The Instigator
JusticePrevails
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Duncan
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

Democracy is a flawed system

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 5 votes the winner is...
Duncan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/19/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,807 times Debate No: 35767
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (5)

 

JusticePrevails

Pro

First round is to accept.

I'm pretty sure that a lot of people will be willing to take this subject up and so I look forward to taking on whoever is willing to do so.

Good Luck.
Duncan

Con

You have obtained my curiosity. I may not be able to answer tomorrow since I am going on a trip to a place that does not know the beauty that is wifi. But I believe you must have an amazing argument, one that I desire to challenge. Have at you, Justice! (And if you are Justice, will you at some point do the Judge Dredd I AM THE LAW shout?)

Duncan. (Yes, I sign each argument. Don't judge me.)
Debate Round No. 1
JusticePrevails

Pro

Thank you Duncan, for accepting this debate. I just want you to understand you are going to point out that democracy is a perfect system. Despite me putting you in a bit of an unfair situation, I hope we can still have an enthralling debate.

Something which is perfect cannot be improved, right? Yet a perfect political system would be one in which everyone prospers and justice prevails. However, I would like to point out that a democratic system does not match this criterion.

Looking at a democratic system, it's core concept is that the majority of people stay satisfied. Yet the very concept of this is flawed. 3 people could bully 1 innocent kid and you could say that most of the people who are involved are satisfied by what is going on, yet to comprehend such a thing and to approve of it morally is unethical and plain wrong.

Bad people can democratically elect a bad person. In my opinion a system which can allow that is...bad.

And no, I am not the law.
Duncan

Con

Oh ho, I see your idea, and I do not fear your trap of a title. You see, demo-cracy, control by the people, is the most fair and representational system available. If you are from America, I can see why you would argue this, but in Ireland, we use proportional representation as our system. It means that you have several votes. If you vote for Adam, and he comes last in the election, then your vote goes to the second preference. And so forth. In Northern Ireland, our neighbour (unless you ask our republicans) they have a system by which even if the Protestant Community were to claim a majority, they would still have to share power with the Catholic and Presbyterian minorities, as well as any others that claim to be discriminated. You see, democracy itself is not flawed, but neither is Communism. The problem is human nature. Human nature is flawed so that people put in a position of power will abuse it, and without an authority figure few see a desire to follow society if their desires are not met by the powers that be. It is not the idea, but the enforcement, that is the problem.

Awaiting your response,

Duncan.
Debate Round No. 2
JusticePrevails

Pro

Many thanks for your reply. I find you to be quite the charismatic and audacious type seeing as you credit Communism to be a system with no flaws.To say that we a have a flawless system and the flaws only lie within ourself is something that I strongly disagree. After all, surely a flawless system would not expose our own flaws? That being said, it would be easy for you to say no system can cover our flaws. And I agree. The fact is that every system has flaws [Which in turn expose our flaws] and to think otherwise, [Pardon me if you deem this offensive] is delusional.

Me, be being someone who has lived in England for over 10 years [I'm only 13], is not as familiar with proportional representation as you are and so I do not feel it necessary to voice my opinion on that. However, if later on in this debate this ties in with democracy in greater depth, I will comment on it.
Duncan

Con

The problem most often with democracy is the position of power and the selfishness of people. We have built a system by which elected leader serve for a specific length of time. If no one likes Cameron, it's too bad, because you have to wait for the next election. This is an improper system of democracy as there is no way to remove him early, but this is not a flaw with the idea of people choosing a leader, in the same way that if you have a cake recipe and you don't follow it fully and end up burning the cake, that is not a flaw with the recipe, rather with your excecution of the method given. The nature of power is corruptive, and not enough measures are in place to prevent that, but that is not democracy's flaw, it is our lack of control, our nature, that is the problem.
Communism, the idea of all working for the same pay to better society falls apart when a doctor no longer appreciates the idea that the binman gets the same wage. (And he'll be angry if his bins aren't collected either) this isn't a flaw with being generous, rather the doctor at hand unnappreciative of the concept of altruism. (unfair of me to pick doctor, as doctors are often altruistic, ok, solicitors)

Awaiting your response,

Duncan.
Debate Round No. 3
JusticePrevails

Pro

The fact that you feel we are to blame when a governmental system collapses is a a interesting thing seeing as you can effectively attribute 99% of the worlds problems to using that form of criticism.

What I am trying to project to you is the fact that a system with no flaws can only justify it's title when then the people under that system do not have their own flaws exposed, thus creating what effectively can be classified as a utopian society.

Also, the analogy you make about the cake doesn't work, because if the cake was Cameron, and the majority of the population detested him. They would give up on the cake, leaving it "unfinished" and probably something you wouldn't want to look at.

The fact that a democratic system cannot oust a PM [Who would have a very low approval rating] clearly displays a flaw within the system, and not within the people.
Duncan

Con

Since the Cameron example has been going well so far, I'd like to point out another way the analogy of cake mix works. If you get a Cameron flavored cake, and you hate the taste of it, throw it out, you don't have to eat it. You have a problem with the current election and rule system that Britain follows, but that is not to do with the idea of choosing a leader, because a true democracy would hold a new election and elect someone else. Human laziness and greed is the cause of most porblems in the world; people abuse their power, and those who could stop them stand idly by. This is not a flaw with Democracy. It's a problem with Britain.

Awaiting your response,

Duncan.
Debate Round No. 4
JusticePrevails

Pro

I'm assuming that your perception of a "true democracy" is one in which a leader is overthrown the moment the leader has the minority approval rate.

Let me put this into the Cameron analogy:

While the cake is being baked, you taste a bit of the cake to see if it is progressing well. You end up spitting it out because you hate the taste of it. However you keep faith in the cake and see through the 4 years [Unrealistic, I know] it takes to be completed. By the end, the cake tastes very tasty and you end up feeling happy you kept faith in the cake.

If a true democracy is one in which you keep on changing the cake halfway through it's baking process, it's highly unlikely you'll end up with one which is liked. That would mean this "true democracy" has a major flaw. You say the people are flawed, yet it is the people who make the system.

If you wish a true democracy to throw out a Prime Minister the moment he begins to be resented, there would be a see-saw effect, with PM'S coming in and out multiple times a year. That is a very disturbing dystopian outlook and goes further to project my point that any type of democracy is flawed.

Once a again, I must thank you for your participation in this debate. Perhaps we may cross paths again.
Duncan

Con

The leader elected would step down when the people felt that he was no longer fufilling the promises he had made. If people are unsatisfied with Cameron, they obviously don't hate him enough to march on Parliament and demand his recognition. Rather, this disapproval stems from impatience and annoyance that the PM is not fufilling their personal desires. I refer to Augusto Pinochet's facist regime in Chile in the 80s, where when the elections finally came, many were fine with him because they did not suffer from any injustice at his hands. Society is a constant battle for every individual, between the things they give up (taxes, laws) and the things they get in return (social security, public works) To say that human nature must be flawless for a system to be flawless is a ridiculous conception.

I too, have enjoyed this debate,

Duncan.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by JusticePrevails 4 years ago
JusticePrevails
Congratulations Duncan> the pendulum is swinging in your favour.

29 more days to go though, lol :)
Posted by thegreenslayer 4 years ago
thegreenslayer
Of course both parties have flaws.democrats just have more than republicans
Posted by JusticePrevails 4 years ago
JusticePrevails
I had a previous account which I do not wish do disclose. I've been here a while :)
Posted by Duncan 4 years ago
Duncan
I'm always looking for a challenge, and there's no need to change the topic. Let's go! Oh, and I do a little research into my opponents during a debate. I forgot you would not know the Judge Dredd reference, as the film is old. Oh, and I see you're a new debater? Good luck, and welcome to Debate.org!
Posted by JusticePrevails 4 years ago
JusticePrevails
Sorry for the vague statement.

Of course any form of government system is flawed but what I should have said was to prove the efficiency.

Duncan, if you happen to be reading this, sorry if I put you into a deep pit :/

Good luck anyhow.
Posted by Habermas 4 years ago
Habermas
I was going to argue with you on this, but there is no point, because it's far too easy to prove that democracy is a flawed system. What does someone have to show its perfect?
Posted by nordmarj 4 years ago
nordmarj
That democracy has no flaws would be a bold statement indeed, as the previous commenters say. I could take the debate for democracy against the common objections if the wording was a little more humble, such as "democracy is not the best system available".
Posted by Emmo 4 years ago
Emmo
exactly what i was gonna say everything is flawed, argument doesn't male sense. are you expecting someone to prove that democracy is perfect?
Posted by MrJosh 4 years ago
MrJosh
I'm interested to see if anyone will take this debate; it seems pretty ironclad for PRO. Of course democracy is flawed, every system is flawed.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Piccini 4 years ago
Piccini
JusticePrevailsDuncanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: Easy debate for Pro, who managed to be defeated, though. Should have explored other angles (for example, if the majority of society is stupid, the majority opinion will be stupid, and so on).
Vote Placed by HostileBelief 4 years ago
HostileBelief
JusticePrevailsDuncanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Duncan provides us with several arguments of hope as to why a democracy can still work despite it's problems.
Vote Placed by TheAntidoter 4 years ago
TheAntidoter
JusticePrevailsDuncanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to con, as the delusional remark, although understandable, is still unnecessary. Spelling and grammer goes to Con, as not only did PRo have more absences of spaces where they should be like after typing "," or "..." Convincing arguments Goes to con, But with a bit of rewording to say about it's practical application, goes to pro. This is my First RFD, keep that in mind and have a great Day! P.S. Please use sources, I could not give any of you points for it due to that.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
JusticePrevailsDuncanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con seems to agree that democracy is a flawed system and attributes the flaw to being a result of human nature, and so not a flaw of the system per se. Pro correctly identified the problem: in a pure democracy there is no independent guarantee of human rights. Bullies can prevail. Pro did not give systemic cure, which is an independent judiciary charged with protecting human rights through constitutional guarantees or the equivalent. Pro argued weakly, but all he had to do was show a flaw in democracy, which he did -- that individual rights are not guaranteed. Duncan, best not to sign arguments, as a debate should be impersonal -- about the arguments and not who makes them. However, there is no rule against it.
Vote Placed by MisterDeku 4 years ago
MisterDeku
JusticePrevailsDuncanTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: This was an excellent debate. There was a lot of clash since there were five rounds, but the rounds weren't so long that the core arguments got muddled. I'm going to have to try having this kind of debate in the future. I give Con conduct because of Pro's attempt to place the BOP on him. The instigator maintains the burden of proof even if the resolution is set up to imply the other person has the responsibility to prove it true. Con handles this marvelously and still provides a compelling argument that people are at fault instead of governmental systems. I also give Con arguments because I don't hear a good refutation to this argument. Pro argues that we may end up electing an unqualified person through democracy, but as Con shows that's a fault of the people, not the system. Great debate guys! I enjoyed reading it!