Democracy is a form of Tyranny
Democracy is tyranny because, inevitably, the majority will overrule the minority. Within the system of democracy, the largest party is right, and forces its opinions on others. For example, the United States is very democratic. And it was the will of the people, for the first century of America's existence, that the negro population was so inferior to the aryans, they were considered inhuman. As such, they were brutally enslaved and abused for generations, until the 13th amendment was passed in 1865. Even then, society ruled that blacks were second class, and not until the late fifties were negroes given equal rights. The democracy of America subjected the minority to tyrannical rule. The resolution has been proven true.
Today, in America, we still operate under the same democracy. And the people are still oppressed. The Republican and Democratic parties entirely control our political system, and because of this, one who does not subscribe to either party's kool-aid will not see fair representation in government. Once again, democracy, by denying the rights of minorities, grants tyrannical power to the majority.
In conclusion, we see that democracy is a failed system when it comes to ensuring that all have equal rights, and as such is a form of tyranny. Our only hope is to turn to the principles of a constitutional republic, such as Rome was at its founding. The resolution stands.
Thank you, and I look forward to hearing from my opponent!
I accept this challenge and would like to thank the pro for their time.
Now on to the debate.
Argument 1-The United States is identical to Rome at it's founding
Today, my opponent says the perfect example of what the United States should be is old Rome. Let's take a look at the standards introduced by the Constitution of the Roman Republic. We can see many similarities between Rome's and the U.S.'s way of governing, primarily the fact that both have legislative assemblies(Congress), Court(Justice system) and lastly an emperor(President). So these three similarities already prove that the U.S. is already meets the pro's criteria for an ideal country. The similarities go even further as both countries introduced "checks and balances" to maintain that neither branch had superiority over another.
Another way we can interpet this point is the fact that Rome had slaves and polarized political parties just like the U.S.
The reason this point is important and crucial to today's debate is that it cripples the entire pro case. The pro can not say the U.S. is tyrannical without saying Rome is tyrannical. If he does then he has already disregarded what the U.S. should look to and must insist that there is nothing wrong with the U.S. It also makes the example the pro introduced null and void since the U.S. is not a democracy.
Argument 2-Tyranny of the majority
The problem the pro introduced is actually called Tyranny of the majority. While this is a valid concern for democracy, most democratic governments put in things such as Constitutional limits and Bill of Rights to protect the minority. The U.S. has both of these to protect it's minority of people.
Another part of the tyranny of majority is that it can't exist when you have a Constitutional republic like the U.S. This is why someone who receives the majorities vote might not become president.(Electoral College)
The con has proven many points this round, primarily how America is exactly like Rome and not a democracy. Another point would be how Tyranny of the majority does not really happen as in my example the minorty does win and is not trampled on.
I thank the pro for their time and await their response.
The Rome issue was not intended to be a major point, however, since my opponent has spent a good portion of his precious word allotment arguing this, I believe it wise to address. My estimable rival has proposed the idea that Rome is equivalent to America today. This is true, when looking at certain time periods. However, as the reader should note, I was referring to the Roman Republic at its early foundation, whereas my opponent has gotten this time period confused with the later Roman Empire. The original republic did not have slaves or political parties whatsoever. It was an institution of a near perfect constitutional republic. As time passed, Rome's power increased, leading to a situation we see in America today, as my opponent so wisely descried. But, I was simply referring to the very early stages of Rome, before they were internationally recognized.
Under my opponents second point, his sword of words is again deflected by the armor of the pro. Constitutional limits and the Bill of Rights did not stop slavery or centralized political power. Point won by Affirmative, end of story.
The Electoral College is a very valuable point, and one that I am thankful he brought up. However, it supports the Affirmative. The Electoral College shows exactly what happens when democracy is limited. With an Electoral College, we have equal voting rights for all who live under the government (and support the Donkeys or Elephants), regardless of what the majority believes. Democracy, and thereby Tyranny of the Majority, is thwarted.
I would finally like to address some issues with my opponent's refutation. Neither of my rival's arguments presented direct refutation to mine. My examples are, in essence, dropped arguments. And since it has been shown that the Con case is fundamentally flawed, and the only valid negative example supports the pro, an affirmative ballot is warranted.
Thank you, and I look forward to my opponent's final rebuttal and then the outcome of the judging!
The pro seems to misunderstand the con's actual argument about democracy and the U.S. Since the U.S. is not a democracy we should not even be having this debate. To further prove how the U.S. is not a democracy the con used the Constitution of the Roman Republic and pointed out the similarities between it and the U.S. Constitution. Then the con further proved how the U.S. was not a democracy and exactly like Rome with the slavery and political parties example.
Regarding the pro's Rebuttal about Rome, I was actually referring to Rome in the early stages of the republic and not the empire. Contrary to what the pro says, my sources deal only with the Roman Republic and not the Roman Empire. The specifically say the Roman Republic and not the Empire and point out the empire having slaves and political parties.
Slaves Quote(First sentence, Third paragraph, under Social Structure)
"Slavery and slaves were part of the social order; there were slave markets where they could be bought and sold."
Political parties quote(Final Sentence, First paragraph, under The populares and the optimedes)
"The populares party took full advantage of this opportunity by allying itself with Marius."
These quotes prove what the pro flatly denied and could suggest either the pro lied or did not read the sources. That verdict is left up to the judges.
The brief rebuttal the pro presented about the Bill of Rights and constitutional limits does not apply to this round simply because these articles address Tyranny of the Majority and not slavery or political parties.
Since the pro says that the Democracy in the U.S. is tyrannical yet also says the Electoral College(Something the U.S.) constrains democracy properly the con can only see this as a contradiction and this entire argument must be dropped into neither sides favor.
Dealing with the resolution, we can not see exactly how Democracy is tyrannical. We can see how the U.S. might be tyrannical but the U.S. is a constitutional republic similar to it's predecessor the Roman Republic. The burden of proof was on pro to sufficiently prove how democracy was Tyrannical yet he merely gave negate examples about the U.S. These examples backfired when his model for an ideal society(Roman Republic) also had these particular example and the pro tried to shun away the evidence. So the con sees no other vote then a con vote.
Sources are the same as opening round(Sorry I ran out of space)
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|