The Instigator
PhileasFoggOfVictoria
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
MadCornishBiker
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Democracy is the best method of governing a state.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/12/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,317 times Debate No: 34721
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

PhileasFoggOfVictoria

Con

All praises be to God Almighty, and may He bestow his peace and blessings upon the prophet Muhammad.

Democracy has been the way of ruling for many years in the West now. It would be foolish to say that there has been no single bit of good in it, but is it really the best was to govern a state?

I shall take examples from history to prove my point, and factors in states run in other ways and how they go on.

As my position in this debate shall be contra, the burden of proof lies upon my opponent. For this reason I will not yet start any argument before he gave his own first.

Peace to all who read this.
MadCornishBiker

Pro

I am wondering if you are promoting Theocracy, and if you are what form you feel that should take.

So far human rule of all kinds has been flawed, but I do feel that democracy has shown itself to b the best method humans can

However, to be honest I do not expect to win this debate since I am only arguing for democracy as the best form of rule by humans.

So far, all we have had have been dictatorships, democracy, a fake form of Communism which was actually Socialism in disguise (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.) Absolute or partial monarchies, and a couple of counterfeit forms of Theocracy whihc in reality were dictatorships under the guise of religious leadership (Islam). All of whihc have failed in one area or another.

The only record we have of a true Theocracy is the early days of Israel before they insisted on having a king, back to ones like Noah and Abraham who lived voluntarily under Theocracy.

I shall allow the instigator of this debate to lead it wherever it goes and simply attempt to counter his argumentation.
Debate Round No. 1
PhileasFoggOfVictoria

Con

"Only law can give us liberty" - Johan Wolfgang von Goethe


First of all, I want to express my admiration for the modesty my opponent prefers over malice; I do not have the honour of meeting such rivals often.

The definition of democracy is as follows. 'A form over governing a state whereby the people choose who rules a particular part or the entirety of the state's business'. It has come from Greek, from the root words demos and cratos, which mostly are translated plainly as 'the people rule'.

The thing that makes us think democracy is good is the fact that the rulers are chosen by the people, that their reign is not lasting extremely long and that many a ruler is elected.
If this is really democracy's forte, I would like to oppose, for then democracy is not very different from other forms that have failed.




      1. The people do not know the rulers personally, so they may and often do have a false image of the rulers' intentions.




The next two 'advantages' of democracy are easily put together, by opposing it with the following statement:

The more rulers there are, and the more often they change places or resign, the more chaotic a government you have.

Take this for an example: what goes faster - relay races or single races?
And if you have got the fact that single races go faster, of course, ask yourself why.

When a person is busy with some activity, and he has to hand it over to someone else, it brings the delay of the former quitting, and the latter picking it up. Goes slowly...

The Romans of the Roman Republic understood this: they appointed a dictator in situations where the bother of gatherings, discussions and debates between the members of the senate would just slow everything down too much. Just for six months though, but in these six months he had all the power. No waste of time on gatherings and arguing - he just had to clap his hands, and an order was given to the port companies or the army.

Now I'm at it, the word 'dictatorship' is often misunderstood. A dictator is someone to whom everyone just puts down his will.

Is this bad?

Not at all, it isn't! As long as its a good dictator, I believe it is the most efficient and fast way to govern a state.


Now, my honourable opponent has asked me what kind of government I prefer.

It is actually a mixture of dictatorship (that proved its use with the Romans), monarchy (that, in many Western countries is still respected and used), oligarchy (people of some status earned by merit), theocracy and a bit of democracy (if the dictator is unfair or does not play by the rules, people kick him out).

Such impossible a governing, you might think, but it is very simple.

The dictator (or prime minister, if you will) runs everything. He makes sure the economy stays on edge, he runs in the education field, etc. But, he is not entirely alone. Other ministers do help him, though the last word is with him. He stays dictator for ten years, until his death or until he becomes disabled.
The way to make sure he cannot misuse his power, is to put the law and the supreme command over the army under the protection of the monarch, so he/she should really be engaged in military affairs. Any movement made by the army has to be dictated by the king or queen.
And the law can never be changed. This is where theocracy shows up. Divine rules are perfect, human-designed regulations are imperfect and transitory. For proof of the divinity of these rules, another debate can be started...

I await my opponents commentary with the greatest honour towards him and patience.

Peace upon all who read this.
MadCornishBiker

Pro

Somehow I managed to put this in comments foirst. Must have clicked on the wrong button.

I thank you for the compliments, I hope I can live up to them, as it seems you are likely to also.

I am forced to agree with you about the weakness of democracy, and would even go so far as to add that the reason countries like the UK are in the financial mess they are in is that Governments have to often given in to the people for fear of being voted out of office.

However the point of this debate is not that democracy is either good or bad, but if it is the best currently available.

I am reminded of a scripture which reads, basically "All this I have seen, and there was an applying of my heart to every work that has been done under the sun, [during] the time that man has dominated man to his injury." Ecclesiastes 8:9.

This is true whatever form of human Government we have had over us.

The big advantage of Democracy over all others is that if you end up with a bad ruler it is considerably easier to get rid of them and hopefully with zero loss of life.

Even if you see that as the only advantage, it is a very powerful one for at least having a form of democracy if not the form we have currently.

There is an old saying that power should never be given to one who desires it. That is true in Democracy, but an even more dangerous problem in any other form of human Government.
Debate Round No. 2
PhileasFoggOfVictoria

Con

Admirable it is, Sir, how you vitalize the spirit of Christianity in your handling...

Now, you must now, every country is run by God. For God chooses what happens and what does not, God runs each and every state indirectly.
But, man can take the decision to willingly apply the rules of God in his governing. And, for God works by one method, and there are indeed many kinds of theocracy, I do reckon theocracy to the ways of governing a state...

I respect you, my dear rival. However I must oppose you in this affair. The quick rid of a bad ruler is not an advantage, because the good ruler will be rid of as well. And he might be followed by another bad ruler.

And the most important: what decides what is good and bad? There we need theocracy.

Good and bad in democracy is defined by the constitutional law, but a bad ruler, or rather a chain of bad rulers, can change the law easily.
MadCornishBiker

Pro

Admittedly, this is not entirely germaine to this debate, but if you feel that this world is run by God you are sadly mistaken.

One only has to look at the world around us, and then compare it to what is God's requirements for his people to see this is so.

Christ spoke of all his followers being united with his Father and himself in the same ways that they are united.

Paul echoed that thinking when he beseeched the brothers to all speak with one mind.

Do you see any such unity in the world around us now? Only in small pockets and even then they are diametrically opposed to others.

Also both Christ and the Apostles made it very clear that it is Satan who is in charge.

I did wonder if you were thinking of theocracy but even that would depend on which God.

We will before too long have just such a theocracy, when Christ has risen and destroyed all human governments, and then his kingdom will be sole rulers of the earth.

However, only under the Aegis of the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ will this work. Certainly not under Islamic rule which is far too oppressive, and has proved so even where it has been tried.

So while I agree that Democracy has it's flaws I still believe that for the present it is the best form of rule since at present there is no better. When God steps in, through His son, that will be a different matter.

Since the debate is entitled Democracy is the best method of governing a state, then the question can only apply to the current time, and while thee earth is still divided into states.

Yes, I agree, the down side of voting in a good leader is that he (or she) too can be voted out and replaced by a bad one. However I still see that as preferable to being under a Government whihc gives you no choice of human rulers.

Another problem is that, as history shows, no human has sufficient intellect to rule effectively in all ways. Rule by committee (i. e. the UK Parliament) scarcely fares any better. No matter what the ruler they have got some things wrong and some right, the only difference being the balance between the two.
Debate Round No. 3
PhileasFoggOfVictoria

Con

If my opponent wants to discuss religious affairs, I am glad to do this, but not in this debate. I think it has been a depressing waste of time to read or write most of the former argument.
Since we still have to rounds to go, stick to the topic in the near future please.

I'd like to ask you, now we're at it: if the 'down side' of governing other than democracy is, according to your saying, a Government whihc which gives you no choice of human rulers; how about those wicked followers of the anti-Christs? They'd rather kick off Jesus too, wouldn't they? Is democracy an option there?

And anyway, there is a saying: a one-eyed man is king in the land of the blind. If you have a state full of idiots, which lamentably is often the case nowadays, they'd vote for anyone, and not rarely a bad one.

And to give you a chance to defend your last argument properly, what good side can you find me, for example, in the person of Adolf Hitler?
MadCornishBiker

Pro

Interesting, you say not to discuss the religious aspects of this topic and then launch into a question on just that.

No, you cannot have democracy under a theocracy, though those who have chosen to accept Christ's rule are currently under Theocracy first and whatever human Government is in power in our area second. We will all be glad when the human element is removed forever.

Only those who wish to accept Christ's rule will be allowed to exist, since Christ's rule is, and will be, the only rightful and beneficial rule there ever could be. That is the idea of the destruction at Armageddon and the final test.

That may sound harsh, but God cannot allow those on Satan's side of the issue to disrupt the peace of His creation for much longer.

The principles we will be expected to live by are published in scripture, so people are being asked to make their choice now, whilst the resurrected will be asked that at the final test.

Until then our only choice is between democracy or tyrrany, and whilst for me personally it makes no difference democracy is, for the reasons I have already given, the most acceptable choice.
Debate Round No. 4
PhileasFoggOfVictoria

Con

With all respect, Sir, I posed that example because I know it is that which you understand the best. I could have given the example of Satan taking all the power in full person. He himself stepping upon the throne of the world. But that, you might have found provoking.
I actually have got a bit enough from discussing this affair with you, Sir. I love to debate about religion, but not in this debate. Unfortunately, you have not much else to present.

Personal Conclusion

Democracy cannot be the best way of governing, because of it's slow progressing. Every part of the country, economics, science, culture, and so forth - everything goes faster than these politics. Why monarchy (possibly run with a theological Law) is the best way of governing:As long as you have a good monarch; when the command lies with one person only, the government is able to follow the way the world changes and promptly give the right reaction. Anyway, if the monarch is to handle by a Law that cannot be changed without the permission of a senate or parliament, nothing can go wrong. And as long as another dictator has the sole power over the military forces, the monarch cannot abuse his might.

MONARCH: Power over almost all state affairs
DICTATOR: Power over army
PARLIAMENT: Power over the changes in the law and the appointing of a new dictator every five years

Dear voters,

If you believe that this Government could work, please vote for me. Overlook that which has been stated unto you since childhood, and go meet logic. Do as I do.
MadCornishBiker

Pro

I find your definitions, as copied below interesting, though I am not sure I can completely agree with you.

MONARCH: Power over almost all state affairs
DICTATOR: Power over army
PARLIAMENT: Power over the changes in the law and the appointing of a new dictator every five years

I would vary it slightly as below:

Constitutional Monarch (e. g. the UK's Queen) Really little more than a figure head with very limited control over anything, including his/her life.

Absolute Monarch. Full control over his/her subjects usually backed by Army, police force, or combination of both.

Dictator. Non-elected leader of countries Government who has seized control often with the assistance of the Military. May be either benign or domineering.,

Tyrant. Basically a cross between Absolute Monarch and Dictator, but usually holds his/her position by terror methods, usually supported by a secret police force.

Democracy. A government either fully or partially voted into office by the people. May or may not have a Constitutional Monarch as it's figurehead.

Whilst it is theoretically possible for all of the above to be benign history has not shown one example of such. It has however shown both benign and malicious democratic Governments.

The very fact that it the only form of Government in history to give us truly benign governments, however briefly or however often interrupted make it the best form of human Government there is in my opinion.

Whilst it is true that as a believer in Christ, and one who accepts him as my king I am looking forward to a time when human government is at an end, I know which kind I would prefer to live under until that time.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MadCornishBiker 3 years ago
MadCornishBiker
I didn't use that defence because it isn't true.

As recent events in the UK have shown it is often the least moral version and encourages many people to become corrupt.

It certainly doesn't encourage honesty because honest people rarely get voted in, and even more rarely twice.

If the UK had had a more moral, more honest Government we would not be in the financial mess we are in, though we may have had another civil war, because people don't want an honest Government, they want a Government hat will give them what they want and who cares if they need it or no.
Posted by CornCob 3 years ago
CornCob
MadCornishBiker
dont know, to gain easy point?
curious why didn't you use the traditional defence, democracy is the only moral form of government?

PhileasFoggOfVictoria
im cool with that, a good laughing at never hurt me (been married so long, laughing at me has little to no effect, except i may join in)

i do appreciate the gentlemanly response from the both of you, thanks.
Posted by MadCornishBiker 3 years ago
MadCornishBiker
@CornCob

And the point of doing that would be?
Posted by PhileasFoggOfVictoria 3 years ago
PhileasFoggOfVictoria
You do not offend, Sir, you just make me laugh.
Posted by CornCob 3 years ago
CornCob
I am new here and suspect I don't understand what's going on, so I hope I don't offend anyone when I ask the following.

Is this a strategy, you two debate like this to sucker weaker debaters into challenging you to a debate?
Posted by makhdoom5 3 years ago
makhdoom5
hahaah.
democracy is shiiit.
Posted by MadCornishBiker 3 years ago
MadCornishBiker
Umm now could you possibly mean the Sower? lol.
Posted by PhileasFoggOfVictoria 3 years ago
PhileasFoggOfVictoria
Well, indeed Sir, you make an awful parent then. I think you are more the arrogant and ignorant schoolboy who thinks that he knows all...
Posted by Sower4GS 3 years ago
Sower4GS
This is like watching two disobedient and blind children argue after finding the joy of how to use the complexities of a dictionary for the first time. Marvelous tool, huh?
Posted by MadCornishBiker 3 years ago
MadCornishBiker
I thank you for the compliments, I hope I can live up to them, as it seems you are likely to also.

I am forced to agree with you about the weakness of democracy, and would even go so far as to add that the reason countries like the UK are in the financial mess they are in is that Governments have to often given in to the people for fear of being voted out of office.

However the point of this debate is not that democracy is either good or bad, but if it is the best currently available.

I am reminded of a scripture which reads, basically "All this I have seen, and there was an applying of my heart to every work that has been done under the sun, [during] the time that man has dominated man to his injury." Ecclesiastes 8:9.

This is true whatever form of human Government we have had over us.

The big advantage of Democracy over all others is that if you end up with a bad ruler it is considerably easier to get rid of them and hopefully with zero loss of life.

Even if you see that as the only advantage, it is a very powerful one for at least having a form of democracy if not the form we have currently.

There is an old saying that power should never be given to one who desires it. That is true in Democracy, but an even more dangerous problem in any other form of human Government.
No votes have been placed for this debate.