clinton was a bad president by any standard, however was of very low personal moral. As I've stated, Clinton's advocacy is Clintonism, and utilizing a modified and moderated form of it has led to a bipartisan agreement of triumph in the United States.
-I brought up past and present exhibits of morality to show that morals change and are subjective and flow like the wind, and my opponent didn't address this either. Thus, there isn't even a platform of morality to vote on as the debate stands now, except for a vague idea you may possibly have. However, I ask you: Are you truly sure that everyone has the same morals as you do"
-Finally, my position of moral advocacy as a different ideology allows you to express how your morals function in the realm of politics, ensuring that you still have the right to expression.
Debate Round No. 2


Thank you for debating me. This is my first time on this website and it is nice to still be treated with respect. You changed my mind. When I can I"ll be voting for those I agree with, not who"s morals I do. I concede.


Alright then. Good debate :)

voters, vote on the side that makes more sense, or the aff i suppose.

Thank you for the constructive debate.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Leaning 2 weeks ago
I would vote, most likely for Pro as he convinced Con. Alas I have not yet met the requirements to vote yet.
Posted by blacklives.matter 2 weeks ago
to respond to your point, there is logic in your argument. However, the morals defined were very vague and limited. Because of this, we have nothing to base morality off of. in this case you have to voe aff because theres no con to vote on.
Posted by Leaning 2 weeks ago
If a politician was morally corrupt by your standards, regardless of the service he provides you and the government/society. I don't really see how it could be Right to vote for them. It might be a lesser evil than an incompetent but moral person who could ruin the land, but that may still not be Right... Legalism in Chinese Philosophy is an interesting take for a Con view. But that style of thinking is also considered to have worked out poorly by a lot of people.
Oh, or if you ever played Dragon Age Origins. The choice for the dwarf king.
Posted by blacklives.matter 2 weeks ago
Agreed with Learning. It is also didficult to define morality. How do you present that in a moral code for politicians or the people to follow. Additionally, Why coerce the people into voting against their supported candidate to promote morality? This logic leads to a government where officials dont have platforms, just floors with the room swept under a rug.
Posted by Xantog 2 weeks ago
My argument is if we choose the morally corrupt politician who agrees with our ideas, then does that not show other politicians that they can commit crimes and still get the vote?
Posted by Leaning 2 weeks ago
It seems like a bit of a gray area to me. In times of need, competence can be more important than morals. Anyone ever play Jade Empire? Somehow this all makes me think of Judge Fang.
Posted by Shad0wXx 2 weeks ago
If one must choose between politicians, it seems a moral obligation to vote for whoever is the most morally sound. It seems common sense, to me
Posted by Xantog 2 weeks ago
"...choose former and side with republicans." Meant to say "...Choose former. And I usually side republican"
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 weeks ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.