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

Is the law easier on celebrities? Pro-yes, Con-no

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: 11/14/2014 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,145 times Debate No: 65158
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




Round 1 is acceptance
Rounds 2&3 are arguments and rebuttals
Round 4 is rebuttals and conclusion


I accept this debate. Glad to have this opportunity and hope we both walk away a tad more intelligent.

Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1


"There are two criminal justice systems in the United States. One is for people with wealth, fame or influence who can afford to hire top-notch attorneys and public relations firms, who make campaign contributions to sheriffs, legislators and other elected officials, and who enjoy certain privileges due to their celebrity status or the size of their bank accounts. The other justice system is for everybody else." (1)

This could not be more true. Celebrities get off so easy whenever they commit a crime or get caught doing something they should not be doing. Why should they get special treatment just because they have more money than everybody else? I think they should be treated just the same; we all can't buy off the judge or the police like they seem to.

Every celebrity jail time number I have heard has never been what they were supposed to be in jail for. Some are only in for a few minutes to a few hours before they get out with a slap on the wrist. Just so they can turn around and do it all over again.

Everybody else has to sit and wait in jail sometimes for years while they are waiting for their case to be heard; whereas celebrities often get out that same day to go live their glamorous lives until the court decides whether or not they are going to do something about whatever is was they were accused of.



TheBlueWizard forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


As con has not answered any arguments, they still stand.


First, I'd like to apologize for missing the first round. Life has been screwing with me as of late so it's been a bit wild.

I'd like to start off with the standard sucking up, thank you to my opponent, for posting this and debating, and thank you to whom ever is reading this, for giving a sense of legitimacy to my Internet ramblings.

As my opponent has neglected (understandably, given the clarity in the resolution, but still) to give definitions, that burden falls to me. (These are all provided by the American Heritage Dictionary)

Law: The body of rules and principles governing the affairs of a community and enforced by a political authority; a legal system.

Easier: Requiring or exhibiting little effort or endeavor; undemanding.

Celebrities: One who is widely known and of great popular interest.

So, now that we have some clearly defined terms,I will be rebutting my opponent then presenting my own case. I will also treat each paragraph of my opponent's case as a contention as she has neglected to draw the distinctions herself.

Rebuttal to Contention 1

My opponent's main case here is that celebrities get off easier than a normal person, on occasion because of bribery. This may or may not be true, however, it is not what we came here to debate.

This issue at hand is whether or not the law itself is easier on celebrities. I know that a strict interpretation of a resolution is not conductive to debate, so it would make sense to extend the word "law" to the legal system, but even if we do this, this case does not stand. The issue prompted here is the issue of the people operating the legal system. While that is a problem it dies not correlate with the law or the system itself, it has to do with the moral fiber of the people running it. No one in their right mind would claim that science is a poor system because Scientist A got paid off by Company B. Similarly we can't fault the law (which prohibits bribery anyway) or the legal system for Judge A being played off by Celebrity B.

Even then the issue at hand isn't the celebrity, it's the money. It doesn't take being a celebrity to be rich, and the issue at hand is rich people (often, but not necessarily celebrities) paying off officials, not only celebrities themselves.

So this contention falls because the issue presented does not relate to the resolution and is more about the person's wealth than the person's retaliative fame.

Rebuttal Contention 2

This argument is actually fallacious. She states that "Every celebrity jail time number I have heard has never been what they were supposed to be in jail for." This ignores the myriad of cases in which:
a) Celebrities have gotten convicted,sentenced and served accordingly.
b) Normal people have gotten ridiculously short sentences or not convicted at all.
c) Both normal and celebrity people have gotten released because of over crowding, not because of easy an legal system.
d) Factors other than fame that lead to lighter sentences, i.e.. having the money to hire a good lawyer.

Ignoring those is silly in this debate just because you don't hear about the non-interesting, non-famous types.

Rebuttal the Contention 3

My opponent, for her third contention, talks about the shorter times celebrities spend in jail waiting for trial. This is actually true. Most celebrities pay their bail and are able to walk free pending their case while the poor are not. This however, once again, has nothing to do with their fame, it has to do with their socio-economic level.

Once again we see that it's not that celebrities get lower time in jail waiting for trial, it's that the rich can afford bail and the poor can not. This is a separate issue then the fame of an individual, it is all about the money they have. And money doesn't make you a celebrity, so once again, this has no correlation to this debate..

Now onto my contentions.

Contention 1

The law is not easier on celebrities because the system has the same regulations for everyone. While money or bribery or dishonest jury members might get you past some hoops dishonestly, fame itself does not make the law easy on you. The laws are uniform fit for everyone human being that is a citizen of (presumably) the United States of America. No one, not even the President in theory (in practice we run into the aforementioned money and dirty officials problem, although Nixon and Clinton are notable exceptions) is not exempt from this.

Contention 2

The law is not easier on celebrities due to the same incidents happening to the common people. Everyday people get off easy as well, like when a rapist gets 45 days in prison [1] or when a woman who fraudulently took "40,000 in benefits, only has to pay the debt back at a rate of "10 a week.

This also ignores the opposite, insanely high sentences for celebrities, like OJ Simpson who is serving 33 years for armed robbery [3].

These incidents are exceptions rather than the rule, but it shows that it's not just the celebrities that get off easy. I have already discredited the idea of low sentencing in my rebuttals, but if my opponent ignores that, her point still doesn't stand.

I await your response.



Debate Round No. 3


The law does let celebrites off easier. Looking at Paris Hilton for example who has been in trouble a lot and has barely seen a jail cell.

Yes OJ is only one example of someone who is serving a long sentence, but how long did his trial drag out? A long time right?

Just because there is one instance for a long sentence does not mean the law is not easier on them.


First I will be rebutting my opponent's rebuttal and then go on to voting issues.

So rebutting my opponent this time will be a bit sad, mostly because my opponent failed to rebut with any meaning. Honestly it makes me wonder if she even read my rebuttal or my case in its entirety. She failed to mention the distinction between the law, the legal system, or the people who run the legal system, a key point in my case, she failed to mention the distinction of being treated easy due to wealth rather than relative fame, she fails to mention any of my rebuttals, she fails to mention any of my contentions, save for one sentance of it, and worst of all, she attacked my only providing one example, right after she only provides one example. Her entire rebuttal is a massive show of a lack of will to put any mental effort into this. It's basically just my opponent saying I'm right because I say I'm right.

And to answer your question in paragraph 2, LatinaGirl8894, his trial actually went relatively quickly.

Now onto voting issues.

You should come out of this debate voting for me for a few reasons. First, my opponent did not adequately rebut any of my contentions. The most she did was hypocritically attack one sentence in my case, saying I only had one example while she only provides one herself, and ignoring the entire other half of that contention. Second, she failed to address any of my rebuttals, meaning all of them stand and her cases do not. Third, I've had more sources throughout the round, using actual examples while my opponent only used a quote that proved nothing. Fourth, I have presented sound logic throughout this debate, while my opponent has only made a handful of statements, showing no reasoning complicity whatsoever.

Apologies if that was at all unprofessional, it's just that I was hoping for a good debate, and I was given an opponent who put little to no effort into the case.

Again, thank to my opponent, and thank you to the voters, and thank you whoever gave up their precious time to read this,
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.