The Instigator
Pro (for)
7 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

An Authoritarian Model Of Government Is Superior To A Liberal Model.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/6/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,225 times Debate No: 32163
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)




1. First round is for acceptance
2. Liberal Model: Representative Democracy(Lockean, Hobbesian, Etc.)
3. Authoritarian Models: Theocracy, Juche, Fascism, Absolute Monarchy Etc.
4. All welcome
5. Burden of proof is shared.
6. Have fun.


While I must say I would love for one person I agree with to make all the decisions quickly and decisively. I like how it would get things done. However, what if I do not agree with that person. What if Obama or Clinton were our autocrat. NO!!! I am strictly republican. If Reagan, Gingrich, Cain, or Santorum were our autocrat(s), I would be more than happy. But, I am not willing to risk it.
I do wish that the current government would agree and get things done and could find a solution for extreme bipartisanship.
Debate Round No. 1


I would just like to Thank Con for accepting my challenge and having this debate with me.
Well as you have already pointed out an Authoritarian regime has the ability to make the big decisions quicker. In addition to that Authoritarian regimes can make the calls the masses cannot which ultimately benefit the population as a whole.

1. Economic Growth increased exponentially in Authoritarian Regimes such as China and Fascist Spain.
General Franco was in able through his absolute rule over Spain to raise the GDP nearly six fold in only 15 years(1960-1975)!
Contemporary China has already surpassed the liberal democracy of Japan, and will in less then half a decade pass the United States itself!

2. Within a Liberal Democracy, lets just say the superpower of all democracy, the United States does more damage and harm to our world then Authoritarian China. As a matter of fact France, Denmark, Great Britain, Germany, Belgium and Holland. All model liberal societies have a worse ecological footprint then China. This may be a shock as I am sure you have heard the news of record breaking air-pollution. However It is China that has a population of over a billion and is home to cities more expansive then found in the United States or Western Europe. But despite all of this China has enacted a One-Child policy which has estimated to have prevented More lives then currently live in the United States! In addition to that the Government has surpassed the United States in Wind Production and will have far surpassed any other nation with it's Green policies. Would a Liberal Democracy like the United States have the ability to
make such a radical shift? Of course not the general population when left to their own devices will vote for jobs now then the environmental sustainability of future generations. As a Conservative you must understand that to be god's steward's of Creation a Democracy cannot be the form of Government.

Now what about Culture?
The Chinese government sponsors Confucian centers,
Saudi Arabia has built a theocracy where the infidels cannot walk on holy soil, and the tribal nomads still roam.
North Korea's Juche polices have fostered a love of motherland and all things Korean.
In East Germany Artists were viewed as more then simple commodities.
In The United States and Europe the Christian principles that founded those countries are increasingly in decline.
The Secular position of the Government and the embracing of multiculturalism has undermined their own tradition!
Gay Marriage has been legalized in a number of Liberal Democracy and there is has been a slow and steady rise in support for it in The United States and France. You as a conservative can understand the disturbing truth that once the fundamental principles of a religion are undermined the Faith loses it's strength. We both can see the rising tide of Anti-Nationalism, Atheism, Teen Suicide, ETC. I ask you why is this is a trend more common in Liberal Democracies?
I affirm that it is due to the society we have being built in Liberal Democracies, it is a empty one of excess and doubt.
For I ask you has any Liberal Democracy in history ever been able to stop the rise of technology or the progress of nihilism? A liberal society cannot control the advance of technology and actually was the cause of unceasing technological advancement. Why did the Industrial Revolution strike Europe after the enlightenment rather then the Ottoman Empire, Tokugawa Japan, or Qing Dynasty China? It was because the societies of Liberal Europe that clung to the notions of technological progress and the explanation of the universe solely through Scientific Reason. Qing Dynasty China was more concerned with being in Harmony with heaven then scientific reason, Tokugawa Japan wanted nothing to do with Barbarian concepts like capitalism, The Ottoman Empire was focused on unifying all the lands of Islam and keeping with tradition then gains of Free trade. You will find no Democratic society in history that has favored tradition over capitalism(modified or free market). This trend is an inherent flaw in Liberalized society.

If you truly would prefer a declining godless indecisive society that favors the economic well being of a generation over all future generations, then a liberal society is for you. I will save more evidence for later, but now I would like to give Con a chance to talk.


I will keep my argument short.
While pro has provided many examples of how authoritarian government works, he has not provided any indication of his acceptance of living in this type of control. Me, I would love to live in a society controlled by santorum or Gingrich; however, I could not stand to live in a society controlled by Obama or Clinton. Pro has claimed that the Chinese government provides Confucian centers. But, look at Obama. He supports gay rights, abortion, and taking all traces of religion out of government. You called liberal governments godless, try an "all hail dictator Obama world".

You have used China as part of your evidence and one of the reasons it has succeeded is its biggest resource. Not bamboo, people.

Yes, I would love your idea of autocracy if I was in charge, or even one of the conservatives I agree with, but I am not willing to allow a Dictator Obama or King/Queen Clinton America. NO! Besides, a declining godless society would be exactly what would happen if these were in charge.

Pro, I ask you to emphasize a refusal of my claim in your next round of debate. Please answer:
Would you be willing to live in a society controlled solely by people you disagree with?
Debate Round No. 2


Alright we seem to agree on the failure of Democracy in regard to culture however China's success and your question need to be addressed.

To answer your whether or not I a mere citizen would be willing to live in an Authoritarian society which enacted policies I disagreed with. "Yes for two reasons"
1- Who am I to call the shots? We can learn from the Authoritarian thinker Han Fei that the individual and the plebeian masses act foolishly and seek only to improve their contemporary well being. For anyone who has ever been to a restaurant knows that we the individuals make decisions impulsively and when we do make careful decisions it is very rarely results in us voting to make personal inconveniences. Come election day we see a very similar display. Millions turn out to the polls(however millions of possible voters are too apathetic to cast a ballot), they vote on the debates which are determined by a special committee, candidates who are trained, paid, and backed by special interest. and every four years they tell you what every you need to here that they serve your best interest. But even they do not hold enough power to make the changes that seemed such a reality only months earlier. Look to Sui Dynasty China the rigidly Authoritarian regime had demanded the construction of the Grande Canal. The construction was unpopular and caused the deaths of thousands of workers. However the Grande Canal would be crucial in future dynasties, it would serve as perhaps the most critical asset to Tang Dynasty as China reached the pinnacle of human civilization.
Point being many individual citizens were opposed it for the loss they would suffer but it would aide the creation of the civilization's golden age.

2-In an Authoritarian society you have a choice in regard to law and order, you can accept it or you face punishment for disobeying. Say for instance the president enforces a law claiming you must not have the grass in your lawn higher then 2 inches. The punishment for disobeying this law is death. Now out of the protection of my own life I would naturally trim my lawn well. To this most would see this as a failure of the Authoritarian system however it is quite the opposite. For you see in a successful Authoritarian regime the leader is head of society as well as head of state, thus his decision is correct morally as well as politically. There is nothing to question as his rule would be absolute and often is divine. For
Society determines in a nation what is morally acceptable and morally repugnant. When you have a unshakable, unquestionable figure or elite who says this is right and this is wrong there is little to worry about. This is a huge advantage over the liberal system. Within the liberal society we see chaos, industry, special interest groups, political parties, and every intellectual seek to convince you of their right and wrong. All of these contradictory views leads to
the conclusion that right and wrong varies from person to person, and since right and wrong is simple relative we reach
nihilism. Nihilism being that there is no right and wrong and there is no spiritual authority.
To put it simply I would rather be subjected to accept the decision of the elite then have my nation go down the path towards meaningless existence.

As far population being the determining factor of China's success then look to China's billion+ populated democratic neighbor India. They also have a massive population however it is China that will become the world's largest economy in half a decade, not India.

Now to imagine Obama being the leader of an Authoritarian Regime extremely difficult to imagine. When liberals like Robespierre or Napoleon took power they totally betrayed their liberal ideology. For you see an Authoritarian model is completely incompatible with liberal doctrines and ideals.

Now I have a question for you is it not better to have an elite determining right and wrong then to have a society in which there is meaningless existence(keep in mind most authoritarian regimes determine this right or wrong in relation to religious and ethical texts)?


2.A person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do. This is the definition of morals. It is what the individual thinks is right. Not the individual ruler, the individual.

"Who am I to call the shots"
I will start by answering this question with a question. "Who is our ruler to call the shots"
What makes our ruler so much better than us that they can make the decision for everyone?
Please answer this.
Another question, "Why shouldn't I be able to call the shots"
Your first reason proves to be able to be taken many ways. Furthermore, you have stated that the Grand Canal contributed to the civilizations golden age. I will not dispute this. However, I would like to point out what caused the fall of virtually every Chinese dynasty. The answer is the one big ruler making poor decisions. The sui dynasty fell because the leader raised taxes to extremely high amounts to cover the costs of the expansion of the empire. This, aside from other poor decisions and occurrences, led to rebellions and the overall collapse of the empire. Let us also continue to show how China's system is not as good as you state. For one, look at all of the dynasties. All of these dynasties were controlled by one person. However, one of China's most successful, used civil service exams to select citizens for government work. Thus, this dynasty was less of an autocratic rule and was more successful. Also take notice to another detail, the more technologically advanced China became, the shorter amount of time the empires lasted. Some of the first empire lasted over eight hundred years. Some of the last lasted less than one to two hundred. Now look at America, it, for the purpose of argument, has had only one dynasty or ruling group. It has not fallen. And, it has more technology than China ever had. Also, look at the increase success of Britain after the adoption of parliament.
My point is, the fall of empires often came because one person was in charge.

2. What the heck kind of choice is that. It is a choice, I grant you. But obey or die. Terrible choices. I would also like to point out the that you used the grand canal as an example. That lasted and provided a long term affect. The height of my grass does not make any economic or societal difference. Lets imagine a modern day Robespierre. He changed the number of days in a week, abolished religion, and basically did crazy things for the heck of it. He messed France up. He was authoritarian. These things that he did did not help France at all nor did it even have any good intentions.

Now to answer your question. I defined at the beginning the term moral. It is based on the individual's opinion of right and wrong. I agree, it is good to have an elite determining right and wrong as long as the elite believes what you believe. Obama believes that abortion is right, yet I do not and the bible condemns murder. Thus, his right is actually wrong because it does not correspond to my views of right and wrong. Also, he did not use the Bible in the formation because he condones abortion. Thus, he is wrong. If he were to turn around and be dictator, then he would not use biblical text.

Now, I would like you to answer the following:
What makes the ruler so much better than me that he or she has the power to tell me what to do?
Why can I not call the shots?
What if the rulers right is what I, the individual(and morals are created by the individual), find to be wrong? Would I change my morals to fit with what the ruler believes.
According to the definition of morals, is a ruler developing morals really actually moral because the morals would not be developed by the individual.
Debate Round No. 3


AHHHHH! It deleted everything!!!!! Here just make your closing statements and I will post answers to your argument and a closing argument all in one next, I am sorry that is no fun for either of us.


I understand your pain, it has happened to me.
My closing arguments are as follows:
It is understandable for a person you agree with to make all of the decisions, but what if that person is not what you believe.
What if the power corrupts the person in charge?
Poor leadership and decisions have caused the fall of many empires.
Why shouldn't the people get a choice in the matter?

At this point I will keep it fair because of what happened to my opponent and stop here.
Vote Con.
Thank you
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by A.WitherspoonVI 4 years ago
I would call Authoritarian Communism, Maoism, Stalinism and Juche.
Posted by campbellp10 4 years ago
Well Communism technically isn't authoritarian. That would be socialism (which is a precursor to Communism according to Marx). I would probably run liberal democracies and true communism vs. authoritarian regimes.
Posted by A.WitherspoonVI 4 years ago
We can have a debate of our own on it, who says we cannot have two on the same topic, We could do Authoritarian Communism Vs. whatever form you like :D
Posted by campbellp10 4 years ago
I wanted this debate so bad. =(
Posted by campbellp10 4 years ago
Communism (true communism that is) should also be considered a liberal form of government.
Posted by BrooklynHaze 4 years ago
Is this on the basis that humans who work together to manage a nation is worse than a single mind being final decision maker?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro cherrypicked and distorted reality quite a bit when making his arguments which I felt con sufficiently argued against, but not nearly as well as he could have. Pro's last round forfeit also didnt help out so I barely give argument points to the con. Source points do go to the pro though
Vote Placed by Gondun 4 years ago
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: The Pro had better arguments because he showed how he helps the greater good, but Con only makes people feel better. Also, I do not agree with Con's definition of morality and could not find a reliable dictionary that said morality was defined by the individual.