The Instigator
JackFritschy
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
ObjectivityIsAMust
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points

Democracy is the Best Form of Government

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 4 votes the winner is...
JackFritschy
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/28/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 773 times Debate No: 65980
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (12)
Votes (4)

 

JackFritschy

Con

First round is acceptance, democracy is defined as a system of government in which decisions are made by either majority vote or a legislature elected by majority vote or a combination of both. The rule of the majority prevails in all situations without exception.
ObjectivityIsAMust

Pro

I will debate that democracy is the best form of Government.

I will add, however, that the form of Government put forth should not be merely idealistic but instead based on a practical model that factors human nature.
Debate Round No. 1
JackFritschy

Con

This debate is about if pure majority rule is the best way to run a society, I will argue that it is in fact not. To begin I will quote one of the founders on this subject.
"A democracy is nothing more then a mob rule in which fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."
-Thomas Jefferson
Okay, so if democracy is the best form of government, it should produce not only good results, but the BEST results. I will show that neither is true. In this democracy what the majority wants will happen through referendum or legislature. There are no mechanics to stop a law the majority wants. So we must ask ourselves if want the majority wants best. Well, if you believe that people are very reasonable and always consider all sides arguments before making an informed decision then democracy may be the best form of government, but evidence shows this is clearly not the case. Much of the problem lies in the fact that political beliefs are very personal to people. Thus, people will ignore evidence to the contrary. This is called the confirmation bias. Media outlets worsen this fact by having smart-looking people defend not-so-smart views. Even faced with information that contradicts their views, they can fall back on the words of a media personality. Things would be better if someones vote were decisive as they would then have to research their views. However, a single vote is not decisive, so people will vote what they think is best with little research. So, we have a situation were there are no cost for voting for something ignorant because your vote is not decisive and if thus people tend to form an opinion and not change it. As we can see, total irrational views such as protectionism can flourish in democracy. Policies that stifle growth like such as high taxation can be voted into law because people believe that they help and are not motivated to look deeper into the topic.
ObjectivityIsAMust

Pro

The word best is a measure of comparison. For democracy to not be deemed the best there must be an alternative that is better than democracy. My opponent is merely point the flaws in democracy which is completely irrelevant since he is not comparing democracy to any other system. No one is arguing that democracy is perfect. I simply stated that democracy is the best form of practical government.

Since there is an inexhaustible list of governmental systems that can be created, the BoP thus rest on my opponent since it is impossible for the Pro to compare democracy to every single possible government as the number is infinite.

My arguments is simply that democracy is the best practical governmental system which is why the founding fathers used it as a model.
Debate Round No. 2
JackFritschy

Con

Again, I will argue that one of democracies biggest flaws is that the will of the people rarely produces the best results. When people vote, rarely do they analyze various positions and spend hours researching the issues. This is not to claim most people are stupid, it simply makes little sense to do so if your vote will not be decisive. Thus people come into an election with a set of beliefs based more around what position feels most moral to them, rather then their actual effectiveness. When people vote, it is more of a show of support then a informed vote. Compounding this problem is the fact that the most obvious solution to a problem is to fix it. Voters assume that if government policy will fix a problem it probably will fix the problem. Unintended consequences rarely come into thoughts of the voters. Thus, they will constantly vote for more government intervention. The fact that some cities have passed $10 minimum wages goes to show that voters vote with their hearts and not their minds.

Given the power democracy hands over to these voters, one begins to see the problems that can occur when 51 percent of the population are given power over the 49 percent. Think about how close many presidential elections are. In the past, when the powers of the powers of the president were minimal, this was not such a big issue. Now, with the rise of the imperial presidency, can we really say that a man elected with 51 percent of the vote can really claim set of ever expanding executive powers including control of the greatest army on the planet? Can full power of the state be bestowed upon slightly more then half of the population? The concept of basic human liberties and democracies will always conflict because there are always those who will support freedom as long as it's freedom for people that think and act like they do. In fact many voters and both political parties think like those. History is full of scapegoated minorities who suffered under the supposed wisdom of the people. It is simply human genetics. People side with people inside their group and are natural suspicious of those different then themselves. Just because the people wish something means it is good. Shall we recall how how the French cast of the chains of monarchy to be subjected to the tyranny of the masses and revolutionary hysteria. While I reach for examples of atrocities committed by democracies as evidence, it does not always go that far. Consider the case of the War of 1812, one of the most pointless wars in US history. When congress voted for the war, the south and west who had nothing to lose voted for war. The North, who had everything to lose from the war voted against it. The vote came out 79-49. The north would see their ports blockaded, their land invaded , their maritime trade cut off, and their states forced to raise militias to defend themselves. All for a war voted for, but not fought by, southerners. When congress needed it would need to institute a draft, Daniel Webster retailed with a magnificent speech.

"Is this, Sir, consistent with the character of a free government? Is this civil liberty? Is this the real character of our constitution? No, Sir, indeed it is not. The Constitution is libelled, foully libelled. The people of this country have not established for themselves such a fabric of despotism. They have not purchased at a vast expense of their own treasures and their own blood a Magna Charta to be slaves. Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained that you may take children from their parents and parents from their children and compel them to fight the battles of any war which the folly or the wickedness of government may engage in? Under what concealment has this power lain hidden which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous and baleful aspect, to trample down and destroy the dearest rights of personal liberty? Who will show me any constitutional injunction which makes it the duty of the American people to surrender everything valuable in life, and even life itself, not when the safety of their country and its liberties may demand the sacrifice, but whenever the purposes of an ambitious and mischievous government may require it? Sir, I almost disdain to go to quotations and references to prove that such an adominable doctrine has no foundation in the Constitution of the country. It is enough to know that that instrument was intended as the basis of a free government and that the power contended for is incompatible with any notion of personal liberty. An attempt to maintain this doctrine upon the provisions of the Constitution is an exercise of perverse ingenuity to extract slavery from the substance of a free government. It is an attempt to show, by proof and argument, that we ourselves are subjects of despotism and that we have a right to chains and bondage, firmly secured to us and our children by the provisions of our government. It has been the labor of other men at other times, to mitigate and reform the powers of government by construction; to support the rights of personal security by every species of favorable and benign interpretation, and thus to infuse a free spirit into governments not friendly in their general structure and formation to public liberty."

After much debate if a mob, a monarch, or a dictator should command the impressive array of powers the state now possesses, maybe we should consider whether this powers should be granted anyone? I have been asked to provide an alternative to democracy and now I will. I advocate for a Republic, not based on notions of the wisdom of the masses or any human being. A government that recognizes that is limited by it's humanity. A government not founded on the idea that a consensus is mandate for the many to rule the few but founded on the idea that no man can rule another. It would have a limited set of powers and an extensive bill of rights to protect any minorities. It's goal would be the protection of rights and little more.
ObjectivityIsAMust

Pro

Merrian Webster definition of republic:" a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law"

definition of democracy: ' government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections"

Therefore, a republic is merely a subdivision democracy and therefore it is a democratic government as it require majority rule.

Inaccurate: "A democracy is nothing more then a mob rule in which fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

A democratic government is one in which the government representative are elected my a majority. This can range from 50.0...1% to 99.99....% as both are still some form of the majority.

The fact that my opponent advocates for a democratic governmental system in order to show that democracy is not the best government heavily supports my position.

Inaccurate statement: "There are no mechanics to stop a law the majority wants."

-> In no way does this imply to the definition of democracy as democracy does not even address this issue.
Debate Round No. 3
JackFritschy

Con

JackFritschy forfeited this round.
ObjectivityIsAMust

Pro

I extend my arguments...
Debate Round No. 4
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ObjectivityIsAMust 2 years ago
ObjectivityIsAMust
That video was very entertaining but does it really apply here?
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
sadolite... Tghat is about how long I figured it out too. I am 66 now, so for 50 years I was brainwashed by democrat relatives.
Posted by ObjectivityIsAMust 2 years ago
ObjectivityIsAMust
That is illogical, how can one prove that democracy is the best system since best is a comparative word. This is impossible since one can come up with inexhaustible list of system and one cannot systematically compare democracy to an infinite amount of systems. Therefore, Con must find a system that is better then democracy to win.
Posted by sadolite 2 years ago
sadolite
cheyennebodie "It took me over 50 years to figure that out." I didn't figure it out until I was about 35 so I have only known the difference for like 15 years.
Posted by WillRiley 2 years ago
WillRiley
Actually, Pro has the burden of proof, as always.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
sadolite. It took me over 50 years to figure that out.
Posted by ObjectivityIsAMust 2 years ago
ObjectivityIsAMust
Even though the Con has the BoP, he still has a very good position since all he needs to do is find one system that is better than democracy and he wins. These mean that the number of systems that Pro refutes is completely irrelevant since he can still lose at the end if the Con find a better workable system.
Posted by ObjectivityIsAMust 2 years ago
ObjectivityIsAMust
The flaws of democracy are fairly evident. The true difficulties lies in creating practical alternative that will not end up being corrupted by human nature (or power).
Posted by sadolite 2 years ago
sadolite
"Democracy is mob rule." OMG somebody who actually knows the difference between a Democracy and a Republic!!!!! Bless you my son. You will go far in life.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Tweka 2 years ago
Tweka
JackFritschyObjectivityIsAMustTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by sadolite 2 years ago
sadolite
JackFritschyObjectivityIsAMustTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro doesn't know American history. "which is why the founding fathers used it as a model." The founding fathers did everything they could to "prevent" a democracy from taking hold in America. The electoral college being the most important . Without the electoral college all elections would be based on what the top four most populated cities in America voted. Thus making the rest of the nation irrelevant. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. John Adams Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Benjamin Franklin The burden of proof is not solely on con Con forfeited round
Vote Placed by debate_power 2 years ago
debate_power
JackFritschyObjectivityIsAMustTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited, and also couldn't fulfill his BoP. Not the best debate ever. Pro didn't really address why democracy was the best system of government, and instead spent his time attacking Con's argument about the flaws of democracy (as opposed to arguing for why democracy was not the best form of government) It's true that Con's arguments strengthened Pro's to an extent, but both arguments were unsupported by sources and seemed inadequate.
Vote Placed by WillRiley 2 years ago
WillRiley
JackFritschyObjectivityIsAMustTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Con f2f, but he made better arguments also.