• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Corruption is so rampant that it's astonishing!

middleagedgamer said:
Ok, I saw an ad right before I was about to watch a youtube video. It said that there was so much corruption in America that it would boggle the mind. He said that there were 15 million judicial bribes each year, and 10,000 people wrongfully convicted!

Holy cow!

So I clicked on that ad and began watching that video. You can find it here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08NtmTdPZIU

Sure enough, this guy backs up his claims with sources, including the sources about there being 15 million annual judicial bribes and 10,000 wrongful convictions each year. He has a couple of pinned comments where he provides links to his sources.

More importantly, he also explains how, in spite of all this corruption, there is almost no government accountability. He cites source after source showing that, even in the already uncommon event that a government officer is caught, he still won't face any punishment ... just because. Simply because the disciplinary body doesn't feel like punishing him.

I knew there was corruption in the government, but DAAAAAAAAAMN! This is ... this is just astonishing! If he didn't have all these sources to back up his claims, I would have accused him of just making it all up! But he has sources, so he can't be making it up!

And then there's the near-complete lack of any and all accountability! How? How do the disciplinary bodies just not do their jobs!
Click to expand...

Listening to the initiative section of the video there is something he isnt stateing and frankly misguiding people of. The part were driving for a iniiative for a proposition lets say at the state level, it gets to be on the ballot and gets passed by its citizens they state is under no obligation to take that proposition and actually turn it into a law. Most of the time it does cuz the state legislators dont want to be seen as corupt but what happens is the secretary of the state sits on it for years and then the state legislators actually draft the prop in the house and ammend it and ammend and so on. Even if the state legislators form the prop into an actual bill then get it passed and the govenor signs it the atorney general can sit on it and not actual process it into law. Look at California for example there are many propositions or (initiatives) that the people voted for that still arnt inacted on by the state, and alot that the legislators took and ammended to corrupot and provide loop holes for which takes away from the prop to begin with.
 
middleagedgamer said:
Yes, I have. Here is the study he cited:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...hive/ronhuff.htm?du+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Now stop dodging the question! Either show this rebuttal evidence you speak so highly of, or shut up!
Click to expand...

That link was to one book that cited (yet did not include?) one "study" which was an opinion poll.

A few key points about basing a video on a single book which was based on a "study" which was really an opinion poll:

1) Opinions can (and do) change over time which is why such polls are conducted often and with varying "random" samples of different respondent groups.

2) Using a guesstimate (of between 0 and 1%?) selected from an opinion poll (predefined choice?) and then simply picking the midpoint (.5%?) is still using a guesstimate (based on opinion) as a "fact".

3) The source then goes on to cite actual numbers of proven false convictions that are far below their "factual" assertion of .5% of all convictions initially stated.

4) This boils down to make an assumption about a possibility, find some folks that agree with your possibility, accept their guesstimates as to its prevalence (select and assign a percentage), claim that makes your possibility become "fact based" and then show (cite?) actual numbers of proven false convictions (205?) that allegedly proves your (guessed?) percentage was correct yet never compare that actual number to the actual total case conviction numbers initially used which would blow up your (guessed) percentage completely.
 
Last edited:
middleagedgamer said:
Are you going to show the rebuttal evidence you speak of or not?
Click to expand...

Clever to demand proving a negative but let me try. A plea bargain (a form of confession) is used in well over 90% of cases but still counts as a conviction - the perp's confession must be accepted as they are asked in court if there is a factual basis for that plea and if it was made freely. If they lied when accepting a plea (by making a confession) then that was perjury thus they are still guilty of a felony.

So let's toss out 90% of all felony convictions (all that resulted from plea deals) and thus your "proven" bad conviction rate (percentage?) goes up by a factor of 10 - meaning that a 4% false conviction rate then becomes a 40% false conviction rate. Asking us to accept that is bit much. ;)
 
Harshaw said:
Apparently you don't understand how this works. I don't have to disprove the claim; the onus is on the one making the claim to support it, and that study doesn't do so. It is rife with problems.




I explained some of the major problems with that source in terms anyone should be able to understand, which doesn't require taking my word for it.

But if you think I'm wrong, you're perfectly welcome to read the book and find out. Until then, what you're doing is taking the word of the guy who made the video, apparently because it's what you'd rather believe. I guess that's easier than doing the intellectual work.
Click to expand...

You claimed it was debunked 11 ways to sunday, which means you claimed its already been disproven. He asked you for a source that's debunked it. You made a claim, you couldn't back up the claim. He made a claim, he's provided support. No one has to take you at your word that the study he's provided is rife with problems. You are making the claim that it is, without showing your work. So it is you, who doesn't know how this works. And it is you that has to demonstrate the problems in the study. And it is you who isn't doing the intellectual work.

Why shouldn't he believe a guy in the video over you, guy in the video shows his work and doesn't try to make people prove themselves wrong on nothing more than his word alone. Oh, and while your demonstrating the fallacies in the study, be sure to resolve the fact that the source material you claim debunks the study is from what 20 years ago? You're going to have to demonstrate how information from 20 years ago is still relevant today.

I haven't watched the video, no idea what it claims. Don't care, all I'm doing is pointing out no one has to take anything you say at your word. And if someones provided supporting evidence, you need to do more than claim it was debunked and tell the person they need to do the footwork to disprove their own position. If you're in court, and the prosecution presents evidence, the defense can't just say, that's been debunked go look it up for yourself. The prosecution will say no I don't have to, hope your client enjoys prison.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
You claimed it was debunked 11 ways to sunday, which means you claimed its already been disproven. He asked you for a source that's debunked it. You made a claim, you couldn't back up the claim. He made a claim, he's provided support. No one has to take you at your word that the study he's provided is rife with problems. You are making the claim that it is, without showing your work. So it is you, who doesn't know how this works. And it is you that has to demonstrate the problems in the study. And it is you who isn't doing the intellectual work.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I explained some of the major problems with it, explaining exactly WHY the "10,000" number is basically pulled from thin air. If you missed that, it isn't my problem.

Why shouldn't he believe a guy in the video over you, guy in the video shows his work and doesn't try to make people prove themselves wrong on nothing more than his word alone. Oh, and while your demonstrating the fallacies in the study, be sure to resolve the fact that the source material you claim debunks the study is from what 20 years ago? You're going to have to demonstrate how information from 20 years ago is still relevant today.

I haven't watched the video, no idea what it claims. Don't care, all I'm doing is pointing out no one has to take anything you say at your word. And if someones provided supporting evidence, you need to do more than claim it was debunked and tell the person they need to do the footwork to disprove their own position. If you're in court, and the prosecution presents evidence, the defense can't just say, that's been debunked go look it up for yourself. The prosecution will say no I don't have to, hope your client enjoys prison.
Click to expand...

He can believe whatever he wants. This really doesn't matter to me at all.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Clever to demand proving a negative but let me try. A plea bargain (a form of confession) is used in well over 90% of cases but still counts as a conviction - the perp's confession must be accepted as they are asked in court if there is a factual basis for that plea and if it was made freely. If they lied when accepting a plea (by making a confession) then that was perjury thus they are still guilty of a felony.

So let's toss out 90% of all felony convictions (all that resulted from plea deals) and thus your "proven" bad conviction rate (percentage?) goes up by a factor of 10 - meaning that a 4% false conviction rate then becomes a 40% false conviction rate. Asking us to accept that is bit much. ;)
Click to expand...

He's not demanding a negative be proven, Harshaw claimed its been debunked 11 ways to sunday. Or in other words, he's claiming someone's already taken the time to disprove it. He is asking Harshaw to provide a link to the material that debunks what he has already provided. At this point, the burden is on Harshaw to back up his claim that it's already been disproven in a significant way. As he made the claim that it was.
 
Harshaw said:
Yeah, I explained some of the major problems with it, explaining exactly WHY the "10,000" number is basically pulled from thin air. If you missed that, it isn't my problem.



He can believe whatever he wants. This really doesn't matter to me at all.
Click to expand...

Ok, you explained so what? You claimed it was debunked, and have yet to provide evidence to that effect. Your opinions are not in fact evidence. Just link to anything that debunks the guys sources 11 ways to sunday and you're off the hook.
 
Marissa Mayer made $900,000 a week and then $187 million at the end for a few years of failed work at Yahoo.

This is what the Elite Class can get away with now.
 
jdog21 said:
they state is under no obligation to take that proposition and actually turn it into a law.
Click to expand...
What do you base this off of?

Most of the time it does cuz the state legislators dont want to be seen as corupt but what happens is the secretary of the state sits on it for years and then the state legislators actually draft the prop in the house and ammend it and ammend and so on.
Click to expand...
Source please

Look at California for example there are many propositions or (initiatives) that the people voted for that still arnt inacted on by the state, and alot that the legislators took and ammended to corrupot and provide loop holes for which takes away from the prop to begin with.
Click to expand...
Simply saying "look at California" is not providing a source.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
Ok, you explained so what? You claimed it was debunked, and have yet to provide evidence to that effect. Your opinions are not in fact evidence. Just link to anything that debunks the guys sources 11 ways to sunday and you're off the hook.
Click to expand...

I didn't state an opinion. I stated actual methodological problems with it.

I said the "10,000" number has been debunked. I explained one of the major ways how.

Whether or not that's good enough for you really is beside the point.
 
Harshaw said:
I didn't state an opinion. I stated actual methodological problems with it.

I said the "10,000" number has been debunked. I explained one of the major ways how.

Whether or not that's good enough for you really is beside the point.
Click to expand...

An appeal to your own authority is only effective if everyone agrees that you are an authority. Til all parties do that, you'll have to show your work and provide links to authorities saying the same thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
 
ThoughtEx. said:
An appeal to your own authority is only effective if everyone agrees that you are an authority.
Click to expand...

I didn't appeal to anyone's authority. I stated methodological problems with the study. Not because of my expertise, but because they are actual problems.

Reading. You don't do it so gud.

And what's ironic is that you're asking me to make a fallacious appeal to authority:

you'll have to show your work and provide links to authorities saying the same thing.
Click to expand...

Logic. You don't do that so gud, either.
 
Harshaw said:
I didn't appeal to anyone's authority. I stated methodological problems with the study. Not because of my expertise, but because they are actual problems.

Reading. You don't do it so gud.

And what's ironic is that you're asking me to make a fallacious appeal to authority:



Logic. You don't do that so gud, either.
Click to expand...

You're appealing to your own authority, you are saying "trust that what I am saying is correct, because it makes sense to me." This is like highschool freshman debate team 101. And now you're resorting to ad hominem attacks to elicit an emotional response. That's a position of weakness.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
You're appealing to your own authority, you are saying "trust that what I am saying is correct, because it makes sense to me."
Click to expand...

No, I'm not saying that at all. I made criticisms which stand entirely on their own.

Read. Ing. U. Do. Not Do. It So Gud.

This is like highschool freshman debate team 101. And now you're resorting to ad hominem attacks to elicit an emotional response. That's a position of weakness.
Click to expand...

I guess I really couldn't expect you to know the difference between an "ad hominem" and a negative comment.

What's hilarious is that YOU aren't actually addressing my criticisms of the study on their own; you're saying I have to be some kind of expert or need experts to agree with me for the criticisms to be valid. And THAT, my friend, is a TEXTBOOK Argument Ad Hominem. Specifically, ad hominem conditional.
 
Look, you're ultimately beating around the bush. So let's assume, for a minute here, that this "10,000 wrongful convictions" statistic is un-scientific.

It really doesn't matter. Because that one statistic actually amounts to about 0.1% of all the evidence that guy in the video presents. He actually cites statistic after statistic, backing up his claims iwth source after source. In total, there are about 170 different sources he provides.

In addition to saying that there are estimated 10,000 wrongful convictions each year, he also says ...

"That comes out to approximately ... drum roll please ... fifteen million, three hundred sixty thousand judicial bribes each year! FIFTEEN MILLION!"
"The vast majority of complaints against judges result in no discipline, and most misconduct is resolved by sending judges private letters."
"Of the 3,625 instancesof misconduct identified, these studies reveal thatpublic sanctions are imposed in only 63 cases -- less than 2% of the time"
"1,092 people murdered by cops"
"Many other courts have imposed disciplinary sanctions for lawyers' statements about judges"

and many, many others!

Even if we accept that this ONE STATISTIC as relatively un-scientific ... honestly, I'd be willing to believe that statistic, given the track record of corruption everywhere else in government being completely off-the-charts!

It's kind of like the "harmless error" rule in criminal appeals. Even if you take out the inadmissible evidence, the rest of the evidence that isn't being contested is still overwhelming.

That man's overall thesis for that video (that corruption in this nation is too damn high by even the most generous of standards) still stands. You're not defeating his overall point by attacking just one statistic when he has literally hundreds of them.
 
Harshaw said:
No, I'm not saying that at all. I made criticisms which stand entirely on their own.

Read. Ing. U. Do. Not Do. It So Gud.



I guess I really couldn't expect you to know the difference between an "ad hominem" and a negative comment.

What's hilarious is that YOU aren't actually addressing my criticisms of the study on their own; you're saying I have to be some kind of expert or need experts to agree with me for the criticisms to be valid. And THAT, my friend, is a TEXTBOOK Argument Ad Hominem. Specifically, ad hominem conditional.
Click to expand...

No I'm addressing the fact you came in and said, "you don't know how to do this." When it's clear, you are not the one who knows how to do this. Ad hominems only continue to prove that...

And the only way those criticism stand, is if you're accepted as an authority by all parties. Til then you're making a fallacious appeal of authority. You can deny it, you can throw insults all you want. Won't change how weak your position is, maybe next time do the intellectual work instead of trying for the drive by nay say. Especially if your going to comment on how someone else debates.

And when you say, "you don't read so gud." That is an ad hominem attack. It's like you're trying to fail here...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
 
Last edited:
middleagedgamer said:
What do you base this off of?


Source please


Simply saying "look at California" is not providing a source.
Click to expand...

Blatently disredarding the prop law
Proponents of Voter-Approved Legislative Transparency Oppose Proposed Senate Rules Limiting Californian?s Rights to Record Legislative Proceedings - Hold Politicians Accountable

Using the courts to get rid of a prop law even thou most people voted yes on it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_187
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)

Using there power to change classificatiosn to get around the prop law
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2016...pset-after-californias-proposition-57-passes/
 
middleagedgamer said:
What do you base this off of?


Source please


Simply saying "look at California" is not providing a source.
Click to expand...

Blatently disredarding the prop law
Proponents of Voter-Approved Legislative Transparency Oppose Proposed Senate Rules Limiting Californian?s Rights to Record Legislative Proceedings - Hold Politicians Accountable

Using the courts to get rid of a prop law even thou most people voted yes on it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_187
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)

Using there power to change classificatiosn to get around the prop law
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2016...pset-after-californias-proposition-57-passes/
 
ThoughtEx. said:
No I'm addressing the fact you came in and said, "you don't know how to do this." When it's clear, you are not the one who knows how to do this. Ad hominems only continue to prove that...

And the only way those criticism stand, is if you're accepted as an authority by all parties.
Click to expand...

And again, the bolded part here IS an ad hominem argument, a fallacy. I do not need to be so "accepted" for my criticism to be valid. It stands on its own.

You don't understand this.

That, of course, is not my problem.

And when you say, "you don't read so gud." That is an ad hominem attack. It's like you're trying to fail here...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Click to expand...

It being an observation, not an argument, it's not a fallacy, "ad hominem" or otherwise.

You do not know the difference, or why the difference is important.

Your tiresome merry-go-round bores me now. Come up with something other than repeating yourself, or you'll be ignored.
 
jdog21 said:
Blatently disredarding the prop law
Proponents of Voter-Approved Legislative Transparency Oppose Proposed Senate Rules Limiting Californian?s Rights to Record Legislative Proceedings - Hold Politicians Accountable
Click to expand...
Passing legislation to clarify what the initiative does not specify is not the same thing as refusing to put an initiative into law. The law is still on the books, and the legislature can't do anything about that.

Just make sure the initiative has clear, objective, and rigid definitions on its own, so there's no room for the legislature to interpret the vague provisions in their favor.

Using the courts to get rid of a prop law even thou most people voted yes on it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_187
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)
Click to expand...
Apples and oranges. Saying that a law is unconstitutional is NOT the same thing as completely ignoring a voter initiative that was passed simply because you disagree with the law.

Any law that violates the Constitution is null and void. It doesn't matter how that law got passed; it doesn't matter if the law came from voter initiative, an act of the legislature, or the Governor's pee hole.

The voter initiative still bypasses the legislature. It just can't bypass the Constitution.

Using there power to change classificatiosn to get around the prop law
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2016...pset-after-californias-proposition-57-passes/
Click to expand...
Again, that's not the same as openly defying an initiative and refusing to put it into effect simply because they disagree with it.

All we need to do is provide rigid, clear, and objective definitions within the initiative itself, so the legislature can't manipulate the definitions.
 
Harshaw said:
And again, the bolded part here IS an ad hominem argument, a fallacy. I do not need to be so "accepted" for my criticism to be valid. It stands on its own.

You don't understand this.

That, of course, is not my problem.



It being an observation, not an argument, it's not a fallacy, "ad hominem" or otherwise.

You do not know the difference, or why the difference is important.

Your tiresome merry-go-round bores me now. Come up with something other than repeating yourself, or you'll be ignored.
Click to expand...

Link to Video.jpg
 
Harshaw said:
And again, the bolded part here IS an ad hominem argument, a fallacy. I do not need to be so "accepted" for my criticism to be valid. It stands on its own.

You don't understand this.

That, of course, is not my problem.



It being an observation, not an argument, it's not a fallacy, "ad hominem" or otherwise.

You do not know the difference, or why the difference is important.

Your tiresome merry-go-round bores me now. Come up with something other than repeating yourself, or you'll be ignored.
Click to expand...

And this is why you need to link to authorities that agree with you, because as you clearly just demonstrated, your observations and understandings of basic concepts are flawed. The first sentence of this paragraph is an ad hominem attack, because I am commenting on the poster instead of the argument. Much like like the "you don't read to good." comment. The bolded line that you claim is ad hominem is addressing your argument of what constitutes a fallacious appeal to authority. AS it addresses the argument it is not ad hominem.

Do you need me to put it in simpler terms? -Ad hominem because I'm inferring that you're slow in the head. See how that works. Are the words I'm using to big, should I devise a series of grunts and whistles? Pretty sad that I have to explain to you when I'm insulting you. Lest you think I'm merely making observations that are not ad hominem attacks.
 
Also ...

Using there power to change classificatiosn to get around the prop law
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2016...pset-after-californias-proposition-57-passes/
Click to expand...

Call me crazy, but that seems like the complete opposite of "getting around" the proposition. The proposition sought to ease prison overcrowding. By rewriting some violent offenses to be classified as nonviolent, that seems like even more people than normal are going to be released.

Now, if did the opposite - reclassified nonviolent crimes as violent ones in order to keep inmates in prison who were supposed to be released - THAT would be a case of them getting around the law.

As it stands, however, it doesn't appear that anyone poised to be released per this propsition will actually not be released. It just seems that other inmates who weren't originally poised for release would also be released. That's not "getting around the law." That's expanding its scope, not narrowing it.
 
middleagedgamer said:
Look, you're ultimately beating around the bush. So let's assume, for a minute here, that this "10,000 wrongful convictions" statistic is un-scientific.

It really doesn't matter. Because that one statistic actually amounts to about 0.1% of all the evidence that guy in the video presents. He actually cites statistic after statistic, backing up his claims iwth source after source. In total, there are about 170 different sources he provides.

In addition to saying that there are estimated 10,000 wrongful convictions each year, he also says ...

"That comes out to approximately ... drum roll please ... fifteen million, three hundred sixty thousand judicial bribes each year! FIFTEEN MILLION!"
"The vast majority of complaints against judges result in no discipline, and most misconduct is resolved by sending judges private letters."
"Of the 3,625 instancesof misconduct identified, these studies reveal thatpublic sanctions are imposed in only 63 cases -- less than 2% of the time"
"1,092 people murdered by cops"
"Many other courts have imposed disciplinary sanctions for lawyers' statements about judges"

and many, many others!

Even if we accept that this ONE STATISTIC as relatively un-scientific ... honestly, I'd be willing to believe that statistic, given the track record of corruption everywhere else in government being completely off-the-charts!

It's kind of like the "harmless error" rule in criminal appeals. Even if you take out the inadmissible evidence, the rest of the evidence that isn't being contested is still overwhelming.

That man's overall thesis for that video (that corruption in this nation is too damn high by even the most generous of standards) still stands. You're not defeating his overall point by attacking just one statistic when he has literally hundreds of them.
Click to expand...

Great. I was specifically speaking to the "10,000" number, nothing else.

Whatever else he talked about in a 6-hour video I have no interest in watching (nor do I need to in order to address that specific point) is neither here nor there.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
And this is why you need to link to authorities that agree with you, because as you clearly just demonstrated, your observations and understandings of basic concepts are flawed. The first sentence of this paragraph is an ad hominem attack, because I am commenting on the poster instead of the argument. Much like like the "you don't read to good." comment. The bolded line that you claim is ad hominem is addressing your argument of what constitutes a fallacious appeal to authority. AS it addresses the argument it is not ad hominem.

Do you need me to put it in simpler terms? -Ad hominem because I'm inferring that you're slow in the head. See how that works. Are the words I'm using to big, should I devise a series of grunts and whistles? Pretty sad that I have to explain to you when I'm insulting you. Lest you think I'm merely making observations that are not ad hominem attacks.
Click to expand...

Link to Video.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom