The Instigator
Veridas
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
dashdustrider
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Politicians should have their every political action made public and openly scrutinised.

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
Pro Tied Con
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: 4/4/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 916 times Debate No: 11631
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

Veridas

Pro

It's a simple enough equation that political corruption, if unpunished, will only breed more of the same. If we allow politicians, who I remind you work for the tax payer, not vice versa, to carry on without having to justify their actions and make known their incentives then bad law and worthless or counterproductive legislation will become more commonplace. If we make sure that politicians know, right from day one, that we won't stand for any messing about from them and that if they do mess about then we will notice then they will be forced to do one of two things, either cease any actions they may be taking that they know will be counterproductive or tone it down so much that it will become worthless. If the Government insists on keeping tabs on it's people then the people should have tabs kept on the Government.
dashdustrider

Con

I would first just want to ask one thing. What resources would you use to keep the tabs on the government. The government has virtually unlimited resources when it comes to keeping track of people. How would the people control the Politicians?
Food for thought
Debate Round No. 1
Veridas

Pro

Politically independent organisations are not a nonexistent entity. If nothing else I would argue that journalists and some newsreaders already do the job of the proposed organisation for no extra cost. If the parties can all agree that such a system is required for the political safekeeping of the nation (and lets be honest, it would reek of political corruption to state that the people should not see what politicians do) then we can agree to let the politicians themselves fund it. Add a tab to the yearly budget or something. If nothing else, modern day politics has shown that politicians are as eager to get dirt on their opponents as we are. They might even walk into it pf their own accord.
dashdustrider

Con

First I must say that the whole political system is messed up. However it is the government we have, and it is better than the other 99% of governments in the world.
Politicians are concerned with two things, and two things only. Making money, and being re-elected. Being re-elected is only a means to get more money. Very few people work in law for the well-being of others. Those people who do not are Judges, for the most part.
The first election's of the United States of america involved "un-reluctant" people who only accepted their role in government because the people wanted them to.
This is definitely not the case now. Now politicians spend millions, if not billions of dollars to be elected. They make no show of not wanting to become Congressmen, or Presidents. The only people who are "un-reluctant" are Supreme Court Justices.
The corrupt officials will do anything to make money, and that includes paying off newspapers. Which I'm sure happens.
Even if the newspaper's report it, and the people read it. What can the people, and newspaper's do?
Debate Round No. 2
Veridas

Pro

For every paid newspaper that supports one party there is another that supports the other, and therefore acts as a counterweight.

Besides, who said anything about American newspapers and tv stations specifically? My idea applies on a global scale, to think in terms of a single country is as vain as it is petty.

We are already told of the atrocities of leaders like Kim Jong Il and we are offered on a platter the legislative fallacies perpetrated by Iran and Russia and China. My idea is an expansion on that, it will be held neither by national nor political boundaries in an ideal world.

Besides, you're arguing with it's implementation more than with it's purpose. You seem keen to say that it would not work because it's new and relatively untested, thus ignoring my point that it would be politically suicidal to insinuate that the Government, any Government, should have unending rights to privacy and secrecy when it demands that it's people, or any people, do not share that same right.

It's implementation, like any good legislation, would have it's bumps. I would imagine that a man whose independence was implanted through the bumpiest means possible would understand that smooth implementation does not equate to good implementation.

You said yourself that these people care only about money and power. You imply that these people do not care for the common people and I agree. For that sake at the very least we should ensure that they have a reason, if not to care for us, then at least be aware that we are watching. We are clearly willing to give them the power and money they crave. All I'm saying is, lets make them earn it on our terms rather than on theirs.
dashdustrider

Con

dashdustrider forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Veridas

Pro

Ultimately, no matter what kind of political spectrum we have in place, no matter what kind of political heritage we're moving into, it's becoming harder and harder for a politician to justify his or her wages because some information is already freely available. Time was nobody knew what politicians did save for investigative journalists.

People have the choice now of being better informed about their leaders if they so wish to be and I think that's a truly terrifying concept to specific political figures and parties.

What we have to do, at the very least, is show these people that we are paying attention. We are becoming more and more aware of their activities every day, we are capable of putting the pieces together and we are ultimately responsible for their continued presence in whatever seat of power or unpower they have.

To tell them to fear us would likely have them start seriously considering some softcore fascistic legislations for self defense, even if it doesn't do that, that isn't a chance I want to take. To give them a reason to be cautious about us, that I think would benefit everyone, them included.
dashdustrider

Con

dashdustrider forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Veridas

Pro

Stopgap for my opponent's argument.
dashdustrider

Con

dashdustrider forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Veridas 7 years ago
Veridas
Well this is grand...been over for a week and no votes.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
VeridasdashdustriderTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF