Any political standpoint other than apathy is inherently corrupt.

Prove it. Talk to the suicide prevention hotline if you feel the need to talk to someone in person. I do not take orders from my opponents. Although you say you're not bothered about winning, you clearly seem to be bothered by losing, as that would give you another pessimistic reason to end your life. Appeal to motive fallacy of logic is present here. If you aren't affected by winning, then you there's no logical reason you should be affected by a loss either. This is correct as well as absolutely irrelevant to the debate. Even though what i'm saying might be cliche, I take it you're a " glass half empty person'; the kind of person who doesn't really react to positive situations, but indulges his negative emotions when something bad happened. If you don't indulge in negative emotions when something bad happens then you must be clinically insane as to feel positive about a bad thing happening is very dangerous indeed. You probably do this by blocking out the rest of the world and focusing on that negative event as another justification for why your life sucks, or whatever. How precisely does one 'block out the rest of the world'? I would like to have such a magnificent superpower as to transcend reality with a swift block. My point is that you shouldn't even consider killing yourself over something like debate, but rather use it as an opportunity to learn and improve yourself, so eventually you can use better communication to improve your life from what it is now. Your point is not relevant to the debate's resolution at all. Also, for this debate, it wouldn't make sense to push the burden of proof onto you since it is my job to come up with a counterexample of a political standpoint that is not corrupt. Well done, genius. According to these definitions used together, political standpoints refers to a position where the structure or affairs of government, or the state is judged. Yes, well done. As you can imagine, there are a diverse variety of ways that you judge government and the state. As you can imagine, pigs can fly. Imagination can transcend truth and therefore this is an invalid argument. So in theory this means I could have a political viewpoint that maximum transparency is essential and that corruption is bad. In theory, this debate could all be in your head and never have happened outside of your schizophrenic hallucinations. Thus, my political viewpoint would be inherently incorruptible by virtue of maximum transparency, meaning that every knows what you're doing at all times, so corruption is impossible. Just because everyone sees what is going on doesn't mean that their reactions cannot be stifled. If you would argue that their reactions would not be stifled then you have failed to understand how politics works. Just because you can see the corruption doesn't mean that it's possible to overcome it. Just because the economic, human rights and ecological aspects of that government's rule are transparent to all and the method of running is shown to all, it is still prone to failure and error in order to benefit the majority of people seeing the corruption regardless of this matter. You see, if a genius saw the transparent corruption and a moron saw it, it would mean that the genius could corrupt it anyway and this is therefore corrupted. Thanks for the debate, you lost at the first hurdle.