The Instigator
TheRaven
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points
The Contender
LightC
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

A modern form of democracy should be the goal of every society.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Started: 11/29/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,001 times Debate No: 6083
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (4)

 

TheRaven

Pro

Definitions:
1) Modern Democracy: government where the power is vested in the people through representatives.
2) Should: moral obligation.

Value: Moraltiy
The Value Criterion is Consent of the Governed. In order for any government to be considered moral(or just) then therefore it must operate under the consent of the people it is governing. Without this consent the government will neither survive nor uphold the obligations a moral and just government must uphold.

I offer a sole contention: That the people must be able to elect their representatives in order to protect their rights. Let's think. If a government is violating it's people's rights, then how do the people put a stop to this? They vote, thus removing the leaders violating their rights from office, and placing leaders in who will protect their rights. If the rights of the governed are to be protected, then the governed must have the ability to change their leaders of government.
LightC

Con

I negate: A modern form of democracy should be the goal of every society

For clarity I offer the following definitions:

1. Modern Democracy: representative government; indirect democracy
2. Goal: a result one is attempting to achieve
3. Every: the total amount
4. Society: group of individuals bound by a common goal, culture, or government

For analysis of the resolution I offer the following observation:

1. The resolution specifies every society. Therefore the affirmative burden is to prove that ALL societies want a democracy. However the reciprocal of that burden now falls to the negative. Whereas my opponenet needs to prove that all societies want it, I need only provide one example to negate the resolution because if so, I have proved that not ALL societies want it.

The negative values Justice which is giving each their due. This value is appropriate to the impaction of the resolution because the resolution is talking about governments within society. These governments and those societies ought to maximize proper allocation of due, i.e. justice. This value is achieved by the criterion of societal autonomy, i.e. the ability of a society to dictate it's own wants, for example its type of government. It is not possible to maximize the allocation of due by restricting societal autonomy. Therefore, to achieve justice, societal autonomy is necessary.

Contention I: Cultural Relativism

Basically all societies have a different view of what makes a good government. For example, Muslim nations feel happier under dictators because it is not in their culture to have democracy. Form a western standpoint, yes, democracy is a fruitful goal. However, this goal only is applicable up to the point of cultural beliefs. Therefore, due to culture, not every society wants to achieve democracy.

[Rebuttal]

2) Should: moral obligation

--> This is wrong for 2 reasons:

First, should implies necessity not morality. The word OUGHT implies morality over necessity.

Second, if my opponent still wants to keep this definition valid, he must provide a source link for that specific definition.

Value: Morality

--> Well, you can now knock off his value since the resolution has no moral context (since should isn't ought)

VC: Consent of the governed

-->I have two responses:

First, upholding the consent of the governed can be done through many ways, not just democracy. For example, Saudi Arabia has a monarchy, yet the people look favorable on the government. Therefore, that government has the consent of the governed.

Second, if you don't buy that argument you can drop his VC totally because achieving the consent of the governed can fail no matter government is implicated. for example, the British government (during the revolution) was a limited monarchy/parliamentary government. They did not protect the rights of the colonies and yet it was a form of limited democracy.

"I offer a sole contention: That the people must be able to elect their representatives in order to protect their rights"

--> This is wrong for several reasons:

First, extend my British example from his VC

Second, there are many governments today which are not democracies, and they have protected rights. E.g. Saudi Arabia.

Third correlation does not imply causation. Just because democracies work now, doesn't mean that that will be the ultimate effect. In the future a new form of government may be theorized that protects the rights of it's people better then democracy.

For these reasons you can negate.
Debate Round No. 1
TheRaven

Pro

Ill start with my opponent's case. (REFUTE)

His observation 1) "Therefore the affirmative burden is to prove that ALL societies want a democracy. "

My opponent completely misconstrues the resolution. The resolution is not that all societies want a democracy, only that a democracy SHOULD be the GOAL of all societies.

"Value: Justice, Value Criterion: Societal Autonomy"

First off: This value is not inherent to the resolution. Yes, we are talking about governments and society, but what they should do, not what is just for them to do. Just look at my definition of "should"; it's moral moral obligation, not what is just.

Second: My opponent's value criteria is contradictory to his value. Let's take WWII as our example. The Allies completely destroyed the government of Austria and Germany, thus destroying societal autonomy. Yet their actions were JUST. Their actions saved people's lives. Thus my opponent's value structure is contradictory.

Moving on to my opponent's contention

"Cultural Relativism.....Therefore, due to culture, not every society wants to achieve democracy."

a) My opponent once again misconstrues the resolution. The resolution states it SHOULD be the goal, not that it IS the goal of every society.

b) Muslim nations do not feel happier under dictators, let us remember that the minority is in control of these dictators and that the majority often suffers under them.

c) Even if one dictator makes the people happy, that does not mean that that government should be the goal of any society. Remember that in a dictatorship, the people have no say in their government so if that ruler dies and is replaced by a tyrant, then the people would be miserable. The only way to ensure people's happiness is by vesting the supreme power of government in them.

(DEFENSE)

"First, should implies necessity not morality. The word OUGHT implies morality over necessity."

No, should implies an obligation, which is a moral or social requirement.
I find this interesting that my opponent demands a link for this definition yet has no link for either his definition or case.
(I got these definitions from the freeonlinedictionary)

This definition impacts his Value, and first contention, making neither of them inherent to the resolution.

V- Morality
"Well, you can now knock off his value since the resolution has no moral context (since should isn't ought)"

Once again should expresses an obligation, which is a MORAL requirement. Thus morality is the inherent value.

VC- Consent of the governed
*"First, upholding the consent of the governed can be done through many ways, not just democracy. Ex: Saudi Arabia...if you don't buy that argument you can drop his VC totally because achieving the consent of the governed can fail no matter government is implicated. the British government (revolutionary) was a limited monarchy/parliamentary government. They did not protect the rights of the colonies and yet it was a form of limited democracy."

a) The consent of the governed cannot be upheld fully if the people do not have a say in their government. People may look favorably on the dictators of Saudi Arabia now, but what happens when a tyrant takes power? The dictators may be looked favorably on, but the government itself is too flawed.

b) He then brings up Great Britain. However, during the revolution, Britain had a monarch with considerable power and a Parliament. This is not a MODERN democracy.
Additionally, just because something fails once does not mean it should not be the goal of society. True, democracy may have a flaw or two, but there is currently no system that surpasses it.

C1 Defense) People must be able to elect their representatives to protect their rights.

He says: "First, extend my British example from his VC.....Second, there are many governments today which are not democracies, and they have protected rights. E.g. Saudi Arabia."

Ok, simply extend what I said earlier. Britain in the revolution is not a modern democracy and while the Saudi Arabian leaders may now protect rights, the government itself has no guarantee of doing so.

He then says: "Third correlation does not imply causation. Just because democracies work now, doesn't mean that that will be the ultimate effect. In the future a new form of government may be theorized that protects the rights of it's people better then democracy."

But we are talking in the present tense. Democracies do work now, my opponent even concedes that, so why should they not be the current goal of every society today if they are the current best form of government? In the future a new Utopian government may arise, but today we have democracy. Even if we are to try to achieve a uptopia, we should at the same time try to achieve democracy. Think of it this way. If you try to lose 30 lbs, at the same time you try to lose 20 lbs.
Democracy is the best government we have today, and thus it is only logical that all societies should try to achieve it.

My opponent has failed to refute my Value, Value Criterion, or contention, and therefore I urge you to affirm.
LightC

Con

LightC forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
TheRaven

Pro

Extend all of my arguments and refutations of his case.
LightC

Con

LightC forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheRaven 5 years ago
TheRaven
is that directed towards me or him?
if its towards me, no i want RFD's for both of us. I was wondering that; as he forfeited, his NC was focused on a misconstrued idea of the resolution and that since no RFD's were given at all, what was going on.
Posted by PetIn_the_Box 5 years ago
PetIn_the_Box
So it's Ok for people to vote without reason only if it is for you? That's rather unfair...
Posted by LightC 5 years ago
LightC
Apparently it isn't........since I'm winning ^^
Posted by TheRaven 5 years ago
TheRaven
o plz. thats just silly.
Posted by LightC 5 years ago
LightC
I guess they liked my NC. ^^
Posted by TheRaven 5 years ago
TheRaven
This is ridiculous....
Posted by TheRaven 5 years ago
TheRaven
so....no RFD's given, my opponent forfeited....and im losing. this all adds up to...?
Posted by Igor 5 years ago
Igor
poor effort on the neg
Posted by LightC 5 years ago
LightC
I do hate relativism. Doesn't mean I can't run it in a debate.
Posted by Igor 5 years ago
Igor
whatever happened to the kevin who hated relativism?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by philosphical 5 years ago
philosphical
TheRavenLightCTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Luddite40 5 years ago
Luddite40
TheRavenLightCTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years ago
RoyLatham
TheRavenLightCTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by TheRaven 5 years ago
TheRaven
TheRavenLightCTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Research this debate: Russell Brand