The Instigator
Max.Wallace
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
daem0n
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Bring it.

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...
daem0n
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/18/2015 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 367 times Debate No: 75484
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

Max.Wallace

Pro

Tyrannical leadership is all leadership. period.
daem0n

Con

Pro argues every leader is a tyrant. I can disprove that merely by showing there likely exists a leader who is not a tyrant.

Definitions

A leader is someone whom people follow. There are leaders in government (people follow their authority). There are leaders in popular culture (people follow their trends). There are leaders in businesses, families, games, and every form of group interaction where everyone does not just do whatever he feels like doing. Even a tour guide is a leader.

A tyrant, by Plato's and Aristotle's definition, "rules without law, looks to his own advantage rather than that of his subjects, and uses extreme and cruel tactics"against his own people as well as others." [1]

Counterexamples to Pro's position

There are leaders who do not rule at all. A tour guide merely guides people on a path and teaches them about what they see. They follow because they want to. They can leave at any time.

There are leaders who rule by law. In the US, we elect people into Congress. They are leaders and their job is simply to write laws for people to follow. They do not have the authority to tell citizens what to do without writing it in the form of a law that must be approved by several hundred other people.

There are leaders who rule without law, but they look to their subjects' advantages rather than their own. Parents have authority over their children. You could say parents "rule" their children when they tell them to eat their vegetables, go to bed on time, etc., even when the children do not want to. Parents do this so their children will grow up healthy and strong, which is clearly to the advantage of the children.

In similar ways, I could show there are leaders who rule without law and look to their own advantage but do not use extreme and cruel tactics. I could also show there are leaders who rule without law, look to their own advantage, and use extreme and cruel tactics, just not against their own people.

But I think I have proven my point.

Sources

[1] http://www.mconway.net...
Debate Round No. 1
Max.Wallace

Pro

My bad, I meant all political leaders, including religious ones, not Plato and Aristotle's definitions, and I certainly do not believe tour guides are leaders, they are guides, and guides are not tyrannical.

All political leaders pick an adversary and woo allies in order to place their supporters in a better position of power, with little to no regard as to who is under their direct political enemies that will bear the brunt of their aspirations, which is to lead the people. This is the truth.
daem0n

Con

Summary

- Pro is expected to prove every leader is a tyrant, even though he denies this in R2.
- Pro implicitly agrees with me on what a tyrant is.
- Pro agrees with me that there are leaders who are not tyrants.
- Pro agrees with me that there are political leaders who are not tyrants.
- There are religious leaders who are not tyrants.

Detail

Pro is evidently bitter toward politicians and religious leaders. So he decided to start a debate to express his feelings. Did he make any kind of effort to write a topic that indicates what the debate is about, or an R1 post that clearly lays out what he is trying to prove or what he expects his opponent to argue? No. He chose "Bring it." as his topic and said literally nothing in R1 other than that all leadership is tyranny. Not all political and religous leadership. Just "leadership".

It is Pro's responsibility to define, clearly, what the debate is about before the debate begins. Therefore, his R1 post should be taken at face value. It should be assumed that he wins only if he convinces the voter that indeed every leader is a tyrant. If he may redefine the debate in R2, then that defeats the purpose of even having a topic and an R1. If everyone could get away with that, then what would be the point in debating?

Now, if "leadership" truly means "leadership" and not "politics and religion", then what is tyranny? I define it in R1. Pro in R2 indirectly refers to this definition with the non sequitur phrase "not Plato and Aristotle's definitions". But he offers no different definition. If he really disagreed with me and cared to prove his point, then he would have offered one. Therefore, we can assume he agrees with me on what a tyrant is.

So, is every leader a tyrant?

Clearly not. I say in R1 that a parent is a leader over a family. There are parents who are not tyrants. Pro does not contradict either of these statements (and therefore agrees with both). That counterexample disproves his position.

Furthermore, not every political leader is a tyrant. I say in R1 that a US congressman is a leader. I also prove congressmen are not tyrants. Pro does not contradict either of these statements (and therefore agrees with both). That counterexample disproves his position.

I am honestly having a hard time understanding the grammar of Pro's second paragraph in R2. But wooing allies and competing against adversaries is hardy "tyranny". There is no rule without law. There are neither extreme nor cruel tactics. Furthermore, the very fact that they must compete against each other proves they have no capability to become tyrants. You know what they compete for? Votes. From the citizens. This competition forces politicians to act in the citizens' interest, because citizens would not vote for someone who completely disregarded them. Sure, politicians have a selfish motive to preserve their career. But if they truly only acted in their own interests, then their careers would end very soon.

Furthermore, not every religious leader is a tyrant.

There are religious leaders who do not rule at all. When you organize a couples' retreat for your church, you are certainly taking a leadership role, but you have no authority over the people attending. They may leave at any time.

There are religious leaders who rule (stretching the definition of "rule") by law. The Presbyterian Church of America has the Book of Church Order (BCO) [1] which outlines, in great detail, their form of church government and their disciplinary rules. They have several levels of leadership. At every level, a leader is expected to follow the BCO or else be removed from church office.

These are three general counterexamples to Pro's claim.

You know who is a tyrant? Joseph Stalin. Pol Pot. Kim Jong-Il. Mao Zedong. If "tyrant" can refer both to these people and to US congressmen, then it is a useless term because it conveys no information.

[1] http://www.pcaac.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Max.Wallace

Pro

All that nonsense you just wrote shows how brainwashed you are. Just my opinion, but also the truth. Good luck with your heads or tails ideals.
daem0n

Con

My opponent has given up on this debate, as he admits in the comments.

He took the position that every leader is a tyrant; I gave examples of social, political, and religious leaders who are not tyrants; he had no response.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Max.Wallace 1 year ago
Max.Wallace
As Gruber would say, voters are idiots. I feel no loss.
Posted by Max.Wallace 1 year ago
Max.Wallace
I did NOT "give up", as my adversary states. I quit working for the establishment, which they support.
Posted by Max.Wallace 1 year ago
Max.Wallace
Convincing folks is what priests do. I have not lost, only someone convinced voted.
Posted by Max.Wallace 1 year ago
Max.Wallace
If I cared about winning debates, I would win. nuff saud.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lol101 1 year ago
lol101
Max.Wallacedaem0nTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had basically resorted to forfeiture.
Vote Placed by Varrack 1 year ago
Varrack
Max.Wallacedaem0nTied
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: Pro dropped all of Con's arguments and conceded the debate.