I think I can help. There are gradients to doing bad things. There's negligence, harm, mistreatment, abuse, malevolence and evil. Hitler was evil. Saying Hitler is corrupt is a gross understatement and insult to Jews. You get the drift.
No doubt you've heard the term, "voting for the lesser of two evils". Voting for the lesser of two "evils" begets "evil". Evil in quotes because few are actually evil. Almost every member of congress is corrupt for the simple reason that congress is corrupt. When you think about it, saying a senator or representative is corrupt is stating the obvious. Plus it will be expected of you to back up your claim with reasoned argument.
Many of your opponents are comfortable making emotional based arguments. Going head to head against that is an uphill battle. You can win them over if they're at least willing to learn but you'll likely face many emotional arguments that will be up to you to debunk. Not to mention it's up to you to keep pulling the discussion back on track.
Rather using a seemingly moral based terminology such as corrupt and evil, I recommend using "ignorance" and "incompetent". Both are quantifiable. Ignorance is lack of pertinent knowledge while incompetence is unqualified for the task, project or job. The real nifty thing about using those is you don't necessarily have to identify which one is the failing of the object/senator/politician/bureaucrat.
For example; why did the Senator vote in favor of another unconstitutional gun law? I don't know whether he did it out of ignorance or just plain incompetence but clearly he is unqualified to be a Senator. Unless we consider...
I can carry that further because I have differentiated among objects and quantified them. I'll continue where I left off... Unless we consider that he is actually corrupt because congress is corrupt, but that is stating the obvious as we know that it is congress that empowers the bureaucratic alphabet agencies of the Executive branch in which we are lucky if we are able to get even one unconstitutional law before the Supreme Court to be overturned for every twenty unconstitutional laws passed by congress. Clearly we are loosing the battle and we can't expect to win anytime soon if we keep chasing after laws that are but the symptoms/sores of a much more perverse disease/cancer that is outpacing our band-aid relief efforts. It's a disease/cancer. That's The Problem. I've set my sights on the goal and am working on a solution to The Problem.
Using 'ignorance' and 'incompetence' will help you to quantify. After a little practice you can begin to take on additional objects and differentiate between them quantifiably.
To: exodus
"...Almost every member of congress is corrupt
for the simple reason that congress is corrupt.
When you think about it, saying a senator
or representative is corrupt is stating the obvious...
Rather using a seemingly moral based terminology such as corrupt and evil,
I recommend using "ignorance" and "incompetent..."
For example; why did the Senator vote in favor of another unconstitutional gun law?
I don't know whether he did it out of ignorance or just plain incompetence
but clearly he is unqualified to be a Senator.
Unless we consider...
Using 'ignorance' and 'incompetence' will help you to quantify.
After a little practice you can begin to take on additional objects
and differentiate between them quantifiably."
1383 by Zon
************************
Congressman Ron Paul of Texas is not corrupt..
"Congress is corrupt" is not an excuse for corruption.
The act of doing an un-Constitutional thing
justifies the charge of corruption.
Any Congressman who votes for a gun control law qualifies.
There is no "ignorance" strong enough to avoid the charge of "corruption."
There is no "incompetence" strong enough to avoid the charge of "corruption."
The Soviet Union was based upon ignorance,
and typified by incompetence.
It was still evil.
Just as Ronald Reagan called "evil" when he saw it,
even against the advice of his advisors,
so will I will call "corruption" when I see it.
Stupidity is the first thing to consider.
Gail Norton isn't stupid.
Ignorance is next.
Gail Norton isn't ignorant, I'm sure you'll agree.
Next we consider incompetence.
Incompetence doesn't require stupidity, or ignorance.
You can be smart and knowlegable and still be incompetent,
if you don't have a talent for the job.
Gail Norton might be incompetent.
That was my first argument.
IF she's not incompetent,
she is corrupt.
She might even be "evil."