The Instigator
Lerch
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Sheldor
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Democracy is Inherently Violent

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/4/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 688 times Debate No: 35291
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

Lerch

Pro

First round - acceptance, clarification of position, brief opening statement.
Second, third, and fourth rounds - arguments, rebuttles, etc. as the participants see fit.



Democracy
  1. A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
  2. A state governed in such a way.


As pro, I take the position that Democracy is inherently violent, and that, if one believes that violence in acceptable only in self defense, one cannot support Democracy.



Sheldor

Con

I accept this debate, and contend that democracy is not inherently violent. I accept your definition.

Inherently
existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic
Violent
using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill

The BoP rests on pro to prove that democracy is inherently violent. As con, I will be trying to disprove this, and contend that democracy is not inherently violent.
Debate Round No. 1
Lerch

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting the challenge. I look forward to the ensuing educational, intellectual ping-pong of ideas.

Argument - Nature of Government


Those who believe that violence is only acceptable in self defense or defense of another can not also support government of any sort -- including Democracy. All government actions are funded by taxes, which are collected using violence and threats of violence. Implying that an individual has accepted a social contract upon birth is as illogical as those who stated that those who were born to enslaved parents consented to involuntary servitude upon birth. Implying that one must leave the geographical area -- expending valuable time and resources acquired through labor -- if they disprove of a majority's mandates, is equally illogical. If this were true, the slaves born to a plantation have somehow agreed to remain enslaved if they do not attempt to escape. Remaining in your current state, having not contractually agreed to participate in something, is not the same as consent. Dare I say -- consider rape.

My opponent will likely assert that most individuals have little or nothing against paying their 'fair share' of tax dollars in order to better secure their life, liberty, and property. This does not address, however, those who have not contractually agreed to do so and do not wish to participate. As explained above, the usual assertions that "they should just leave" are illogical and violent, as one must expend time and resources gained through labor in order to do so or face incarceration -- or death, should they defend themselves against such wrongful imprisonment.
Sheldor

Con

Sheldor forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Lerch

Pro

With hopes that my opponent returns, I will keep this next post brief, so as to allow adequate room for my opponent's rebuttals.


Remember the Argument from Consistency.

Not one individual that makes up the majority has the right to do all of the things that they supposedly give other individuals (whom we call government officials) the right to do. Again, one is entirely unjustified in attempting to allocate a right that they themselves do not have.

If individuals have the ability to allocate rights that they themselves are not in possession of, any criminal need only have a friend that excuses a murder by saying, "that's alright, I said he could kill them." Any pyromaniac needs only an acquaintance that excuses the destruction of another persons' property by saying, "calm down, I gave him permission." Any thief needs only one (or six) of the ten community members to say "it's alright, I/we gave him permission to steal those items."

The only thing that a democratic process does is create the illusion that the violence behind the forced compliance is somehow justified. Again, considering that not one of the individuals within the minority have the rights that they claim to give to other individuals, one can safely conclude that the system is immoral and based in violence.
Sheldor

Con

Sheldor forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Lerch

Pro

Lerch forfeited this round.
Sheldor

Con

Sheldor forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.