The Instigator
pivot
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Blade-of-Truth
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

A Dictator is exactly what America needs

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Blade-of-Truth
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/5/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,667 times Debate No: 62661
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (4)

 

pivot

Pro

The Pro position, (mine) is that a Dictator is able to solve all of America's problems in a timely and equitable fashion. Here is one example to start the debate-

A Dictator would not just reduce the national debt, a Dictator would erase the national debt. One way the Dictator could do this is by ridding the nation of the debt holders. This would be a positive for business, for private citizens, for the military and so on.

All that the Dictator would expect from the American people in return for debt liquidation is that the public would conform to consumption reform. Sort of like going on a diet.
Blade-of-Truth

Con

This is a fascinating topic and I would first like to thank Pro for starting this thought-provoking debate.

I do wish you the best of luck and will now provide rebuttals to your initial arguments as well as raise a few of my own.

Rebuttals

I. A Dictator would reduce debt.

This is an interesting argument raised by Pro.

Currently, our national debt limit is $17,855,201,400,000.00 and rising constantly, that's nearly 18 trillion dollars. Please take a look for yourself at this link: http://www.usdebtclock.org...

So, first, I must ask: Does my opponent think the Dictator will just snap his fingers and 18 trillion will disappear? There is no logical reasoning for this to be a valid claim. If anything, it is an unintelligent opinion which lacks all form of justification. My opponent, as Pro, needs to show how this would logically happen for it to be considered a valid claim. This is his burden to show.

Furthermore, this raises the question of who exactly we are in debt too. If someone tries to void 18 trillion dollars, there will be consequences from those who are owed that money. This can be seen in real life models such as debt collectors and banks collecting payments on loans. The number I shared above is our National Debt, meaning that we are in-debt or owe that money to someone or something.

My opponent needs to do two things:

1 - Show who we are in debt to, and 2 - show how we will be able to overcome the consequences of not paying those who we are in debt to.

Until he does this, his first line of argumentation is defeated since it is both illogical and unproven.


II. Consumption reform?

My opponent needs to expand on what exactly this consumption reform would even be or entail.

Why should the dictator expect anything from the public when his actions aren't even logically possible? Until my opponent maintains his burden for the first line of argumentation, this line that follows is equally unjustified.

Arguments

Since my opponent, as Pro, has yet to introduce any arguments of logical consistency I will wait until the next round to present my own counter-arguments.

It is the duty of Pro to affirm his position on the resolution by maintaining his burden of proof. This is especially important since he is going against the status quo. Up to this point, he has failed at providing any valid reasoning to affirm his own position.

I will now return the floor to Pro in the hopes that he will provide valid reasoning for his position, so far - he has done nothing but present illogical hypotheticals and invalid assumptions.
Debate Round No. 1
pivot

Pro

"The Nation is not what it once was."

As a Christian I must face the fact that America today is not a Christian nation. The most that can be said about today's America is that it has a memory of being Christian. And in the memory of most Christians there such of a thing as the Old Testament. And contained within the memory is this Old Testament passage-

"Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury:" (Deuteronomy 23:19)

As a Christian I know that all people come from Eve. And further I know that all people have descended from Noah. Therefore-

All living are Brothers through Eve and Noah. What this means is that who-so-ever charges us interest is saying that they are not our relatives. They are saying that they are strangers to us. Therefore-

Our non-relatives, our non-brothers, our debt-holders must leave our country.
Blade-of-Truth

Con

I thank Pro for his interesting round 2.

I. Pro fails to provide rebuttals to my arguments.

I raised two lines of argumentation in my previous round.

The first was asking Pro to show how a Dictator would reduce debt. Since Pro is making the claim that a dictator would do so, he needs to provide proof or justification to maintain the validity of that statement. At this point, he has failed to do so. For this reason, I extend that argument as it currently remains standing unchallenged. If Pro is conceding that point, then he needs to say so - either way, he has dropped that argument and therefore allowed me to defeat his burden of proof, which he needs to keep intact in order to win this debate.

The second was calling for my opponent to expand on what he meant by "Consumption Reform". Until he expands on it, there is absolutely no reason for this point to even be in the debate. It is moot. He has done nothing more than make another baseless claim and without providing proof or justification for it - it remains unproven. For this reason, I extend my argument calling for an expansion of meaning, as it currently remains standing unchallenged.

II. "The nation is not what it once was."

This is a quote that I would not disagree with, as it is evident that this nation is not what it once was. Over the course of 3 centuries, we can easily see that many aspects of America are different from what they were when the country was first created. Unfortunately for Pro, this holds absolutely no relevance to the burden he has which is to show that "A Dictator is exactly what America needs."

Pro goes on a tangent that America is no longer a Christian Nation. What does this have to do with America needing a dictator?! Seriously. Does anyone know? Pro tries to create some weird argument that "whoever charges us interest is saying that they are not our relatives." Which, in itself, holds no ground in this debate. Pro needs to draw a connection between this statement and how it is relative to the resolution we are debating, otherwise, it is also a moot point and holds no place in this debate.

Furthermore, he concludes that our "non-relatives, non-brothers, and debt-holders must leave the country." Again, what does this have to do with the resolution? Pro needs to draw a connection between this statement and it's relevancy to the resolution we are debating, otherwise, it also is a moot point which has no place in this debate.

III. Pro has done absolutely nothing to affirm the resolution.

It is evident within arguments 1 & 2 that Pro has done nothing to uphold his BoP, nor has he in the slightest affirmed the position that American needs a Dictator. Pro has not shown how a dictator would be more beneficial than our current system of checks and balances. Pro needs to show that the executive branch, judicial branch, and legislative branch have no place in America. So far, he has failed to do so.

On top of him needing to show that our current system of checks and balances is worse than having a dictator, he needs to show how having a dictator would be better than any other possibilities for America including a monarchy, oligarchy, anarchy, democracy, republic, aristocracy, and democratic republics. [1] So far, Pro has done none of the above.

[1] http://depts.alverno.edu...

In conclusion,

Pro has failed to provide rebuttals to any and all of my challenges. Pro has only done two things so far, he's made unproven claims and irrelevant arguments. Until he responds accordingly to every challenge I have raised against him, he has failed to prove his position, uphold his BOP, and affirm the resolution. I have raised challenges to each claim presented by him, and have shown why his arguments are both irrelevant and unproven.

I now return the floor to Pro and thank the audience for their continued patience.
Debate Round No. 2
pivot

Pro

Only The Dictator of all dictators could possibly conquer the United States. Only the Dictator of all dictators could possibly rid not only America but the entire world of all the debt-holders everywhere. Only He can erase all debt. And He is going to do this by conquering Jerusalem. Not just the Jerusalem in the city. But all Jerusalems everywhere. Even the hidden Jerusalem in the wilderness. For the Dictator of all dictators is-

The Prince of Peace
Blade-of-Truth

Con

It seems my opponent has decided to troll in this last round. I suspect he did in the last round as well.

It is evident that my opponent dropped every argument I challenged him with.

It is evident that my opponent failed to present any proof to validate his baseless claims.

It is evident that my opponent, as Pro, failed to affirm the resolution due to his lack of proof and failure to defeat any and all of my challenges.

For these reasons, I ask the audience to please vote Con.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mightbenihilism 2 years ago
mightbenihilism
I wouldn't necessarily call old America a fundamentally non-Christian nation. True, it didn't establish a State Church and it allowed for a degree of religious freedom provided you were not a Native American or a slave, perhaps, but it was composed predominantly of Christians, all of whom likely had heard or read the majority of the New Testament before dying. Mormons also experienced extreme persecution later down the road.

However, Christianity is not a monolithic entity, and much of Protestantism intellectually allows for anyone to interpret the Bible however they like, regardless of their intellectual capacity to do so. Oliver Cromwell is an example of a Christian warlord who justified his actions with Bible passages. See the "Cromwell's Solder's Pocket Bible" for a listing of Bible verses meant to inspire Protestant soldiers to massacre Catholics. The ancient Israelites engaged in offensive warfare under the command of the Biblical God, and from that day on there was no hope of the religion being entirely free of religiously-inspired, offensive warfare.

You might argue that Jesus wouldn't countenance such warfare, and a good case could be made for that, but Jesus was friendly with Moses and Moses was clearly a man of war, like Muhammad. Is Jesus a greater authority than Moses? Yes. But if Jesus was the God who commanded Moses to war, then we really have a problem. I don't think Christianity is an inherently violent religion but I wish the New Testament was more vocal in condemning all violence. If it spoke against violence to the degree Buddha did, for instance, it may have been less inclined to spread by violence or be used as a justification for violence (as Buddhism, though not entirely free of violence, is arguably less inclined to violence than other world religions). Lao-tzu is another example of a religious teacher who spoke out against violence, though "Taoism" is often a catch-all term for all Chinese folk religion and customs. . .
Posted by TheLovelylou 2 years ago
TheLovelylou
I have to say I thought this was quite an interesting debate. However it lost quite a bit of interest to me when the pro side of the argument decided to throw all of the religious whatnot in there. First of all a debate over dictatorship shouldn't have any religion inserted into it, however since there is religion pretty much just thrown in there. What I really don't understand is how or debtors are making themselves not our relatives by us being in debt to them. Looking at this from a religious point of view the bible says we must love any and all, even those who transgress against us. Also, this is really just a moot point, the bible doesn't say we come from Eve and Noah, its Adam and Eve. Another point, that if you truly believe that we are all born of "Eve and Noah" we would all be relatives whether or not we were indebted to someone. Besides the fact the pro hasn't really made any sort of actual argument with actual facts, as to why it would benefit America to be under a dictatorship.
Posted by dbushwacker 2 years ago
dbushwacker
Since when has America, no the world, ever been a true christian society. When they have justified murder to achieve their own self-righteous pursuits, even early America stole food from the natives and burned women at the stake for witchcraft. America has always tried to separate church and state and it is well that we do, if you're suggesting that we elect a zealous dictator you would be making a huge error. So much for freedom of speech, so much for freedom for religion, so much for the right to bear arms and human rights. We have done in two centurys that the catholic church has done in two millennia. And you would be willing to sacrifice that for a dictator, note: I support a more a centralized, humble, but temporary dictator but not one who defines his actions from a book. The world is ever changing and we have come far, do not bring about Americas dark ages.
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
Guys, I only shared that article because I thought it's interesting how N. Korea's dictator is ill enough to have his sister take over. What's funny about that is that N. Korea citizens are brainwashed into thinking he is a living God. So I think it's pretty funny how their "God" is too sick to be the dictator and is letting his sister run things. I won't be using that in my arguments, which you'll see later today :)

BTW, interesting arguments Pro. I look forward to providing my response.
Posted by pivot 2 years ago
pivot
Hello Con,

You are good.

Pro
Posted by mightbenihilism 2 years ago
mightbenihilism
You can't really compare a North Korean style dictatorship to an American style dictatorship. Our dictator would be more of a Clint Eastwood-type character (prior to his alleged senility), with his own helicopter and probably a large, white, Norwegian forest cat name "Mr. Shambles" as his side-kick. They'd have adventures dictating wild-fires back to basics and quarantining the oncoming hordes of sneezing Ebola-carriers with characteristic panache --- not trying to spark bromances with wedding-dress wearing and once-suicidal NBA retirees. How Clint gets his horse on the helicopter I have no idea. . . .
Posted by dbushwacker 2 years ago
dbushwacker
Well said Blade, but personally a dictator would be a no S*** straight forward figure to get things done. I will watch with great interest. :)
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
We already have one. Except in this country he has 300,000,000 guns out their that he has no control over.That is why he will never be a hitler or a kim jung un, or whatever that little freaks name is.
Posted by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
Lol, dude have you heard the latest? Apparently his sister is now taking control of things because he's too sick to perform his duties as leader. http://thediplomat.com...
Posted by MyDinosaurHands 2 years ago
MyDinosaurHands
Yeah, just ask North Korea how this is working out!
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by republicofdhar 2 years ago
republicofdhar
pivotBlade-of-TruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro trolled, and I think wasted Con's time.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
pivotBlade-of-TruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: pro trolled with no real arguments
Vote Placed by Hanspete 2 years ago
Hanspete
pivotBlade-of-TruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had no sources and didn't argue any of con's claims
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
pivotBlade-of-TruthTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro trolled in this debate, so conduct to Con. Con also get's sources since he was the only one who provided them. Arguments to Con as most of his key arguments went uncontested.