The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
3 Points


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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/28/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,362 times Debate No: 67600
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




No specific rules for this debate.

Authoritarianism takes away people's rights. Plain and simple.


I will counter this argument by saying that an assumption has been made that an authoritarian state is a greedy, soviet-dictatorship like thing with no regard for anyone other than whose in power. If those in power have complete power, as the word authoritarian suggests, then could they not use their power to allow people to have basic human rights?
Debate Round No. 1


Perhaps, but authoritarianism would still be a really bad form of government.

"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.


Your arguments are purely contextual. In a time of peace, where discussions over subjects such as abortion should be made, then yes, authoritarianism is inferior to a democratic system of government. But I could alter the context massively and presume that the country in question was experiencing hyperinflation, mass starvation, and generally a broken economy. I could also assume that the government was using proportional representation as their system of voting, and therefore, would constantly elect coalition governments which by nature would suppress progress and change in a time when the country really needed it. In this case, authoritarianism would be superior, as changes could made immediately and without the bureaucracy of a democratic system of government, however many assumptions have been made about context.

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.
Debate Round No. 2


"Martial law is the imposition of the highest-ranking military officer as the military governor or as the head of the government, thus removing all power from the previous executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government." -Wikipedia

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.


My opponent still hasn't provided sufficient proof or justification for why exactly authoritarianism is an inferior form of government to a democratic one. He has not directly countered my arguments, and has failed fulfil his burden of proof.

Please vote accordingly.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
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.