The Instigator
Igor
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
askbob
Con (against)
Losing
14 Points

A modernized form of democracy should be the goal of every society

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/28/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,085 times Debate No: 6080
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (49)
Votes (6)

 

Igor

Pro

[Quote]

"Government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the Earth."

-Abraham Lincoln

It is because I agree with this quote that I affirm the resolution: A modernized democracy should be the goal of every society

[Definitions]

(1) Modernized Democracy: how today's societies view democracy, that is, a political system in which the supreme power lies in the body of citizens who can elect people to represent them under a free electoral system

(2) Should: expresses a moral obligation; ought

[Observations]

(1) The resolution states should. ‘Should' express a moral obligation. Therefore, the affirmative only has to prove why it is our moral obligation to achieve the action (in this case, democracy), not if it is possible or if it would work

[Value/Value Criterion]

Value: (Modernized) Democracy
Value Criterion: Consent of the Governed

Democracy is obviously inherent and implied in the resolution, due to the fact that it is directly stated. Democracy forces decision-makers to take into account the interests, rights and opinions of all people in society. Because democracy is a majority rule, and because people tend to vote for people who make them happy, democracy almost always ensures that the majority of the voting population is happy. My value of democracy will be represented and shown through the consent of the governed, or the will of the people. No other government upholds the consent of the governed as well as democracy does

[Contentions]

(1) Democratic Peace Theory. The democratic peace theory holds that two democratic nations almost never go to war with each other. Immanuel Kant foreshadowed this theory in his essay Perpetual Peace. He thought that the majority of the people would not vote to go to war, unless in self-defense. Obviously, it is not needed to explain why not being at war is a positive effect of democracy.

I reserve the right to make arguments in future arguments
askbob

Con

[Introduction (meant to be humorous)]

I would like to thank my opponent for debating me. I wish that he does well in this debate, however not well enough to beat me. (humor)

However, it would be a pleasure to debate you in this subject and I hope we can both remain polite towards each other through it.

[Affirmation of inherent rights]

Additionally I grant you the right to make arguments in future arguments otherwise there would be no debate and you would simply forfeit the next two rounds.

However I do deny that you even have a right to reserve that allows you to add/subtract/change pieces from your resolution.

Now to proceed with this debate.

My opponent (who has the burden of proof) gives an excellent and rather detailed and lengthy description of his resolution. In my opinion he does a very fine job of it. Essentially it boils down to the following:

[Summary and minor critiquing]

1. Every society in current existance should strive to become a modernized government. Now my opponent attempts to define modernized democracy not by what it is, but rather by how society's view democracy. Which for the American citizen may differ completely from the definition of a Chinese citizen. Essentially, my opponent fails to define what he means by "modernized democracy" except for a very frail image of a democratic republic at which the United States now operates under.

2. My opponent then attempts but in my opinion fails to make a very false assumption that "people tend to vote for people who make them happy". Rather it is only me personally that finds this assumption false or many others I will leave up to the voters to decide. However when I vote, I vote because my views align with the candidate I am casting my ballot for. Not because "they make me happy".

3. He then goes onto contend that democracy incites less wars than do or could any other form of government based off an essay for proof.

[Responses, Rebuttals, Yada yada]

Since my opponent has made this debate about a moral obligation rather than rather a form of government and I quote "is possible of if it would work". This minor clause then forces me to raise the question of: >>>>Why should not every society seek a utopian form of government where every citizen is educated and has the best of the country in mind? Where not one citizen steals? Where every decision is held for a week long debate with the entirety of the country involved? Wouldn't that utopian form of government cause less wars than a democracy?<<<<

Also one would question if democracy inherently does run through "the consent of the governed, or will of the people" after viewing many public opinion polls.

The main reason why every society (especially societies where everyone is educated and has the ability to vote) should not strive for a democracy is simply because there are thousands of different issues. It is practically impossible that the majority of a society agrees with the persons governing the society as there are thousands of issues and so few candidates.

Example:

There are 1000 issues on the ballot. 4 people are running for office. It is quite impossible for the person elected to agree with over 50% of society's views.

Person number 1 matches Voter A's opinions on issues by 40%
Person number 2 matches Voter A's opinions on issues by 20%
Person number 3 matches Voter A's opinions on issues by 4%
Person number 4 matches Voter A's opinions on issues by 44%

Voter A is hopefully going to vote for Person number 4. However as you can see the majority of person A's opinions are not being matched by the person now governing. Therefore democracy essentially does not represent the "will" of the people.

This isn't even taking into account those who don't vote, are misinformed, don't understand the issues, etc.

Since there are many issues, few people running, and a diverse group of people in society it is almost impossible that a democratic republic better voices society's "will" than that of other governments.

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate and look forward to the second round. Also no rudeness towards my opponent was intended, I am merely debating.
Debate Round No. 1
Igor

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate, it will be...interesting

"My opponent (who has the burden of proof)...."

--> Not necessarily. In LD debate, there are no 'burdens'. The affirmative must prove the resolution categorically true and the negative must prove the resolution categorically false.

"Now opponent attempts to define a modernized democracy not by what it is, but rather by how society's views democracy. Which for the American citizen may different may differ completely from the definition of a chinese citizen"

--> My opponent offers no definition to prove mine wrong. Furthermore, my definition stands.

--> Societies today (modern societies) have a modern view of democracy. They view democracy today as what most people view a 'democratic republic' (representative democracy)

--> China is not a democracy, therefore would not have a modern view of democracy (China is a socialist republic)

"My opponent then attempts but in my opinion fails to make a very false assumption that people tend to vote for people who makes them happy"

--> If you are happy that the person you voted for won, then the process of voting inherently makes you happy. Voting for somebody that will put forth legislation that will make your life easier also inherently increases your happiness, thus this argument can stand

"Since my opponent has made this debate into a moral obligation rather than a form of government...Utopian Government"

--> I stand by my observation of the moral obligation. The resolution states 'should'. For example, we should rid the world of starvation, but that action is not possible and does not work. Every Society should strive for a modernized democracy, but that action is not possible and does not work

--> A 'Utopian' government sounds nice, however it is (a) impossible and (b) has never been tried out

"The main reason why every society...should not strive for a democracy is simply because there are thousands of different issues"

--> One more reason I state a modernized form of democracy (democratic republic) versus a direct democracy. We must elect leaders to deal with all of those issues

--> Thousands of issues would exist any any society, whether it be a Utopian government, a communist government, a democratic government, etc. Democracy best deals with those issues because the will of the people is kept in mind.

"Since there are many issues, few people running, and a diverse group in society it is almost impossible that a democratic republic better voices society's will than that of other governments"

--> Once again, there will be many issues for any society, democratic or not

--> There are at least more than one person running, which give the people the choice to express who makes them the most happiest, versus, say, a military dictatorship

--> All societies are 'diverse groups'. Even if they were not diverse, say uniform, it does mean that the government which rules over them is doing a good job. They could, for instance, be uniformly bad

[His case]
He does not present one. He only attacks mine, which I defended. Therefore, I cannot compare how democracy would be better than his form of government. he has failed to met his burden of proving the resolution categorically false via another form of government

[Conclusion]
My opponent puts forth no society that would be better under a non-democratic form of government, and no governmental system that is better to that of a democratic republic (except some made up one)

Thank you
askbob

Con

Allow me to apologize to my opponent. I was unaware that the debate I was entering into was in the form of a Lincoln Douglas debate. As the majority of debates on this site are of a standardized form where the person making the resolution has to prove his resolution. I felt no need to add an alternative to my opponents plans and instead felt the need to refute my opponent's arguments.

This not being the case I apologize.

However in the case of my opponent's weak definition of a "modern democracy", I do anything but apologize. My opponent made no clause that Chinese society was inequivalent of "today's societies" as is the direct quote. Simply because Chinese society does not operate under a democracy (and yes I am very aware of their governmental system) however this does not exclude them from being "today's society"

Additionally I did not provide a definition of a "modernized democracy" simply because there is no real definition of what it means, it is an opinionated definition and I did not want to distort the value by changing your opinion of what a modernized democracy is.

If in your opinion a "modernized democracy" is a democratic republic resembling the United States, then next time acknowledge that rather than blowing smoke about how a modernized democracy is what every society on the planet thinks it is.

Next my opponent goes on to attempt to recover the mistake of assuming people vote because it "makes them happy" by stating:

If you are happy that the person you voted for won, then the process of voting inherently makes you happy. Voting for somebody that will put forth legislation that will make your life easier also inherently increases your happiness, thus this argument can stand

This further assumption does nothing but attempt to (allow me to put it colloquially) put perfume on a skunk.

My opponent does not account that the majority (if there are more than 2 candidates running) do not get their opinion represented simply because the candidate in question does not win. Under my opponent's second false assumption, voting in this case makes them sad because they are sad the person who they voted for lost.

Therefore according to my opponent a majority of people vote because they are sad.

Next my opponent completely breaks his own rules of argument in ironically the same paragraph.

He states "I stand by my observation of the moral obligation. The resolution states 'should'. For example, we should rid the world of starvation, but that action >>>is not possible and does not work<<<. Every Society should strive for a modernized democracy, but that action is not possible and does not work

-->>>>>>>> A 'Utopian' government sounds nice, however it is (a) impossible<<<<<<<<<<<

My opponent confuses me in many respects. He first states that this debate isn't about whether the form of government can work or not. Then he denies that a Utopian government is not valid because it can not work. Additionally whether it has been tried or not is not the point. The point of this argument is whether it "SHOULD" be done or not.

My opponent then goes on to concede that in a modernized democracy AKA a democratic republic the majority of societies views are not represented.

Should not we strive for a form of government where every persons views about every subject are represented?
In my form of government called the Utopian government. Everyone's views would be represented and everyone would be educated about every view. Is this not the form of government we should strive for over a form of government that does not represent the will of the people?

My opponent has conceded that "modernized democracy" does not represent the bulk of society's views as I have proven. Since he sticks by his "should" policy.

Then should not we strive for a form of government that represents everyone's views regardless of whether it will work or not?

My opponent resorts to one liners about a military dictatorship which is not the idea I proposed about a Utopian government.

In summation my opponent then attempts to convolute my argument by saying my form of government isn't acceptable because it is impossible. However this defies my opponents resolution that it does not matter if it is impossible or not but whether we should strive for it.

My opponent does not defend my argument that a democratic republic does not only not represent all citizens views about everything, but doesn't even represent the majority's views about everything. Instead he states this: "Democracy best deals with those issues because the will of the people is kept in mind." However I do have to ask the voters of this debate one question and it is a simple one.

Should we be complacent and accept that we will at least be kept in mind by the people we elect (example: President Bush) or >>should<< we strive to work towards a form of government that not only keeps in mind the will of the people but IS the will of the people. That the actions of our government are the equivalent of peoples will and that our will is not just an afterthought!

My opponent has ignored his own resolution in striking down my proposed government that is inherently better than the current system he is supporting which he concedes does not equate the will of the people.

I ask the voters of this site to decide.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
Igor

Pro

To my opponent and good friend, askbob, thank you for accepting this debate

[Overview]

Although my opponent makes some convincing arguments, I do believe that it boils down to two issues: my 'should' observation for defending my case and the 'Utopian Government' as part of his case. I will present how I view each as such, and then move on to the rest of the case.

"Should" Observation:

--> The resolution states should. 'Should' expresses a moral obligation. Therefore, the affirmative (me) must prove why it is our moral obligation to achieve a modernized form of democracy, not if it is possible or if it would work

--> I mean, honestly, I cannot really 'water down' that argument. I will try to use some analogies so that you, the voting panel, can paint a clear image of what I am trying to say

--> Analogy: We should get Osama Bin Laden. Just because we should, however, does not mean that it works. We have been trying to get him for some time, and we should, but it does not work

--> Analogy: We should rid the world of starvation. Just because we should, that does not mean that it is possible. Ridding the world of starvation, at least now, is impossible. That does not mean we should not try, though

Opponents case: Utopian Government

--> yes, everyone should be represented, and their will should be represented. Yes a Utopian government would be great. But a democratic society would also represent the will of the people, so by saying that we should look to a Utopian society, my opponent is essentially saying we should strive for a democratic government because he wishes for the will of the people to be upheld, which can only be done when the supreme power is vested in the people.

--> Also, just because my opponent wants to achieve something perfect does not mean that we should not strive to achieve something slightly less than perfect. For example, I want to lose 30 lbs. My goal is still at the same time to lose 20 lbs.

Now I will go on to attack/defend things I have not yet gone over

"...there is no real definition of what it means (modernized democracy), it is an opinionated definition"

--> which is exactly why I defined it in my opening arguments. I know that it is a 'vague' term, which is why I defined it. I set the parameters for this debate. If you had any questions or objections to the definitions, you should have merely asked.

Now, on to the whole 'voting makes you happy' argument

"My opponent does not account that the majority (if there are more than 2 candidates running) do not get their opinion represented simply because the candidate in question does not win. Under my opponent's second false assumption, voting in this case makes them sad because they are sad the person who they voted for lost."

-->the fact remains that the candidate must comply with the will of the people, else he will be impeached or voted out of office, so therefore because the people know that by voting they essentially are given the power to make sure their government carries out their will and does what they want, then they will be happy because they will get what they want.

-->Example: my opponent may bring up that Bush won't pull out of Iraq even though people want him to, but the people voted in Obama who will withdraw from Iraq instead of McCain, therefore the will of the people is ensured by voting and people are happy.

[Chrysallize]

Every governmental system has its ups and downs, however a democracy truly keeps in mind the consent of the governed. Democracy also strongly encourages individual rights. Let's just stop and think for a second. If somebody is abusing power or using power in the wrong way and taking away (or restricting) somebody else's rights, are you going to vote for them? Of course not. Democracy implies a system of checks and balances

[Note]

Just because the negative speaks last, he may not present any new arguments (LD rules). That would be unfair. He may only attack that which I have defended and defend that which I have attacked

Thank you.
askbob

Con

I would like to thank my opponent and good friend as well for creating such a fine debate.

[Intro]
Being stuffed with a cold turkey sandwich and having had my fill of a bag of chips, I will commence with the final round of this debate.

[Actual Argument]
My opponent, in this last and final round, is proceeding by attempting to convince the voting panel that we should always strive to acheive goals that are less than that of perfection with the idea in mind that we have a better chance of reaching these goals and won't be disapointed by the results.

He even admits that a Utopian Government "would be great" and even equates it to perfection. However he again loses me in a stream of backward logic. He states that: "We should get Osama Bin Laden" "We should rid the world of starvation" These goals seem to entail perfection, especially ridding the world of starvation. However when the idea of a Utopian government is presented my opponent again casts off this goal with being quintessentially to hard to acheive.

Voters do not be fooled by opponents attempt to essentially confuse the premise of this debate by again making false assumptions of how society should make its own goals. If my opponent has personal issues about how he makes his goals, then fine, but they have no place or comparision as to how society should make its own goals. Additionally my opponent has offered no clear examples of why striving to acheiving the average produces better results than striving to reach perfection other than an example of his personal weight loss goals. As a society we are constantly striving for perfection. A utopian government my opponent has conceded is above that of a democracy because it fully represents the peoples will.

Society does not settle for less, society will not settle for less. My opponent is grasping at straws by making such a backward argument that striving to acheive less is always better.

Next my opponent attempts to start a bonfire to blow even more smoke in the hopeless notion that perhaps no one will notice. A democratic republic is a democratic republic. It is not a "modernized democracy". My opponent even conceded the defintion was completely opinionated. Anyone with the ability to read can denote how indescribably vague my opponents definition was and how it essentially made no sense. Next time instead of using fancy but empty words to build a resolution, seek to fill the gaps with ones that have meaning and are clearly understood by the voters.

Next my opponent returns to the skunk that has been bathed in a tub of perfume. After spraying the skunk with gallons of perfume and finding that the skunk indeed still stinks, I had hoped that my opponent would bury the skunk 10 feet under ground and pretend as though it never existed. However instead of doing that, my opponent has instead held the authors of Webster's Dictionary at gunpoint and demanded that they change the meaning of the word "stink" to mean something that smells lovely. In an almost inconprensible way, my opponent has again tried to convince the members of this site that "voting really does make you happy" despite the countless fallacies and contradictions in his logic.

By resorting to the last resort, impeachment, my candidate has essentially come to a dead end.

As should be obvious Bush has not (and yes I will obviously bring up relevant and current examples) complied with the will of the people and miraculously he was not impeached. Anyone with a TV can tell you how low Bush's approval rating was. The candidate has not complied with the will of the people and therefore those who voted in the Kerry vs Bush election voted because they were sad..

Yes as is obvious they can vote for a new president in 4 YEARS. However that is 4 years of unhappiness and not following the will of the people.

My opponent has not refuted that the will of the people is not kept in mind by a democratic republic and has even given a clear example of the peoples will not being followed despite that its "kept in mind"

"is essentially saying we should strive for a democratic government because he wishes for the will of the people to be upheld, which can only be done when the supreme power is vested in the people."

Again do not be confused. I am not "essentially" saying we should strive for a democratic REPUBLIC because I wish for the will of the people not only to be upheld or "kept in mind" as an afterthough as my opponent wishes. Society should strive for a Utopian government that represents the will of all people about every issue. My opponent is correct that this can only be done when supreme power is vested in the people and not in a ruler who blatantly does not follow the will of the people.

[Grande Finale]

My opponent has acknowledged that every governmental system has its downs. Since his resolution dictates that: "not if it is possible or if it would work"

Therefore I am proposing that we strive for a governmental system (Utopian Government) that only has its up reguardless of whether it can work or not, we >>>>should<<<< strive for it.

Lets stop and think here for a second. If somebody is running for president and you have no clue if they're going to abuse power or exactly what they are going to do is it possible to be fooled into voting for them? Absolutely. It is time to stop settling for less, as my opponent suggests we should do. It is time to stop voting for the lesser of two evils and vote for what we think is right and wrong. It is time that the will of the people be the equivalent of government and not just a sad distorted representation of it!

If we are to strive for anything in life, let it be no less than that of perfection!

[Note]
1. It is poor form in any debate to bring up new arguments in the last round that can't be refuted. It is absolutely unfair.

2. This debate is subject to the TOS as dictated by the user askbob. As this is the case, votes will only be counted that have explanations in the comments sections to prevent those who abuse the creation of multiple accounts.

For clear examples of the TOS in use please view any of askbob's debates for an accurate picture.

[Fine]

Thank You.
Debate Round No. 3
49 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Dumbchic 6 years ago
Dumbchic
other guy is awsome. His argument rocks.
Posted by askbob 8 years ago
askbob
Ouch Pro got banned for making fake accounts and bombing Con.

Also it seems hilarious that 6 out of the 9 voters all happened to live within the new york region.
Posted by Grabz 8 years ago
Grabz
ouch, pro doubled con's score...hmm...
Posted by askbob 8 years ago
askbob
I can't, but the mods can.
Posted by Grabz 8 years ago
Grabz
Ha, you cannot get rid of me...
Posted by askbob 8 years ago
askbob
Igor my opponent made a fake account named Peegor, voted bombed this debate and then was banned by Phil.

Yay Phil!
Posted by askbob 8 years ago
askbob
http://www.debate.org...

Another new yorker who fails to explain his vote.
Posted by manutdredseal46 8 years ago
manutdredseal46
Conduct is still incorrect. Even when given permission it is not good form in debates to do this. The first round was entirely made for that purpose. As for sources it's you call, I just thin that in a tie the side which did overall better has a swing.
Posted by askbob 8 years ago
askbob
http://www.debate.org...

Ahh another user of the same age from the same place voting on this debate. It seems I'm getting the short end of the stick when it comes to the judging.
Posted by askbob 8 years ago
askbob
Tally:

Con - 7 points by the users: LightCirRo (3) Manutdredseal46 (4)
Pro - 5 points by the users: TheRaven (5)

Manut, I cannot count your conduct points because it is ok if my opponent posts new info in the last round. I have the ability to refute it. It is however unfair if I post new info in the last round. Therefore either provide a new reason for your conduct vote or I cannot include it.

As to the sources I cannot award points for those either as there were no sources in this debate. I appreciate your job of helping me tally, but unfortunately I am the only one who can make tallying. If you could please refrain from making ones in the future it would be appreciated. The same applies to Raven. I will judge what is right and wrong and no one else will.

Therefore I only included Spelling and Grammar and Convincing Arguments.

Provide another reason for conduct and I will include it.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
IgoraskbobTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by askbob 6 years ago
askbob
IgoraskbobTied
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 DiablosChaosBroker 8 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
IgoraskbobTied
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 JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
IgoraskbobTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
IgoraskbobTied
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 8 years ago
TheRaven
IgoraskbobTied
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