A Totalatarian State is more effective than a Democratic State
Debate Rounds (4)
I am challenge samaya to this debate
The resolution: A Totalatarian State is more effective than a Democratic State
I will be arguing for the stance of a moderate Totalatarian state where people still elect leaders but it is only one party. This party controls everything but has some exceptions to its power such as rights of the individuals. It is somewhat constrained by things like the U.S constitution. However it can bypass things such as a senate and a house.
My opponent will argue for a Democratic State. She has not made up her mind on which one and will need to do so since i was specific on my ideal State.
1.FF is an automatic loss
2.Round 1 is acceptance only
3.Semantics to misconstrue intro to your advantage is not allowed
Happy to debate
BEST OF LUCK
Thank you for accepting this debate. Since you have not specified which system of democracy you prefer i will just assume it is representative democracy. This is because both in the U.S and India we have those democratic systems. BoP is shared since i didnt specify
My arguement will center around 3 key points
A moderate Totalatarian state does not require the authority of a Senate and House. This means that desicions can be made quick. This is especially important in a time of need. A prime example of this is the Hurricane Sandy Relief Bill. Because republicans and democrats were wasting time putting their own pork barrel projects spending in the bill people were being injured and losing homes in the devastating wake of Sandy. Neither party wanted to affirm the bill in either houses of congress because they did not want to let the other party have their ways.
A Totalatarian government would be able to send help right away and not have any delay. Things like pork barrel projects and hiding laws in bills wouldnt exist because they wouldnt be needed. Needless spending of tax payers dollars wouldnt be fought over. Many of the projects that republicans and democrats were proposing were donations to keep muesuems running. Because of this the relief money came very late to those who were in need
2. No deceit
Like i briefly mentioned in point one hiding laws into bills is a very common thing to do in the USA. When democrats and republicans worked together on a sex trafficing law everything was looking good. Then it was seen that the republicans hid a Hyde Amendment to stop federal spending on abortions. Not only was this uncalled for but created more distrust between the parties. This is again another example of people decieving each other to get their way. Because of this the sex trafficing law was extremely delayed because of the upset in the Democratic party.
3. Economically benefical
In a totaltarinstic state the surivival of the fittest rules the market while those who are without are provided for. A key example of this is Benito Mussolin's and Adolf Hitler's rule in their own respective countries. The process inclues a nationalzation of mostly all items in the country. This creates a huge surplus and money flow into the country. Right now democracies rely on the global trade. While this is good it is only is small amounts. Leaning too much on the back of the globe can backfire. For example the US is heavily reliant on China for the exchanging of goods. Because of this everytime they go down in their economy we go down too. However a fascist economy is extremely benficial. Unemployment under hitler fell below one percent and their economy was shown as an economic super power.
Reliance on others in the world is a terrible mistake because it leads to a domino effect of everyone falling down except for the domino that is by itself
I will provide more points and add rebuttals next round. Back to you Con
This system makes a very fair and effective way to govern.
-My opponents first arguement is that facilites can only be set up efficently by a Democratic State. Not only is this wrong but the opposite. In many democratic systems people lie and try to get what they want. If a facility was to be ordered then people in congress would try to add pork barrel projects to the bill in order to get what they want. Not only is this wrong and a waste of money the whole bill could be abandoned because of disagreement of the parties. In a totaltarian state this would never be an issue with a totaltarian state. They could just sign the bill and the facility would be up
-My opponent makes the claim that since the government is for the people it should be made up by the people. While this is with good will my opponent fails to understand that most of the time most of the people, sometimes even the majority, are ignorant and dont know whats best for the country. A ruler, or set of rulers, would be able to efficently govern with advisors if they dont already know the inner workings of the government
Now onto the arguement
1. Efficency of Ruling
In a democratic society we see disturbances and disagreements all the time. Its part of democracy right? Unfortunatley somtimes these disagreements can be hurtful to citizens. An example is disagreement over spending on body armour. The republican party might want more funding on body armour but democrats might want less spending. Meanwhile those troops in foreign countries dont have ANY armour. This could mean more casualties and deaths. Another example is funding issues. Somewhat recently the 2 parties had a disagreement over the budget. This almost led to Homeland Defense to being defunded. Think about it the security agency tasked with keeping our citizens safe almost defunded thanks to disagreement. This issues will always pop up with democracy
My opponent hasnt rebutted on why totaltarian governments are so economically effective. The 3 totaltarian governments in world war 2 were economic superpowers. In fact if Germany didnt invade Russia the combined power of all 3 of those governments would have surely won World War 2. Unemployment was down in all of these countries and their economies were booming. If the Soviet Union didnt turn into a communist nation they would also still have a thriving economy
I will talk about more points in the next round.
My opponent argued that the different parties( My opponent could not point some special party ) put porks in the passing of a bill. Well, it's not exactly true. The presence of different and no. of parties give a broad choice to the citizens. And the citizens of the country are well aware of their countries progress. So, they know who is the better person for their country. Democracy also allows people to voice their arguments if they feel anything going wrong. People could peacefully raise their voice and put up their arguments before the govt. So, this could not be questioned that the people are ignorant and could choose some wrong person for the country.
Every vote cast in a democratic country has equal weight and it is not the case with totalitarianism. The freedom of citizens is totally secured in democracy whereas the freedom of citizens is not secured in the case of totalitarianism. On the other hand totalitarian form of government imposes restriction of speech, mass surveillance and use of other limiting powers on the citizens.On the contrary democracy does not impose restriction of speech on the citizens. On the other hand it does not curb the power and the decision making right of the individual citizen. In democracy citizens have great share in state decision making whereas in totalitarianism the single person with whom the power lies alone is bestowed with the power of state decision speaking.
I have no arguements to add i will just add rebuttals because adding new arguements in the final round would be unethical
-Stability of democracy: My opponent hasnt explained why this is more effective than a totaltarian state. She has not provided any sources for this and thus should be ignored. Not only that but my opponenet hasnt even listed an example of a totaltarian society collapsing due to the oppression of the people. This point has no impact
-Knowledge of the Voter: My opponent hasnt listed any sources or proof that voters are not ignorant of their situation while i have. This point has no impact either
-Oppression: My opponent hasnt necessarily shown why this is not effective but has shown instead why it is "morally wrong".
My opponent hasnt rebutted any of my claims while i have rebutted hers. Vote Pro
1.There is a little or no freedom of choice, and often some economic decisions leads to disastrous effects.Stalin's decision of Five Year Plan undoubtedly made Union free of depression, but it led thousand of people to starvation. Similar is now going with North Korea.
2.This system demands obedience. No arguments, No disagreement. Instead , in a democratic system, it gives full opportunity to the society to keep their arguments and obstruct wherever they feel it is going wrong.
3.This system is a form of dictatorship which spreads war, hatred, aggression and many ,more. 2nd World War was a result of this kind of dictatorship only. In a democratic system, even the PM doesn't take decisions alone, instead with the seek of other council members too.
I think this all shows that democracy is the right way to rule. Totalitarian leads to disasters(somewhere, not fully)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: No one ever gives me a definition of effective, so I'm forced to interpret it from each of your analyses. Pro tells me that effectiveness is getting more bills passed, reducing superfluous spending and building a good economy. Con tells me that effectiveness is a stable government that has popular support. The story Pro is giving me is clearer because I have both the warrants and the links to show that these problems are at least partially solved by his pseudo-totalitarian state, whereas it's unclear how representative democracy produces the solutions Con discusses. While I don't really find either side's arguments compelling, Pro does spend more time linking his points back to the resolution, and Con's only effective rebuttals appear in the final round, too late to do any serious damage to Pro's case. Given that the major view I'm asked to take on is that effective means streamlined and quicker, and given that Pro's the only one upholding those, I'm voting Pro.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.