The Instigator
suraj1988
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Darris
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points

Politician and Criminal are same.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
Darris
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/2/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 886 times Debate No: 38380
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

suraj1988

Con

It is far better to destroy someone than to crucify them...Do you agree..?
Darris

Pro

Some things need to be defined.
Criminal. I will assume, as no definitions are given, that "criminal" means "a person who does bad things" because having the definition "someone who breaks the law" would require me to defend the obviously contradictory position that people who don't always break laws break laws.
Does "politicians" refer to ALL politicians or is it saying that it is possible for a politician to be a criminal? If the latter, common knowlege says Pro wins; there have definitely been criminal politicians.

To be a politician under the current system is to claim to represent a number of people so high that adequate representation is impossible. In the United States there are 535 Congresspeople representing 350 million people.
Simple math shows that each congressperson represents, on average and rounded, 654,206 people.
The idea that one person could adequately represent the wishes of that many people is ridiculous and criminal in itself.

That argument alone should yield a vote for pro, but there's more.

Because of the nature of politics, they DON'T represent those 600,000+ people. The voting system in many countries (including the US) has led to two-party domination. That means that a voter won't vote for you because they want you as a representative as often as because they DON'T want the other politician. That's a system the politicians love as well. They don't want close elections, they want EASY elections. One party will let anothernparty win in some locale because it is better for both parties that that be the district of the other party.
And in systems without proportional representation, if 43% vote one party and 45% vote the second party and 12% vote a 3rd party, 100% will be represented by the second party even though 55% (the majority) voted for another party.
Those 3rd party voters are told that they "wasted" their vote, but it is the politicians who wasted those votes!
There are systems where that would result in a congress with 45% party-two and 12% party-three and 43% party-one. A much better representation.

Gerrymandering is another criminal element. If Party A, Party B and Party C are choices in some area, and C is the minority in congress but majority in this area, B and A can draw the district lines so half of C voters are in a district controlled by A and half are in a district controlled by B, then, when they vote again, there's no way for C to win even though they have the majority!

Politicians are criminals. Vote pro.

Debate Round No. 1
suraj1988

Con

Fundamentally there is no difference at all. Superficially of course there are differences.
The basic desire to be a leader arises in people who are suffering from an inferiority complex. It does not matter whether they move into the political world or into the religious world; the will-to-power is an absolute indication that the man feels himself inferior to others and he wants to prove to the world that it is not so.
It is not only a question of proving to the world; through the world he wants to prove it to himself too, that he is not inferior to anybody. The only way mind can manage it is to make everybody inferior to you. Mind is not our intelligence.
It may sound strange but this is a truth, that mind is not our intelligence. Mind can be intellectual, which is a very poor substitute for intelligence. Intellectuality is mechanical. You can become a great scholar, a great professor, a great philosopher -- just playing with words which are all borrowed, arranging and rearranging thoughts, none of which are your own.
Darris

Pro

It appears that Con is unaware that his position is OPPOSED to the argument that they are the same.
Con means that you DISAGREE. You are arguing as if you AGREE.

I have essentially been robbed of one round and been forced to give arguments to the opposing side, that should at least give me the conduct vote. I will assume the other side now and argue that politicians are NOT criminals (Pro apparently is Con and vice versa for this debate)

Politicians are not inherently criminals. A criminal is someone who has to put themselves above another in order to exercise their will, yes, that's true, but there's another facet to criminality; that he/she hurts the person over whom he/she places him/herself.

A politician can be good. I myself have considered a career in politics because I think I could handle the pressure and effect real and desirable change in my community.
Plus, it should be said that politicians are not necessarily in a position over someone. Just because you have the chance to vote on something that someone else doesn't, doesn't mean that you are exposing your own inferiority complex.
Perhaps you're just doing the best with what you're given.

We can't expect a consensus-based perfect utopia to pop-up overnight, so a politician might just be doing their very best to provide goodness to their constituents and to the world.
Debate Round No. 2
suraj1988

Con

My friend pro:- I knew some one will have this question, for which i can't answer in long because of short of time, but for sure i may say that i am not saying every politician is a criminal but a politician is a successful criminal and a criminal is a unsuccessful criminal - The ugliest thing that can happen to a man is to become a politician also we are not talking about the politician of America, India or china but for the whole world status no if few places have good politicians and few have bad one that's not something we are talking about but then at the same time we are talking about the feedback which we receive from our citizens and we also can feel and see the result.
Darris

Pro

It is not logical to define criminals as "criminals who aren't successful". It's self-referential, not to mention untrue. And you contradict that by saying politicians are successful criminals. How are they criminals if they violate the definition of criminal?

By Con's changing and/or unspecific definitions, the only way to vote is Pro. Thank you for accepting me as your opponent.

Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Chrysippus 4 years ago
Chrysippus
Conduct to Pro, who gamely argued BOTH sides of the debate when his opponent proved incapable of understanding such basics of debating as which side was his own.

Spelling and grammar to Pro. Con's R3 post is one long run-on sentence; Con lacked any semblance of formatting or organization to his ramblings.

Arguments to Pro. He made sufficient case for either side, and in fact provided the only on-topic arguments in the entire debate.

Essentially, Con failed in every way a debater can, except for forfeiting. His posts did not contain a single cogent argument for his position, whichever one that was. He spent most of his posts rambling on about intelligence and inferiority. He is, I am sure, on familiar ground with the latter.
Posted by suraj1988 4 years ago
suraj1988
Fundamentally there is no difference at all. Superficially of course there are differences.
The basic desire to be a leader arises in people who are suffering from an inferiority complex. It does not matter whether they move into the political world or into the religious world; the will-to-power is an absolute indication that the man feels himself inferior to others and he wants to prove to the world that it is not so.
It is not only a question of proving to the world; through the world he wants to prove it to himself too, that he is not inferior to anybody. Mind is not our intelligence.
It may sound strange but this is a truth, that mind is not our intelligence. Mind can be intellectual, which is a very poor substitute for intelligence. Intellectuality is mechanical. You can become a great scholar, a great professor, a great philosopher -- just playing with words which are all borrowed, arranging and rearranging thoughts, none of which are your own.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 4 years ago
Chrysippus
suraj1988DarrisTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by AlextheYounga 4 years ago
AlextheYounga
suraj1988DarrisTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was too high for this debate. Politicians are criminals, they create legal ways of robbery and theft.