Debate Rounds (3)
Authoritarianism takes away people's rights. Plain and simple.
"Authoritarianism is a form of government characterized by absolute or blind obedience to authority, as against individual freedom and related to the expectation of unquestioning obedience." -Wikipedia
Even if the person in power were to give human rights, it would still require a blind obedience to authority. Which is my main problem with authoritarianism. What's good for you can't be decided by other people. Let's say the government bans abortion. People who are pro-choice freak out, but they legally can't do anything. However in America today people could protest and start a petition and actually might get it legalized. Or even better, if this were an anarchist society they would keep abortion legal and would let the people who don't Belive in it could choose not to do it instead of outlawing it for everyone. Like I said, what's good for you can't be decided by other people. And if your vision of an authoritarian society doesn't require complete obedience to authority than it isn't authoritarianism.
My opponent has the burden of proof, being the instigator, and thus far has provided no sound justification for an argument against authoritarianism without using purely assumptive context, which is a strategy that could (and has) been used to provide an argument for authoritarianism.
My opponent will now have to produce an argument that rejects authoritarianism regardless of context. I look forward to his response.
In the United States government there is a policy that in case of a scenario much like the ones that you have explained, a state or the federal government can declare martial law, which puts a general or the executive branch in full power until the problem is resolved. They can relocate you, tell the able bodied persons to fight, and do everything in they're power to stop the situation. Like for instance, the state of Louisiana declared martial law during hurricane Katrina because the local authorities didn't have sufficient recourses to keep it under control. However, it is only until the situation is fixed, and then everything returns to normal again.
Please vote accordingly.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Both had proper conduct throughout the debate. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar throughout. Arguments - Pro. The debate was pretty straightforward, is authoritarianism good or bad? Con built a case where blind acceptance is bad. Pro was able to show that through Con's examples, all he accomplished was placing contextual assumptions to make his point. With Pro showing the fault in such practice, while also remaining unchallenged regarding his original argument about human rights, Pro had the upper hand. In the final round Con brought up martial law, but I'm not sure as to why. I believe it was to show that martial law can accomplish the same thing as authoritarianism, however, as Pro pointed out, this does nothing to show that authoritarianism is bad per say, rather, it just shows that both had similar modes of action. Ultimately, I believe Pro won arguments for these reasons. Sources - Tie. Neither utilized sources in 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.