An Ideal Leader
Debate Rounds (4)
The first round will be just for acceptance; following rounds will be for points/rebuttals.
Warning to whoever chooses to accept, this is my first time creating a debate, and I'm mainly looking to discuss a point which I seem to have a minority opinion in. (At least I'm the only one i've talked to with this opinion)
To clarify a couple points so we are on the same page once we start:
- This is not a leader of a nation. The sort of leader I am referring to is one of a smaller group. Just to quantify, lets say any group from 10-5000 people would be valid in this debate.
- This is not a legal debate. There will be no use of laws from any form of government to be cited. (not intending to sound offensive, I just have minimal knowledge of legal aspects and am trying to keep the debate away from governments.)
- This leader would essentially have the only vote in all matters. At the end of the day, he has the final voice on every decision. Just to clarify, if he orders every person over the age of 80 to be killed, it will happen. (I in no way agree with this, just making sure everyone is on the same page here. The leader is essentially a dictator and can do whatever he desires to his people.)
- I hope I have clarified most questions you may have. If any other questions surrounding the logistics of the situation, please ask them in the first round while accepting. I will respond to these questions in the second round so we're clear on everything before we begin.
The statement I am arguing for:
A leader should act in concurrence with the majority opinion of those he lead.
I hope for an exciting first debate!
Some clarification before arguments are made:
- I don't like referring to the leader as a "dictator" because I feel as though it implies some sort of government. I'm merely focusing on the decision to follow majority rules strictly.
- We are not choosing a specific dictator, or any qualities of a dictator. We can argue which qualities can be made, but at the end of the day, I'm just interested in deciding whether or not a leader should follow the italicized statement I posted in round one.
My Stance (More clarification to hopefully show what I'm arguing for):
I stand wholeheartedly behind the idea that a leader should do what the people he leads wishes. It seems counter-intuitive for a leader to walk the opposite direction as those he follows. This is an extreme, and I wish this would never occur, but as an example of how a leader should perform, lets suppose his group of 2500 people wish to allow murder. Lets also suppose the leader strongly disagrees with this notion. I do think he should try to convince his people to see his opinion and ensure murder is not allowed; however, if the time comes to make the decision, and more than, let's say, 1500 people agree to legalize murder, it should be his duty to enact the law. I know this is extreme and I hope under no circumstances would happen; however, if you get a group of people with over 60 percent wanting to allow murder, than it is their right.
There is actually this really interesting phenomena in statistics which I'll try to explain as best I can. The more people you survey on a situation, the closer to the true answer you will get. The easiest way to show this is with the old guessing how many jelly beans are in a jar game. Lets say you ask 2 people how many jelly beans they think are in the jar. If both of them guess too high or too low, then the mean of their guessing will not be close to the actual number. But lets say you asked 50 people, and averaged their guesses. Because the high guesses would cancel out the low guesses, this will give an average remarkably close to the real number of jelly beans in the jar. Not only that, but the distribution of guesses will be approximately normal. This means over 60 percent of people will all be reasonably close to the correct number of jelly beans in the jar. (http://onlinestatbook.com... if you don't know much about statistics, you can mess around with this applet for a couple minutes to get what I'm saying) This being said, with a large group of people (10-5000 I believe is what I said), the chances are the majority is going to get the correct option anyway. Not every time, I know, but statistically, it is very likely a group of people will have the majority wanting to do what is "correct".
I firmly believe in the statement that all people are equal. Not in the same ways but equal just the same. When you add all the proficiencies and deficiencies, both mental and physical, everyone has the same value. From there its just simple math, 1500 > 1000.
Let's pretend the group of people is one person for a second. This one person is made up all the 2000+ that are in the original group. This one person is taking a test an has narrowed down the choices to either "A" or "C". Let's also presume 1750 people in the large person think the answer is "A", and the other 750 think the answer is "C". If you were taking this test, and you were 75% sure the answer was "A", I trust you would bubble in "A" on your answer sheet. The leader is essentially this large person's brain. It takes all the information it receives and makes the final decision. Why would the brain ever choose to go with the answer it was less sure of?
I would again like to say this is my first debate, so if I have done anything about this incorrectly, please let me know.
Flywinged forfeited this round.
Flywinged forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.