The Instigator
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
DawnBringerRiven
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Bryan Mullins: The New Idea Called "Electocracy" Vs. Democracy

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
DawnBringerRiven
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/26/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 weeks ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 326 times Debate No: 107118
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (29)
Votes (1)

 

BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2

Pro

Electocracy is the new political belief of electing an actually well experienced person, instead of someone really popular, or someone very inexperienced.

Electocracy is the new political belief of an election based not on opinion, but on fact.

Electocracy is the new political belief in no political party to divide us, nor bring us together. But, to make things clear, bias should not be in anyway, the influence on hpwho and how we elect somebody we choose.

Electocracy is the idea of no senate or house chamber, nor any politicians republican or democrat. For example, only real military experts lead our country into or out of war.

Comparing that to Democracy:

Democracy is only voting based on bias, no experience, and popularity.

Democracy is only flawed when people disagree with other people.

Democracy only depends on opinion and debate to determine war or not, if necessary.

Democracy is wrong, Electocracy is right.

Any con would do, let's debate!
DawnBringerRiven

Con

I. There is much more to being a leader than just experience.


II. Talent in many cases beats experience. [1]

III. It is impossible for the majority of the United States to make unbiased decisions.

IV. Unqualified presidents have excelled where qualified presidents have horribly failed in the past. [2]

V. Electocracy leaders can be corrupt and easily cripple the nation.

Argument I -

For convenience’s sake, I will focus on the role of POTUS. Being a President requires charisma, unbiased decisions, intelligence, and mental fortitude. These are qualities that cannot be learned through arguing with people on a weekly basis to get a law vetoed or passed as a politician, or simply bossing people around all day. Being the President requires personality and natural talent. Democracy allows individuals to evaluate all parts of a President Elect before deciding on who to vote for. In the case of an Electocracy, you are basing whether you should vote for a certain President Elect purely on their experience which is extremely flawed decision making. What if the President Elect in question is an extreme conservative who won’t pass any laws? The public won’t be allowed to know this as that information would make their voting decision biased. In an Electocracy, many Presidents will be elected as long as they have more experience than anyone else even if they have terrible decision making skills and a complete lack of intelligence.

Argument II -

I’m sure everyone has observed an individual in a proffession that has a decade or more of experience, but is still very unskilled. Such as a school teacher, or an athlete. A multitude of individuals get to a point in their career where they regurgitate the same methods without any consideration into how they can improve and simply never do. This is especially true for politicians and leaders. As I’ve said before, the skills required to be an effective leader/politician includes charisma, unbiased decisions, intelligence, and mental fortitude. These skills generally need special training, they are not mechanical skills that you can simpy learn by performing the same action over and over. An socially inept individual will not become a social butterfly simply by talking to others. Someone not so bright will not become a genius by completing puzzles or playing chess often. These are qualities that mostly rely on your natural genetics. As talent beats experiance in many, if not most cases, basing a vote purely on experience is completely flawed.

Argument III + V -

I couldn't expand these arguments. The character limit is only 4,000. I will do so in the next round.

Argument IV -

In an electocracy you must vote for President Elects purely on experience so allow me to present a voting decision based on two different presidents. President Elect A has served the majority of their life in the Army and has nearly no experience with politics or knowledge of the economy. President B headed a group that channeled thirty million tons of food, clothing, and supplies to weakened European countries in WW1, worked as secretaary of commerce for many years, and has extensive knowledge on USA and it’s world affairs. Voting purely on experience as an electocracy would, President B will win by a landslide. These two are actually real Presidents. President A is Dwight Eisenhower, who went on to ease tensions enough to avoid nuclear war (Cold War) with many other coutries and as well as ending the Korean War. Eisenhower was largely underqualified to become POTUS, yet he ended up becoming one of USA’s most successful presidents. President B on the other hand is Herbert Hoover. One of the worst Presidents in American history who did little to nothing to solve the economic depression and ordered a miliatary force to attack a group of peaceful protesters which resulted in innocent casualities. This example clearly shows that voting purely on qualifications is entirely flawed.

Sources:

[1] https://goo.gl...

[2] https://goo.gl...

Debate Round No. 1
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2

Pro

Here are my first rebuttals.

1. "Democracy allows individuals to evaluate all parts of a President Elect before deciding on who to vote for. In the case of an Electocracy, you are basing whether you should vote for a certain President Elect purely on their experience which is extremely flawed decision making. What if the President Elect in question is an extreme conservative who won"t pass any laws? The public won"t be allowed to know this as that information would make their voting decision biased. In an Electocracy, many Presidents will be elected as long as they have more experience than anyone else even if they have terrible decision making skills and a complete lack of intelligence."

It is not flawed that we must choose a president based on experience, logic, and perseverance. The public will, of course, be able to know the clear difference between an experienced, logical candidate; And, an inexperienced, illogical, foolish candidate. Electocracy is not for the election of multiple presidents, it is only the election of one president. You misrepresented Electocracy. Democracy is the election of a president of either an inexperienced, illogical, and foolish candidate; Or, A celebrity, for example, Oprah Winfrey. Electocracy also allows evaluation of candidates, and intellectual debates and conventions, but the clear difference is the result of the victory of one candidate to become a presumptive nominee is not based on bias, opinion, and influence. Democracy has many flaws, Staying undetermined of what the elected president will do for the country, instead of allowing an experienced person to be elected.

2. "As talent beats experiance in many, if not most cases, basing a vote purely on experience is completely flawed."

Talent has no value, as I have spotted a spelling error, I will debunk this argument. This argument is flawed, because it is saying that all experienced people have no intelligent, or credible (which is false). Also, you are misrepresenting Electocracy by saying that people who will properly lead our country should not be elected, which would cause this nation to collapse by lack of leadership.

3. "In an electocracy you must vote for President Elects purely on experience so allow me to present a voting decision based on two different presidents. President Elect A has served the majority of their life in the Army and has nearly no experience with politics or knowledge of the economy. President B headed a group that channeled thirty million tons of food, clothing, and supplies to weakened European countries in WW1, worked as secretaary of commerce for many years, and has extensive knowledge on USA and it"s world affairs. Voting purely on experience as an electocracy would, President B will win by a landslide. These two are actually real Presidents. President A is Dwight Eisenhower, who went on to ease tensions enough to avoid nuclear war (Cold War) with many other coutries and as well as ending the Korean War. Eisenhower was largely underqualified to become POTUS, yet he ended up becoming one of USA"s most successful presidents. President B on the other hand is Herbert Hoover. One of the worst Presidents in American history who did little to nothing to solve the economic depression."

First, I spotted a spelling error, second, it should not divide our nation, this entire argument is flawed. Comparing two presidents by bias is the reason Democracy fails, Electocracy determines which president must be elected based on political experience is NOT flawed, Democracy is flawed. I await your argument you promised to expand within the 4,000 character limit. I keep these debates simple and as equal as possible.

Music inspiration for Electocracy:
[1] https://m.youtube.com...
[2] https://m.youtube.com...
DawnBringerRiven

Con

III. It is impossible for the majority of the United States to make unbiased decisions.

V. Leaders can be corrupt and easily cripple the nation.


Argument III -

It is truly impossible for the majority of the United States to be unbiased when voting. If civilian A wants to go to war and civilian B wants peace, how do you expect them to not vote for the President that will make their wants come true? The only method to achieve this is by withholding information regarding every President Elect’s policies and opinions. Then, all that’s left for voters to decide is by who has the largest number of years working in a certain profession. At that point the election is basically rigged to where the oldest President Elect will certainly win. That is not at all efficient as unskilled or even corrupt, yet experienced individuals will become POTUS even though there are other more skilled but less experienced President Elects running for office.


Argument V -

Since an Electocracy lacks a senate, a house of representatives, and a parliament, it lacks checks and balances. The main advantage of democracy is that no part of the government is ultimately more powerful than any other, so that no one branch or individual can abuse their powers. In an Electocracy, it completely lacks these checks and balances. An Electocracy President is essentially an elected dictator. This president will act in an arbitrary manner and can not be impeached until the next election. This means that if a corrupt or weak leader is elected, the country will be tremendously crippled by this leader’s ill informed or corrupt decisions.


Rebuttal I - “Democracy is flawed. Democracy is nothing more than a popularity contest. Voting based purely on experience is not flawed.”


Rebuttal: I would prefer Pro provide more reasoning for his claims, as I have spotted multiple bare assertions. Firstly, Democracy is not a popularity contest. Who is elected president is not elected by popular vote. They are elected by electoral vote. For example, in the latest election Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, but still lost the election. The electoral vote system ensures that smaller states still have nearly as much of a voice in elections as much larger states. It is more apt to say that Democracy is a contest of winning over states as a whole, rather than the majority of the country’s population. It seems Pro has misinterpreted my statements. I am aware that Electocracy is not the election of multiple Presidents. President Elect is just another term for Presidential Candidate. I have already explained why voting purely on experience is flawed, yet Pro counters this only by plainly stating this practice is not flawed. This is the equivalent of a Professor giving an hour long lecture and one student at the end just plainly states, “That’s not true.” I implore Pro to further explain his reasoning.


Rebuttal II - "Talent is useless. This is false because Con stated that experienced individuals are all lacking intelligence."

Rebuttal: Firstly, this rebuttal does not make any logical sense as I have spotted a Red Herring fallacy. I did not state that all experienced individuals are unintelligent. I stated basing votes *purely* on the most experienced individuals is flawed as they are still potentially unintelligent/unskilled and later gave an example of that being the case, I.E. Herbert Hoover. Once again, Pro will have to further explain his reasoning.


Rebuttal III - "Unqualified Presidents have not failed where qualified Presidents have succeeded in the past. This is false because Democracy is based on bias. Electocracy is not based on bias, so it is automatically superior."


Rebuttal: First, I have spotted yet another Red Herring fallacy. My point is basing votes *purely* on experience is flawed. Experienced people have failed in the past many times. Talented individuals have succeeded nearly, if not more times than those who lack talent but only have experience. My source shows this to be evident.


Debate Round No. 2
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2

Pro

Let me reinstate my rebuttal argument and my rebuttals.

It is not flawed that we must choose a president based on experience, logic, and perseverance. The public will, of course, be able to know the clear difference between an experienced, logical candidate; And, an inexperienced, illogical, foolish candidate. Electocracy is not for the election of multiple presidents, it is only the election of one president. You misrepresented Electocracy. Democracy is the election of a president of either an inexperienced, illogical, and foolish candidate; Or, A celebrity, for example, Oprah Winfrey. Electocracy also allows evaluation of candidates, and intellectual debates and conventions, but the clear difference is the result of the victory of one candidate to become a presumptive nominee is not based on bias, opinion, and influence. Democracy has many flaws, Staying undetermined of what the elected president will do for the country, instead of allowing an experienced person to be elected.

2. "As talent beats experiance in many, if not most cases, basing a vote purely on experience is completely flawed."

Talent has no value, as I have spotted a spelling error, I will debunk this argument. This argument is flawed, because it is saying that all experienced people have no intelligent, or credible (which is false). Also, you are misrepresenting Electocracy by saying that people who will properly lead our country should not be elected, which would cause this nation to collapse by lack of leadership.

3. "In an electocracy you must vote for President Elects purely on experience so allow me to present a voting decision based on two different presidents. President Elect A has served the majority of their life in the Army and has nearly no experience with politics or knowledge of the economy. President B headed a group that channeled thirty million tons of food, clothing, and supplies to weakened European countries in WW1, worked as secretaary of commerce for many years, and has extensive knowledge on USA and it"s world affairs. Voting purely on experience as an electocracy would, President B will win by a landslide. These two are actually real Presidents. President A is Dwight Eisenhower, who went on to ease tensions enough to avoid nuclear war (Cold War) with many other coutries and as well as ending the Korean War. Eisenhower was largely underqualified to become POTUS, yet he ended up becoming one of USA"s most successful presidents. President B on the other hand is Herbert Hoover. One of the worst Presidents in American history who did little to nothing to solve the economic depression."

First, I spotted a spelling error, second, it should not divide our nation, this entire argument is flawed. Comparing two presidents by bias is the reason Democracy fails, Electocracy determines which president must be elected based on political experience is NOT flawed, Democracy is flawed. I await your argument you promised to expand within the 4,000 character limit. I keep these debates simple and as equal as possible.

Music inspiration for Electocracy:
[1] https://m.youtube.com...
[2] https://m.youtube.com...
DawnBringerRiven

Con

My opponent has decided to repeat his last round. Not that I’m complaining, since I now have double the space to work with. I’d like to point out that Pro did not even attempt to address the two new arguments I presented. As rebuttal I is already fully explained, I will only be extending rebuttals II and III.

Rebuttal II - Talent is useless. This is false because Con stated that experienced individuals are all lacking intelligence.


Rebuttal II extended: This is clearly a Red Herring fallacy. Allow me to break down exactly what went wrong in Pro’s rebuttal.


Definition of Red Herring Fallacy-“A fallacious argument style in which an irrelevant or false topic is presented in an attempt to divert attention from the original issue, with the intention of "winning" an argument by leading attention away from the original argument and on to another, often unrelated topic.”

The topic of my rebuttal is that talent surpasses experience the majority of the time; therefore, talented yet non-experienced individuals should not be ignored when voting. The source I provided supports this notion. Now I ask Pro, how does stating that all who are experienced lack intelligence relate to the claim that talent should not be ignored? Short answer: It doesn’t and I never stated that. I already clarified how I did not intend that meaning in my original rebuttal above. Pro is not only committing a Red Herring by bringing up an irrelevant topic, but has also committed a Strawman fallacy by misrepresenting the intended meaning of my statements. Pro’s rebuttal is off topic and based on a misinterpretation of my words, therefore it is fundamentally flawed. Pro needs to present a different rebuttal. He needs to prove that experience alone beats talent the majority of the time. Pro can not refute my points by making bare assertions and simply stating that my arguments are flawed and treating that as self-evident. Point. Out. All. Flaws. And. Explain.


Rebuttal III - Unqualified Presidents have not failed where qualified Presidents have succeeded in the past. This is false because Democracy is based on bias. Electocracy is not based on bias, so it is automatically superior.


Rebuttal III Extended: Allow me to once again break down Pro’s mistakes. I presented the topic that basing votes purely on experience is flawed as exceptionally experienced presidents have failed in the past where inexperienced presidents have succeeded. Experience does not automatically mean that the person is skilled. Pro only counters this by stating my argument is based on bias without even explaining why bias invalidates the logic or how it directly relates to my argument. This is why this rebuttal is a Red Herring. Though since I have extra space, I will entertain this rebuttal. In this argument I reinforced the claim that experienced individuals are still potentially unskilled. While talented, yet inexperienced individuals are still potentially exceptionally skilled. I showed this to be evident by presenting an exceptionally experienced President who failed throughout his time as POTUS, Herbert Hoover and gave examples of his greatest failures. I also showed an example of an inexperienced, yet talented President Dwight Eisenhower and gave examples of how he succeeded throughout his time as POTUS. Pro labels this comparison as inherently flawed as he believes it is based in bias. There is a clear cut difference between pure bias and logical evaluation. Coming to a conclusion on whether a president was a failure or successful based on the culmination of their actions and the consequences of those actions is not in the slightest a biased evaluation. I implore Pro to explain how bias relates to my argument. How my evaluation is biased. How bias invalidates my reasoning. How Electocracy elections aren’t biased. And lastly, how lacking bias makes an Electocracy automatically superior to democracy. Oh, and don’t forget to address arguments III and V as well as Rebuttal I. Good luck.


Debate Round No. 3
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2

Pro

Here are some more rebuttals.

"This is false because Con stated that experienced individuals are all lacking intelligence."

No, I didn't say that, the Pro said that.

"
The topic of my rebuttal is that talent surpasses experience the majority of the time; therefore, talented yet non-experienced individuals should not be ignored when voting. The source I provided supports this notion. Now I ask Pro, how does stating that all who are experienced lack intelligence relate to the claim that talent should not be ignored? Short answer: It doesn’t and I never stated that. I already clarified how I did not intend that meaning in my original rebuttal above. Pro is not only committing a Red Herring by bringing up an irrelevant topic, but has also committed a Strawman fallacy by misrepresenting the intended meaning of my statements. Pro’s rebuttal is off topic and based on a misinterpretation of my words, therefore it is fundamentally flawed. Pro needs to present a different rebuttal. He needs to prove that experience alone beats talent the majority of the time. Pro can not refute my points by making bare assertions and simply stating that my arguments are flawed and treating that as self-evident."

You said opposite about talented people, let me quote you as proof. "Democracy allows individuals to evaluate all parts of a President Elect before deciding on who to vote for. In the case of an Electocracy, you are basing whether you should vote for a certain President Elect purely on their experience which is extremely flawed decision making. What if the President Elect in question is an extreme conservative who won"t pass any laws? The public won"t be allowed to know this as that information would make their voting decision biased. In an Electocracy, many Presidents will be elected as long as they have more experience than anyone else even if they have terrible decision making skills and a complete lack of intelligence." You can't just lie about what you said before, that is committing a red herring fallacy. Experienced people should always be elected, not the ones who don't have experience who would lead our country to Debt, Corruption, and Dishonesty.

"I would prefer Pro provide more reasoning for his claims, as I have spotted multiple bare assertions. Firstly, Democracy is not a popularity contest. Who is elected president is not elected by popular vote. They are elected by electoral vote. For example, in the latest election Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, but still lost the election. The electoral vote system ensures that smaller states still have nearly as much of a voice in elections as much larger states. It is more apt to say that Democracy is a contest of winning over states as a whole, rather than the majority of the country’s population. It seems Pro has misinterpreted my statements. I am aware that Electocracy is not the election of multiple Presidents. President Elect is just another term for Presidential Candidate. I have already explained why voting purely on experience is flawed, yet Pro counters this only by plainly stating this practice is not flawed. This is the equivalent of a Professor giving an hour long lecture and one student at the end just plainly states, “That’s not true.” I implore Pro to further explain his reasoning."

The polls predicting the 2016 election were completely wrong. That's one Democratic flaw. Also, like I said before, It is not flawed that we must choose a president based on experience, logic, and perseverance. The public will, of course, be able to know the clear difference between an experienced, logical candidate; And, an inexperienced, illogical, foolish candidate. Electocracy is not for the election of multiple presidents, Democracy is the election of a president of either an inexperienced, illogical, and foolish candidate; Or, A celebrity, for example, Oprah Winfrey.

There, I made new rebuttals.



DawnBringerRiven

Con


It seems that pro has given up on making rebuttals. In his last round, Pro simply reiterated points he's already brought up, and did not present any new rebuttals.

Argument I - Con is lying about not claiming all experienced individuals are lacking intelligence.

Rebuttal: Firstly, I have spotted a Fallacy Fallacy. Even if I was lying, (which I am not) that alone will not invalidate my points.

Definition of a Fallacy Fallacy - "Concluding that the truth value of an argument is false based on the fact that the argument contains a fallacy."

Example:

Ivan: You cannot borrow my car because it turns back into a pumpkin at midnight.

Sidney: If you really think that, you’re an idiot.

Ivan: That is an ad hominem fallacy; therefore, I can’t be an idiot.

Sidney: I beg to differ.


The paragraph that Pro got the idea that I stated this from clearly said, and I quote, ". . . whether you should vote for a certain President Elect purely on their experience which is extremely flawed decision making." If you haven't noticed yet, the key word in this sentence is purely. I stated that voting purely on experience and dismissing every other factor is a flawed way to vote. This statement in no way means or implies that all experienced individuals are unintelligent. It only states that experienced persons are potentially unintelligent/unskilled. I made this point because Pro speaks as if being experience will certainly lead to exceptional skill in every area of a profession. I've already shown this to be false with the first source I provided. Now that this point is clarified beyond a shadow of a doubt, I do hope that Pro will create a valid refutation to this point.

Argument II - “Democracy is flawed. Democracy is nothing more than a popularity contest. Voting based purely on experience is not flawed.”

Rebuttal I -
Yes indeed, this rebuttal is the exact same argument Pro brought up in round two and just worded slightly differently that I have already refuted. Pro simply added another off topic bare assertion to it. Let's compare both times Pro introduced this argument.

"The polls predicting the 2016 election were completely wrong. That's one Democratic flaw. Also, like I said before, It is not flawed that we must choose a president based on experience, logic, and perseverance. The public will, of course, be able to know the clear difference between an experienced, logical candidate; And, an inexperienced, illogical, foolish candidate. Electocracy is not for the election of multiple presidents, Democracy is the election of a president of either an inexperienced, illogical, and foolish candidate; Or, A celebrity, for example, Oprah Winfrey."

"It is not flawed that we must choose a president based on experience, logic, and perseverance. The public will, of course, be able to know the clear difference between an experienced, logical candidate; And, an inexperienced, illogical, foolish candidate. Electocracy is not for the election of multiple presidents, it is only the election of one president. You misrepresented Electocracy. Democracy is the election of a president of either an inexperienced, illogical, and foolish candidate; Or, A celebrity, for example, Oprah Winfrey."

Since this is the exact same argument I can simply extend my original rebuttal. A poll being wrong is not at all significant in the slightest as to how democracy functions.

Shortened Original Rebuttal: Firstly, Democracy is not a popularity contest. Who is elected president is not elected by popular vote. They are elected by electoral vote. It is more apt to say that Democracy is a contest of winning over all states, rather than the majority of the country’s population. It seems Pro has misinterpreted my statements. I am aware that Electocracy is not the election of multiple Presidents. President Elect is just another term for Presidential Candidate. I have already explained why voting purely on experience is flawed, yet Pro counters this only by plainly stating this practice is not flawed.



Debate Round No. 4
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2

Pro

Here is my conclusion.

Electocracy is the new political belief of electing an actually well experienced person, instead of someone really popular, or someone very inexperienced.

Electocracy is the new political belief of an election based not on opinion, but on fact.

Electocracy is the new political belief in no political party to divide us, nor bring us together. But, to make things clear, bias should not be in anyway, the influence on hpwho and how we elect somebody we choose.

Electocracy is the idea of no senate or house chamber, nor any politicians republican or democrat. For example, only real military experts lead our country into or out of war.

Comparing that to Democracy:

Democracy is only voting based on bias, no experience, and popularity.

Democracy is only flawed when people disagree with other people.

Democracy only depends on opinion and debate to determine war or not, if necessary.

Democracy is wrong, Electocracy is right.

1. "Democracy allows individuals to evaluate all parts of a President Elect before deciding on who to vote for. In the case of an Electocracy, you are basing whether you should vote for a certain President Elect purely on their experience which is extremely flawed decision making. What if the President Elect in question is an extreme conservative who won"t pass any laws? The public won"t be allowed to know this as that information would make their voting decision biased. In an Electocracy, many Presidents will be elected as long as they have more experience than anyone else even if they have terrible decision making skills and a complete lack of intelligence."

It is not flawed that we must choose a president based on experience, logic, and perseverance. The public will, of course, be able to know the clear difference between an experienced, logical candidate; And, an inexperienced, illogical, foolish candidate. Electocracy is not for the election of multiple presidents, it is only the election of one president. You misrepresented Electocracy. Democracy is the election of a president of either an inexperienced, illogical, and foolish candidate; Or, A celebrity, for example, Oprah Winfrey. Electocracy also allows evaluation of candidates, and intellectual debates and conventions, but the clear difference is the result of the victory of one candidate to become a presumptive nominee is not based on bias, opinion, and influence. Democracy has many flaws, Staying undetermined of what the elected president will do for the country, instead of allowing an experienced person to be elected.

2. "As talent beats experiance in many, if not most cases, basing a vote purely on experience is completely flawed."

This argument is flawed, because it is saying that all experienced people have no intelligent, or credible (which is false). Also, you are misrepresenting Electocracy by saying that people who will properly lead our country should not be elected, which would cause this nation to collapse by lack of leadership.

That is your main argument.

Here is the definition of Electocracy:
"An electocracy is a political system where citizens are able to vote for their government but cannot participate directly in governmental decision making and where the government does not share any power. In contrast to democracy where citizens are able to participate in the making of decisions that affect them, electocracy sees decision-making limited to an elected individual or group who may then govern in an arbitrary and unaccountable manner until the next election." [1]

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

Since the con assumed that I committed a fallacy for countering his claims, Vote Pro!
Since Whenever I reinstate an argument to debunk his main argument, Vote Pro!

And finally, since the Con is the one who committed the fallacy, Vote Pro!
DawnBringerRiven

Con

Concluding argument: Electocracy is an elective dictatorship where civilians hold no power over government decisions. The only power they hold is to vote. If the electocracy leader is corrupt or weak, the country will be serverly crippled by their ill decisions as this president has the powers of a dictator. Electocratic Presidents can not be impeached. Power is hugely uneqaul and can easily be abused as there is no checks and balances system. In Presidential Democracy civilians have a lot of say in the governement's decisions and there is a checks and balances system to eliminate abuse of power from one branch or individual. For these reasons it is clear that a Presidential Democracy is vastly superior.

Final Remarks: Throughout this debate Pro has decided to copy and paste an entire round not once, not twice, but three times. All of the three sources Pro has used do not support his argument, which consist of "music inspiration" and a one paragraph wiki page. Out of all of the arguments I presented Pro did not address the vast majority of them. Who won this debate is painfully clear.
Debate Round No. 5
29 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by frankfurter50 1 week ago
frankfurter50
I think I have a pretty good idea. I also have a pretty good idea about how wrong YOU are.
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 1 week ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
@frankfurter50 you have no idea how wrong you are.
Posted by frankfurter50 2 weeks ago
frankfurter50
No, I just hate all your profile pictures, because I know they're produced by an inhuman monster whose burden of proof weighs approximately the weight of the Great Pyramid and the Burj Khalifa combined. You're a sad person, Bryan.
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 2 weeks ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
Do you hate cats, Frank?
Posted by frankfurter50 2 weeks ago
frankfurter50
No.
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 2 weeks ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
Do you like my new profile photo?
Posted by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 2 weeks ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
I was laughing at frankfurter50's funny troll comment.
Posted by DawnBringerRiven 2 weeks ago
DawnBringerRiven
Are you trolling bro
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Leaning 1 week ago
Leaning
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2DawnBringerRivenTied
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 argument that having a single leader in power enables them to make decisions that will be the best for the people is persuasive. However I find Con argument that this can lead to dictatorship without checks and balances to be more convincing.---- I also find that Pro leans to heavily on experience as the deciding factor, which I find to be highly unconvincing argument as well as Pro saying that democracy only votes on popularity. I don't see why Cons examples of presidents would be flawed, unless the complaint for that is he did not show more examples, I do not feel he needed to. Pro did not explain how people of a Electocracy are going to always agree with each other unlike Democracy.-- Conduct, spelling, grammar,were approximately equal. Sources.. I am going to say equal although I do feel that Cons were more in depth, it is not worth that many points. Apologies if I missed anything or have a flawed vote.