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

Political Corruption is Necessary for Speedy Social Progress

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Regulus_Jefferson has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/23/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 947 times Debate No: 117845
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)




First I restate myself as proponent of the topic, Affirming that "Political Corruption is Necessary for Speedy Social Progress"

Next I provide the following definitions:

Political Corruption: "The use of political powers in actions that are not in keeping with social standards or for personal gain"
Social Progress: "The change of social standards, To be regarded as for the betterment of all people"

On to the case itself

Political corruption finds itself as one of the most hated realities of modern, And ancient politics. Those corrupt tend to favor only themselves and act only in their own benefit. On the contrary, However, In order to break social norms to improve society, One must first break the social norms within government.

My first major argument is that corrupt actions can be used to directly press social progress.

An example of this being can be taken to a very gray area, With lobbying and bribing. A meta-debate may be, "is it immoral to break previously established morality, If both the outcome and the intention are good" or "Is lobbying an act of corruption". Bribing can be used to push a political agenda, And simultaneously would be considered corruption. There is no reason that this political agenda can't be in favor of social progress, Especially when that social progress can benefit themselves.

When acknowledging this, One can note the history of a beloved United States president, Lincoln. Lincoln and administration had utilized bribery to gain the votes required to pass a morally accepted act, One hailed today as one of the great progress points of the era.

So thus is removed the argument that corruption hasn't led to social progress, And given that it has happened, It can happen again.

My second major argument is that corruption does not necessarily harm the average person.

It is absolutely true that, In general, People dislike corruption, But there is no evidence that states that corruption has to be harmful. Politicians could use office for personal gain, But this may not hurt anyone to a degree, Less those that have harmed others. In fact, In this way corruption can be used in a sense of social justice, Rather than a barrier.

Though conceded: "politicians can use corrupt means to create in general harm for society", This does not play back into the topic. The topic clearly notes how corruption is necessary for quick social progress, Not that it cannot be used for personal means.

Here clearly thrown out is any vague argument that corruption is bad for the people, Or worsens the lives of people.

Third major argument is Social Progress is reliant on social interpretation, Unless it happens legally in which case it can be forced to occur much faster.

The implementation of a law can take but a few weeks if people are already in place. On the other hand, People may take generations to change opinions about social topics. Using corruption to prepare for and allow laws to pass in favor of social change is the fastest way to insure the stability of this social change. Allowing natural progression can only permit national recession and naturally being slow.

Social progress is reliant on interpretation, So people will only take action only when others will also take action and it is interpreted as morally correct to do so. Because of corruption, Which under some circumstances could be regarded immoral, It ignores this moral bound to slow change. Instead opting in for quick change, Relating and cross applying the argument leading this.

The final warrant under this argument is that the false inverse denies. If political corruption is not present, Government will naturally resist social change. This, Logically, Leads to slower social change up until the point where politics come back into play. While standard politics is not necessarily considered corruption, And will not be here, It must be noted that often times the non-corrupt government only switches sides because its convenient for the voters. Government is present to, In part, Rip off the people. This is a clear way to "rip off" the people living within an area.

The fourth and final argument is that corruption leads to a demand for change, Even when not directly pushing for it.

The corrupt, If discovered, Can be the catalyst for a political or physical rebellion to overtake and change the governing body. People may find that living under a corrupt government is morally repugnant, And decide that they are to be removed. Given that the people would have the physical ability to remove them, It is plausible that so would be done.

A change in government has the ability to completely redefine the social standards of the body previously governed. This new group of people can instate the social norms previously accepted, Or wanted, By the people but never received.

In overview, Corruption whether considered proper or improper can be the quickest lead to social progress in the eyes of the general populous.

On an off debate note, I apologize for any inconsistencies with other debates on this page, I did some searching and this is what I came up with. This is my first debate on this site, And I wanted to bring something up that hadn't been discussed, Even if just to bring it to light. Additionally on a notably OFF DEBATE NOTE, I personally do not believe that corruption is proper, Only that it can, In some ways, Lead to a better world in the long run. Also I apologize for how long this is, I just had to type something, I suppose.


Mind the oncoming brief tangent. I do feel that in part it is a tad bit necessary however.

The honourable opposition must remember that he is not Merriam-Webster, For creating an alternative definition for a word simply to fit his own argument is rather silly and unwarranted. The honourable opposition states his new version of political corruption to be absolutely necessary for the purpose of speedy social change as per the title when perhaps it would be more reasonable to say that in rare circumstances such would be the case, Yet I fail to see a legitimate example of that within the argument itself. It must be kept in mind that following the Emancipation Proclamation, As I'm sure the honourable opposition is referring to, "speedy" social change did not occur.

The most the Emancipation Proclamation had done was bring forth the abolishing of the practice of slavery within the US, Yet, It would take another 100 years or so before segregation and greater civil rights for men and women of colour in the US slowly began to trickle in, Yet, It appears with the following statement that even the "Pro" side itself doesn't consider it speedy social change.

Inherently, Based on personal experience, I strongly disagree with the second major argument, Yet, Since the opposition deems it as going off topic, I won't delve into that territory much. I fail to see the "vague argument that corruption is bad for the people, Or[sic] worsens the lives of people" that has been murkily thrown out by the opposition, Contrary to what it claims to be the case.

Additionally, On the third argument, I strongly dissent the opposition once again taking the role of Merriam-Webster and cutting out parts of political corruption he doesn't particularly agree with. I'm checking the definition of "standard politics" as I type this argument, Coincidentally, On Merriam-Webster, Just so the opposition is aware. I have a few other concerns about the third argument, But I'd be straying into personal gains territory once again, So unless the opposition would like to make up for that in his rebuke, I'll hold that back for the time being.

The fourth and final argument is special in the sense that it seems rather reasonable compared to the other three, Yet my point still stands from the beginning on how this would be in infrequent and/or rare circumstances. I have no further comments on the fourth argument at the moment.

Finally, I'd like to point out that the overview isn't doing much to support the oppositions' side of the argument, Referring to corruption as a possible quick way for social progress, Yet doing little to reinforce the idea that it is a necessary component in creating quick social progress.

Whether it is the title or the argument of the honourable opposition that is talking about the right topic, I honestly have no clue.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
Let's do the math, Your 18 and lived 15 years in Vietnam and move to another country. LOL
Posted by felixmendelssohn 3 years ago
ye so i move to another country
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
@felixmendelssohn, But you page lists you as 18? You lived 15 years in Vietnam?
Posted by felixmendelssohn 3 years ago
Even if corruption leads to speedy social changes, There's no guarantee that those changes are good. Also, Assume what you said is true, We should expect the corruption measure of a country to correlate with how :progressed it is: in reality, This couldn't be more false. Corruption and gdp correlate negatively. Take vietnam. Corruption is bad to the point where you can pay to get your score change on a university entrance national exam. Having lived in vietnam for 15ish years, I couldn't tell you the social progress is better than country with less corruption. The top officials are buying private villa in the US while the rest of the country starve. You proposed a nice theory based on a few exceptional rare case but your theory just does not fit most of the data
Posted by RMTheSupreme 3 years ago
Your definition of corruption says it's not for personal gain.

You will win this debate because of this idiotic definition.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.