The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
4 Points

Democracy is the best ruling system

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/21/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,531 times Debate No: 72101
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (25)
Votes (1)




Democracy has so long been being stated the best ruling system. I have no problem confessing that. But in the context of today's instable era, democracy has started to leak many flaws. Its case can be compared to a building, having many stories and also, many flaws. Democracy is quite entirely irrelevant in this century. Democracy leads us to something which we should not be led to. The debate here is to state whether democracy is the best system or not. My opponent will go in favour of democracy while I will go against the topic. So, I would like to have the pleasure to invite each and everybody to this open debate, no specific regulations. I hope one interested friend will accept my challenge to do this with me. *#Disclaimer, I am not telling the military powers to force a cue and take us the power, I mean I am not in favour of dictatorship.



I shall start by offering some definitions, and then go on to present a yardstick for this debate. After that, I would like to offer some rebuttals and present my constructive in ultimately affirming my baseline today, being that democracy presents a genuine advantage for a free and fair representation of the people.


Democracy is defined as "a system of government in which all eligible citizens vote on representatives to pass laws for them" Note that this is the definition is the definition of a representative democracy, and not a direct one. The opposition talks of instability in a democracy: how is this possible under a direct democracy, where the majority rules, whilst the minority is enslaved? Hence, I infer from that mere statement that he means a representative, rather than a direct, democracy.

Ruling System is defined as "the governing body of a nation, state, or community". Note here the separation between ideology and system of governance. A "conservative" or a "liberal" democracy is still a democracy nevertheless.


The burden of side proposition is to show that their is no better form of government than a democracy. The burden of side opposition however is to show that there are indeed better forms of government than a democracy. But how do we define better? "Better" in this respect shall be analytical from our notions of the social contract. A “better” form of government is henceforth a government that is able to (1) govern it’s people with it’s consent, (2) to maximize freedom and civil rights, and (3) to protect the people from internal and external threats.


1. RE: Democracy is Irrelevant

The opposition here affirms that "democracy is irrelevant" in the modern age. However, there are two flaws with this: (1) side opposition raises this with no proof whatsoever, and hence can easily be discarded, but even if proofs are presented, they clearly ignore (2) the second problem, which is the fact that the ideas of the Great Generation and the Enlightenment has never found a more cheerful and accepting audience than today.

In 2000, the United Nations adopted the Millennium Development Goals. They were off the following:

Goal 1: Eradication of extreme poverty and hunger
Goal 2: Achieve universal primary education
Goal 3: Promote gender equality and empower women
Goal 4: Reduce child mortality rates
Goal 5: Improve maternal health
Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases
Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainability

These are quite liberal and modest aims. However, it is commonly argued that these conditions cannot be recognized and fulfilled without the help of civic freedoms and equality of opportunity and condition. For example, a lack of a representative and clean democracy could hamper MDG1’s development, for the distribution of wealth will be highly condensed in one class under the presumed illiberal alternative to democracy, which is authoritarian dictatorship. Since this corruption is present, Goal 2,4,5 and 6 would be seriously hampered, as the government would be infested with illiberal corruption. [1] In a study, Angelina Sithole analyzed the corruption in Zimbabwe. She describes that corruption has made the Zimbabwean government “notorious for poor service delivery and hyper corruption”, whose effects could “endanger the lives of the citizens as the money, which should be used to finance departments like engineering or health” [2]

Democracies are henceforth a precondition to meet five out of the six goals that the United Nations has subscribed to. The world needs democracy for MDG to be finished and for the world to be a better place: never before has the idea of human brotherhood hence become more important than what it is today.


1. Positive Correlation between Democracy and Justice

There is a positive correlation between democracy and safety. According to Hung En Seng, liberal democracies have more complex and in some senses more professional “crime-fighting” institutions that ultimately lead to a decrease in crime rates. According to the study he conducted, organized crime rates for new democracies were on the increase, but it soon reaches a point of decrease as democratic institutions become more complicated. In the study, he noted a huge organized crime rate stalling point in developed democracies: for example, he noted that in developed liberal democracies such as Singapore, the rate of organized crime fell dramatically. Although this is counterintuitive, it is later shown that this is due to the fact that organized crime depends on extortion and cartel agreements with major industry, which would be unneeded in a liberal democracy. [3]

There is also an expected correlation between quality of judiciary and form of governance. In a illiberal dictatorship, the judiciary is the legislative and the executive. However, in a liberal democracy, the judicial is divided, and the division of government is ultimately the only thing that provides freedom for the people. An empirical example for this is the United States: as Alexander de Tocqueville notes in his "Democracy in America", "an American judge can only pronounce a decision when litigation has arisen, he is only conversant with special cases, and he cannot act until the cause has been duly brought before the court". However, he notes a stark contrast between judges in France and in America. In America, the constitution is a "detached whole, which, as it represents the determination of the whole people, is no less binding on the legislator than on the private citizen" i.e. the interpretation of the Constitution is open to all. However, in illiberal regimes like France, he notes that "the supreme power would in fact be placed in their hands, since they alone would have the right of interpreting a constitution." [4]

We can conclude from this that the private citizen in a democratic society is much less likelier to experience organized crimes and even much less to experience judicial injustice in a democracy when contrasted with a dictatorship.

2. Positive Correlation between Democracy and Rights

A study of 25 countries conducted by Freedom House was released in 2009 which affirmed something that has already been theoretical expected; that democratic countries are very unlikely to violate human rights. The theoretical decision behind this is that regimes that violate human rights are unlikely to retain support from the electorate in a democracy, and henceforth, for the sake of staying in power, they satisfy the public's imagination. The researchers found a statiscally significant difference in the HR index of these dictatorships vs. the HR index of these liberal democracy.

Two control cases shall be taken into consideration here: Belarus and Latvia. Latvia has a significantly higher democracy index than Belarus, the only European country to be under a dictatorship. Unsurprisingly, the study also showed that Lativa has higher press independence, lower corruption and even better governance than the illiberal regime of Belarus. If we look back at our criterion, any country that has violated human rights no longer have a legally binding "social contract", as the main goal of the contract in the first place is to establish an impartial state that will protect the rights of the people. [5]

3. The Abstract Case for Democracy

The legally binding social contract given in the last argument shall be explored in this argument. There are two flaws in a illiberal regime: (1) is that they govern without the consent of the people, and (2) is that they do not have a contract whatsoever with the people. A legal contract is a legally binding document in which both sides would be mutually benefitted by the desired results of it. However, in an illiberal regime, the only good the people get out of it is punishment: as we have proven in our last argument, their is a general trend that states that the lower the democracy, the more non-existent human rights are.

If we were to take this into conisderation, then the social contract is void. The government has the ability to protect men from the violations of their rights that could hypothetically take place in a state of nature; however, when this ability is further used to press down and clamp on rights, then the state has failed to do its duty.

If we were to take the first condition into consideration, we also find out that the consent of the ruled is what gives the legitimacy to the social contract: why would you need to be protecting those whom you protect, if they do not want in anyway whatsoever to have your protection. Since humans are equal, those who rule without their own consent has the "right to ignore the state" as Mr. Herbert Spencer says of it.

In a democracy, the consent of the ruled is final: they participate in elections to show that they are actually interested in the democratic process. Rights are given: hence, a government that truly fulfills it's duty can only be a democratic government.



[3] Democracy and Organized Crime Activities: Evidence from 59 Countries

Debate Round No. 1


Democracy is the counting of heads, not what’s in them!


First of all, I would like to make some words with the definition/resolution. Then, I will offer a yardstick clarifying my position in this very debate. Eventually, I will present some rebuttals to the proposition's arguments and construct my constructives to prove the insubstantiality of today's motion. I will, hopefully, be able to prove that there is still better system than democracy and thus it is not the best one.


Well, the proposition’s definition of the baseline has been mostly accurate. But, a portion of the definition, I think, has been inaccurate. I will present my rebuttals in this regard in the rebuttal section which is coming later in my speech. Except that, the definition has been well and fine and thus I have no further objections.

As I am presenting constitutional monarchy as my system, so it also needs to be defined. A constitutional monarchy is a form of monarchy where the governing powers of the monarch are restricted by the terms of a constitution.[1] Political scientist Vernon Bogdanor, paraphrasing Thomas Macaulay, has defined a constitutional monarch as "a sovereign who reigns but does not rule."[2] In The English Constitution, British political theorist Walter Bagehot identified three main political rights which a constitutional monarch could freely exercise: the right to be consulted, the right to advise, and the right to warn.[3]


I have some objections to object to the proposition’s yardstick section. You have shown some prerequisites of a good or better government which were as follows:

(1) Governing its people with its consent.
(2) To maximize freedom and civil rights and
(3) To protect the people from internal and external threats.

I have something to say about the first one. Often, the situation is such like that you have to give up/dedicate smaller things to achieve greater items. This case can also be taken in terms of a country. But, in these regards, the people in general will want the thing that are right up before them, I mean, the smaller thing. So, if a ruler wants the long lasting betterment of his country, he has to go against general will. What a wise ruler understands may not be understood by average people. So, the condition you made as the first one is irrelevant in some cases.

Though there are still some other conditions for a better government, you did not mention them. So, I would like to mention some more ones:

(1) Increasing efficiency and speed in governmental activities.
(2)Implementation and adaptation of policies in a swift time.
(3)Bringing about discipline in a great extent in the country and
(4)Preventing misuses in federal tasks.

Well, they are the main ones. Then, the list can further be expanded from them. However, let us judge if they are mostly present in democracy or in another one. I would like to present CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY as an opposition to your democracy.


In this section, I am showing some re-rebuttals to the rebuttals you have already presented:

01. Rebuttal to RE: Democracy is irrelevant

Well, you have wanted proofs behind democracy’s irrelevance in this century. I would like to request you to look forward to example of democratic countries like Pakistan, Thailand, Afghanistan and Bangladesh. Although they are democratic, yet there stability is uncertain. You may say they are South Asian developing countries and there might be a lot of problems. Don’t forget China too. In addition to that, you also may ask for example of developed countries. In countries like even USA or UK, the process of development is often hampered by the feud between the government and the opposition side. We often saw in USA that the budget or other important bills were being unable to be passed in the house only for the argumentative difference between The Democratic Party and The Republicans. In many cases, their activities can be considered nothing but quarrel between two babies. It's a problem of democracy.

You said that the great ideas have never accepted so much cheerful and wonderful audience than today. Also, you have not presented any proof whatsoever. Don’t forget, that’s not like that in all the cases. In many countries, free opinion givers are being oppressed by the government. You are, probably, well informed about them.

The MDG targets are also achievable in my prescribed constitutional monarchy. Remember, it is constitutional monarchy, not traditional monarchy.


01.RE: Crimes are eradicable only in democracy

You have said something and here is the proof how unrealistic your words were. Look at the countries where there are the most homicides:

01. Brazil: MR*-25 Count*-50,108
02. India: MR-3.5 Count-43,355
03. Nigeria: MR-20.0 Count-33,817
04. Mexico:MR-21.5 Count-26,037
05. DR Congo: MR-28.3 Count-18,58606. South Africa: MR- 31.0 Count-16,259
07. Venezuela: MR-53.7 Count-16,072
08. United States: MR-4.7 Count-16,827
09. Colombia: MR-30.8 Count-14,670
10. Pakistan: MR-7.7 Count-14,846[4]
*MR- Murder Rate Count- Murders Counted

As far as I know, they are all democratic countries. So, why is their condition like this? In terms of other crimes, the situation is also like this.

Please remember that in democracy, the government has the support of the majority. So, thinking that, it is not impossible for them to interfere in judiciary activities. You may not support it but it is the reality. In the new third world developing countries, we often see this. So, the condition of judicial activities in a democratic country is not completely free of controversy.

Remember, as I disclaimed, I am not supporting dictatorship. In my supported constitutional monarchy, the king/queen has so a clear image that it is inconceivable for them to make any interference in judiciary activities.

02. RE: Rights in democratic countries

In most of the cases, it’s true that democratic countries are facing freedom of rights rather than the other ones. Yet, like judicial system, it has some flaws too. If you look at countries like China, Cuba, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, they have democratic system. Yet, their freedom of press is in a very serious situation, as stated in Wikipedia.[5] Even if you look at the case of Libya, the country’s people were in better situation during Gaddafi reign rather than today’s democratic reign. So, all these are the demerits of democracy, you can’t deny the fact.

03. RE: So called abstract case for democracy

Well, democracy is not the only one/unique system where there is people’s consent. It is also present in systems like aristocracy, constitutional monarchy. Look at UK. Their people have consent with what they are having from their government. In many non-democratic countries of the world, we can see government and people working altogether and having consent with each other's activity.

The third condition you stated as a prerequisite for an ideal government is present almost in every system. Because, no ruler will handle his country to the hands of external threats unless he is a foreign conspirator. It does not matter whether he is a democrat or an aristocrat or even dictator.


In this round's constructive section, due to character constrain, I will talk about the abstract case of constitutitonal monarchy. Therefore, in the next rounds, I will largely talk about other merits of it and the demerits/negative sides of democracy.


My abstract case for constitutional monarchy

I did state some more prerequisites for a governmental system to be an ideal one which were as follows:

(1) Increasing efficiency and speed in governmental activities.
(2)Implementation and adaptation of policies in a swift time.
(3)Bringing about discipline in a great extent in the country and
(4)Preventing misuses in federal tasks.

So, let us analyze whether they are present in constitutional monarchy or not.

The first one condition isto increase efficiency and speed up the governmental activities. In democracy, there is a great queue of bureaucracy. Often, it is seen that a work needs 1 month of time instead of the supposed 5 days. In many countries, we can see that. We also see that even bribe has to be given to speed up them. It's because in democracy government is dependent on people's vote which include that dishonest official too. But being afraid of missing vote, the government often does not tell them anything. There s another reason that ifa dishonest official is punished, then the other ones may get angry and may not support that government.

But in constitutional monarchy, there is nothing such like this. There is a liberal king/queen who has no fear of losing votes. He may punish or suspend any worker at any time. Knowing that, the officials and the workers work swiftly which ultimately brings about swiftness in governmental activities.

The second is also indirectly linked up with the first one. In democracy, there are many men, and so, many minds. You will have to consider all their opinions which need a long time. So, on the way of doing a work , you cannot expect spped in the implementation of policy and decisions.

But in constitutional monarchy, as I stated before, the king/queen is free to take any wise decision for the country. If an intellect has an idea, he may inform it, no problem with that.

In constitutional monarchy, you have discipline. Each and every citizen is much loyal to the ruler and thus they have a great discipline.

Prevention of misuses in federal tasks, is apparently related to Condition 01 & 02. When you are taking less time to do a task or take a decision, reasonably the less money is spent.

That's all from here.


01. Jerome Blum et al., The European World (1970) 1:267-68




I would like to start off with a complete and utter rejection of the yardstick the opposition has presented, and then go on to counter his arguments, and then ultimately, conclude with the extension of my case and the rejection of the opposition's non-existent baseline.


The opposition has proposed to replace the criterion that I have presented with a better criterion on his behalf. The opposition's criterion is the following:

(1) Increasing efficiency and speed in governmental activities.
(2) Implementation and adaptation of policies in a swift time.
(3) Bringing about discipline in a great extent in the country and
(4) Preventing misuses in federal tasks.

There are several flaws with this ideal. The first one being the following: that condition (1) and (2) suffers from a necessary misunderstanding of the debate. The increase in efficiency and implementation of policies necessarily derives from the effectiveness of the government, not the form of government. A dictator and democracy may be as corrupt as each other, and this debate would henceforth be rendered invalid and irrelevant in such countries. Condition (3) is simply totalitarian. For why would the state have the need to discipline the people if the people do not want to be disciplined? Tranquility is needed for any state to be secured. However, the poor Greeks who waited his turn to be devoured by Cyclops had tranquility, not liberty. If the states were to be a Cyclops, and the people his lunch, then that state has necessarily violated the social contract. Condition (4) is vague-what does misuses imply? What is misuses? Ultimately, the word "misuses" is subjective.

Ultimately, we always have to return to the idea of the Social Contract, for that is what the government is for.


1. RE: Constitutional Monarchy

The opposition misunderstands this debate by presenting this as a viable alternative. I, ironically, have the same opinion as the opposition, and I do not see democracy and constitutional monarchy as being polar opposites-in fact, I see them as compatible.

Many constitutional kingdoms have elected or semi-elected parliaments, and in many constitutional kingdoms, the Monarch does not have the right to intefere with the legislative part of the government, only the executive. This debate is ultimately about the means of choosing the head of government, not head of state.

An example of a constitutional monarchy whose model follows this is that of Liechtenstein. A small micro-state, Liechtenstein has one of the world's lowest unemployment rates and one of the world's highest GDP per capita. It is also, quite unsurprisingly, a democratic state with a TI score of 1.84. Liechenstein is a well functioning representative democracy, and apart from this, a constitutional monarchy. [3,8]

Henceforth, on the grounds that democracy and constitutional monarchism is not incompatible, the opposition's arguments fail.

2. RE: Refutation of the Abstract Case

The only point of clash I can see in this debate is in the criterion, and in the falsity of the main convictions of the opposition. In this case, I shall only be defending democracy against the many assertions that the opposition has attempted to present.

The opposition attempts to present democracy as being a corrupted system. The opposition asserts that "in [a] democracy government is dependent on people's vote which include that dishonest official too." However, the opposition does not raise any good empirical evidence whatsoever to support this. That is because that this relationship is not the case. Researchers from the United Nations found an "inverted-U" relationship between democracy and corruption. An "inverted-U" relationship signifies that corruption will increase to an extent, and then declines. This theory is currently postulated by current literature that states that the effectiveness of a democratic government at fighting corruption depends on the quick ability to build effective judicial and legislative institutions. [1]

The second criterion is also not satisfied due to the fact that in a constitutional monarchy, the policy making processes are still deficient. For even in such a society, the monarchy would have to place their power into the representatives of the people that are chosen via elections. Apart from this, not all Kings and Queens are liberal in their outlook, and under a Constitutional Monarchy, their powers are severely limited. Hence, contrawise to the assertion that they are free to take any wise decision for their people, the King would be limited by the Constitution.

3. RE: Democracy is Irrelevant

The opposition's case here is vague and empirically inaccurate. China is not a democracy. Nevertheless, I see no direct points of clash here except for the mere fact that all the MDGs can be achieved via a Constitutional Monarchy. This is in no way proof of the opposition's case. We are not arguing republicanism vs. monarchy, but democracy vs. dictatorship. Hence, the opposition still needs to affirm that undemocratic regimes can fulfill the many MDGs present here.


1. RE: Crimes Eradicable Only in Democracy

The opposition now strawmans my case. I never did once say that crimes are eradicable only in a democracy: in fact, my label for that argument was not about crime, but about justice in general, and my examples included organized crimes and the judiciary system. The opposition is correct to maintain that the selected countries have a high murder rate. But what the opposition lacks is a control group: it is a basic law of criminology that crimes do not happen for one select reasons, but for numerous numbers of reason. If we were to compare a similar democratic and non-democratic country together, we would find that crime rates in the democracy are lower than those of a non-democracy.

This is present in the case of Belarus, an illiberal regime, and the Czech Republic, a liberal democratic regime. In 2013, Belarus experienced much more crime than the Czech Republic, even though they had similar GDP growth rates. This could be due partly to the fact that Belarus is an illiberal dictatorship, with corruption plaguing it's police force and it's judiciary system. Meanwhile, the Czech Republic experiences much less murders and much less corruption because of it's necessary democratic nature. [2,3,4] This is a valid observations of the high-quality judiciary hypothesis, for the two countries could be considered control groups due to the proximity of each country in respect of socioecnomics, and yet the judiciary for the democratic country (Czech Republic) is of a much higher quality than that of the Czech Republic.

2. RE: Rights in Democratic Countries

The opposition is clearly joking: Cuba and China are not democracies. They are illiberal socialistic regimes. The opposition also clearly does not look at the empirical evidence that can be given. Smith (2007) published a paper that empirically finds that as the years of democracy increase, the rights for the country's populace also increases. Smith notes that Mali, a country which had democracy for only a year (when the paper was published) had its HR index increased by one even during the transitional period, noting that new democracies are often exemplifications of the wants of an previously oppressed people. [5]

FIG I: Results for Democratic Duration and Empowerment Rights Scores

Ultimately, the opposition's rebuttal fails on this empirical respect.

3. RE: Abstract Case for Democracy still stands

The opposition completely forgets that the UK is the exemplification of the representative government that this side has offered to defend. From the Global Democracy Ranking, the United Kingdom has a score of 80.1, a very high score. The opposition's example of a democracy, in this case, Pakistan, has a score of 37.1, significantly lower than UK's score. The United Kingdom has had a tradition of continuing the rule of law since the Glorious Revolution of 1689, which upheld the values of liberty and limited government. Voltaire notes, in his "Letters", that "the [English are the] only people upon earth who have been able to prescribe limits to the power of Kings by resisting them; and who by a series of struggles have at last established that wise Government where the Prince is all powerful to do good."

If the opposition thinks that since England has a constitutional (non-executive) monarchy and it is a free society, it is a negation of this resolution, then the opposition is very mistakened, for England is a lliberal democracy with Her Majesty the Queen as the head of the state. [6,7]


The opposition's case lies riddled here, as the Grande Armee was riddled after its Russian Campaign. The opposition says "constitutional monarchy": good for him! The resolution is affirmed: constitutional monarchies and democratic regimes are compatible due to the separation of the head of state and head of government. The opposition refutes my case by misunderstanding it: I talked about decreases in organized crime and higher quality judiciary, not about crime as prescribed by the opposition. But even then, his arguments fail if we were to use two control variables. His criterion do not allow for a good debate on the issue of a social contract, and henceforth, must be rejected. The resolution is AFFIRMED!



Debate Round No. 2



First and foremost, I would like to kick off my proceedings with some introductory words very much related to this debate. Then, I will carry on showing the insubstantialities to the criterion disputes, presented by my opposition. Eventually, I will provide counter arguments and will give my argumentative opinions, which ultimately will comprise of course, the unrighteousness of democracy.

As stated in the baseline instigated by me, it was ruling system, neither directly government nor clearly state. While ruling a country, none of them can be denied. There must be a significant cooperation between the state system and the governmental system. So, even if there is only one addition to traditional democratic system, it will have to be counted as something new. From these words, it is crystal clear to us that today’s debate is neither entirely about government system, nor entirely about state system. So, from this point of view, constitutional monarchy can be presented in this debate.


Although democracy and constitutional monarchy are not exactly polar oppositions, yet they are not also fully compatible. The reason behind that is there is a noticeable difference between these two systems. For the sake of the proposition’s better understanding, I am providing with some differences:

Constitutional monarchy features a monarch who functions as the head of state. On the other hand, in a democracy, the head of state is someone elected by members of the parliament.

As a system of government, constitutional monarchy separates the Head of State’s ceremonial and official duties from party politics. But in a democracy, these affairs are maintained by the government who are, in fact, a political party and thus have misleads.

A constitutional monarchy also provides stability, continuity and a national focus, as the Head of State remains the same even as governments change. But in a democracy, there is no assurance of these things as the Head of State changes in terms.[01]

Those are the basic differences between these two systems. Even some of them are very much significant too. So, these two systems indeed can be seen as some opposite.

Well, both of us have presented some criteria to this debate. Firstly, I am mentioning them and then, I will do the initial discussion.

My opposition’s saying to my Criterion 01 & 02 was that they refer to efficiency of government. Well, as an example, we can consider the form of government as system, and the effectiveness as outcome. So, when the system is good, the outcome will be good too. Even if I admit his words, then I will also have to consider one of his criteria from the same perspective. His 3rd criterion was to save people in general from internal and external threats. Whether a ruler is a democrat or a dictator, he will do so, as I said in the previous round. So, this isn't also a relevant criterion. Then, he asked, what the necessity of discipling people is if they do not want to be disciplined. Yes, there is the need, as they are not disciplined. When a work is not done, then you have to do it. Last of all, why criterion 04 would be vague? I gave a description to it. Read it and then you will be able to learn how vague your words are.

01. RE: Constitutional Monarchy
I have talked about in the previous phase of my debate. So, no more words on it.

02. RE: Refutation of the Abstract Case
You have claimed example/proof behind my saying. I have got it, there are some countries who are much ahead in corruption ranking, although their democracy ranking is not too high. Singapore is ranked no. 7 country in corruption but, it is a matter of surprise that their ranking in terms of democracy is 73! Then another example, UAE. Their corruption ranking is 20 while in democracy ranking, they are ranked no. 76! Another example , Bhutan. Although their democracy ranking is 74, their corruption ranking is 23![02] For the sake of your better reasoning, I am mentioning these countries just to show the example in general. In case of a very rich European or American country, you will see a good condition as money is everything, whether they are democracy or constitutional monarchy.

Well, if your power is unlimited, you may like to do as you wish. Then, things won't be good for others. I am happy that constitutional monarchy has a wise ruler and even then, he has limits. That's exactly why I am supporting this system.

01. RE: Crimes eradicable only in democracy
Exactly, crimes depend on a number of reasons. So, undoubtedly, it was unwise for you to say democracy itself deserves the credit of lessening crime rates.

02. RE: Rights in democracy
What about Pakistan and Sri Lanka? They are democracies. Although the score is not up to the mark, yet they have been having it for years. According to your prescribed inverted "U" formula, the rate of crime as well as right protection would have been less in these countries. But the reality is, it is not less as it was supposed to be. So, eventually, your arguments fall down in this respect.

03. RE: Abstract case for democracy still stands
We are not dealing with democracy scores, we are arguing about forms of government. So, being a constitutional monarchy, if UK succeeds to earn a good score in your system "Democracy", where is the problem? Then, why is Pakistan's score only 37.1? They have been enjoying democracy from 1947[03]. So, your answer was not a logical one.


1. Quantity rather than Quality:

It lays emphasis on quantity as opposed to quality. Every person whether stupid or genius is treated equal. It turns into government by "the ignorant and the unintellectual."

Mencken says, "Democracy is based on the assumption that all wisdom rests with inferior four-fifths of mankind"[04], who according to Carlyle are "mostly fools."[05]

Decidedly, the intellectuals and wise people are in minority and majority is in the hands of unintellectuals. Democracy thus tends to be a Government of the unintellectuals since in it, votes are counted but not weighed.

2. Inefficiency:

It very often breeds inefficiency as the political leaders are more busy with forming political alliances and thereby maintaining their positions rather than looking after the administration.

Faguet calls democracy as "cult of incompe­tence."[06] "I do not believe in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." said by Thomas Carlyle.[07]

3. Corruption:

It breeds corruption like 'lobby­ing', 'log-rolling', etc. Unhealthy political compromises are made, coalitions are formed throwing all principles to winds thereby. Privileges and power are distributed among the supporters of the regime rather than given to those who deserve. Democracy thus encourages nepotism, jobbery and favouritism.

5. A Government of Opportunists and Self-seekers:

In democracy, people who have no principle of their own flourish while genuine persons with good intentions lag behind. Such people are generally election shy and shun the botheration of elections and political maneuverings.

6. Expensive:

It is very expensive type of government. Parlia­ments, cabinets, election machinery are all a costly affair and a burden on the tax payer. Millions of dollars are spent on the presidential election in the U.S.A., to take one example.

Diagram 01: Cost of US election[08]

s://; alt="" />

7. Plutocracy:

Freitschke describes democracy as a "corrupt dollar worshipping plutocracy or oligarchy of the rich"[09]. According to Lecky, "democracy neither produces equality nor liberty"[10].

9. Tyrannical:

Democracy leads to majority rule which tyrannizes the minority. It leads to revolutions and mob violence.

10. Dis-education:

The opponents of democracy point out that it is a process of dis-education rather than education. It lowers standards, it puts premium on emotion rather than reason, on ignorance rather than intelligence and knowledge. It creates among masses a false sense of equality.
"It produces a civilization"[11] which Burns describes as "banal, mediocre, or dull"[11].

11. Curtailment of Liberty:

Democracy promotes practices like Mac- Carthyism in the U.S.A. or Preventive Detention Act in India whereby liberty and freedom of the people are completely taken away at the discretion of the executive.

The power of the state is used by the party in power to perpetuate its rule rather than for advancement of the people. As President Lowell said, "One grievous failure of democracy in the U.S.A. is the misgovernment of her large cities"[12]. Lacky is of the opinion, "Democracy is opposed to liberty."[12].






In this argument, I would like to essentially refute all of the opposition's contentions, whilst extending mines. However, before we go on, note that practically all of the opposition's constructive case this round is copy and pasted. I am disgusted, and call on voters to give the opposition a good lesson about the destructive qualities of pliagirism.


1.) Differences between a Constitutional Monarchy and a Democracy

Again, the opposition presents a flawed understanding of the term "democracy", and also presents a flawed understanding of the necessary separation between head of state and head of government. The head of state "is the highest-ranking constitutional position in the state", whilst a "head of government of a country is the person who runs it." The opposition says that since "in the baseline instigated by me, it was ruling system, neither directly government nor clearly stated", both have to be taken into consideration. However, the government can be democratic, but the state is necessarily undemocratic. The citizens of the United States elect the "government", but to elect a "state" is to elect every administrative position in the state. This might be so in the case of a tyranny of the majority, but definitely not a democracy. The opposition necessarily forces us to debate republicanism vs. monarchy: note the consented resolution in this debate, which is "Democracy is the best ruling system", not "Republicanism is the best ruling system." Democracy is vague, but I have provided a definition of it in the first round which the opposition has consented by silence too.

Note here also the inconsistency in what is known to mean "constitutional monarchy": in Round II, the opposition says "[the people's consent] also [exists] in systems like aristocracy, constitutional monarchy. Look at UK." After that, when I proved the UK to be a democracy within the limits of this debate, he then consents and tells us that "constitutional monarchy separates the Head of State’s ceremonial and official duties from party politics." Then tell me, if the Head of State is separated from party politics, then how will party politics be organized? Would His/Her Majesty handpick the Parliament? Then that is necessarily an absolute monarchy. Or would His/Her Majesty let their respective people decide what party gets power? Then that, my friend, is called democracy.

2.) Criterion Dispute

The opposition goes on to say that his criterion (1) and (2) refers to the efficiency of the government. However, the opposition meets a roadblock, for there are countries which have the same govern efficiency and different governing systems. Criterion (1) and (2) refers to the efficiency of the State, not the Government. And we have proved that we cannot think of a democratic State, where every administrative position is elected. But we can think of a democratic government, where every governing position is elected. Hence, (1) and (2) makes no revelance whatsoever. Apart from this, my criterion 3 is actually analytical from the notion of the Social Contract, for a government protects people internally and externally. If the country is an illiberal dictatorship, for example, the people are not protected internally as the government is the one inflicting the harm. And finally, the last condition comes with no substantiation whatsoever-the opposition knows this. But even say they come with subtantiation: they are still vague, and evere more so, local: not every state is a federal state. In defending his criterion (3), he says "there is the need, as they are not disciplined. When a work is not done, then you have to do it." What is discipline? Is a nation an army? The people are not clay that the government gets to sculpt-the people are the people, who have the fundamental freedom to not be the slaves of the government.

Since all of the opposition's criterion are standing on one foot, we can reject it and accept side proposition's criterions.


1.) RE: Refutation of the Abstract Case

The oppositon talks of my answer not being a logical one. However, in doing so, the opposition acknowledges the United Kingdom as a democracy. Yay for him! He has just affirmed the resolution for everyone to see.

2.) RE: Rights in Democracy

The opposition here talks about Sri Lanka and Pakistan. However, these two cases are necessarily bad examples. In the example of Pakistan, he necessarily takes a country interrupted by three successful coups with four unsuccesful coup attempts, making democracy in Pakistan a very new thing. In fact, from 2000-2013, Pakistan has not successfully experienced a peaceful transition of power from a prime minister to another with a completion of a tenure. Pakistan is ultimately quite undemocratic in this regards. In the case of Sri Lanka, the country has been ravaged by an unending history of attempted coups, insurgencies and full-scale civil war. In fact, in spite of this, Amnesty Int. has acknowledged a good improvement of HR status in Sri Lanka in 2000, even in spite of this civil war. [1,2] And even if this is untrue, the opposition cherry-picks his data from the many rights-abiding democratic communities.

3.) RE: Crimes

The opposition attempts to rebut side proposition's case by saying that "crimes depend on a number of reasons. So, undoubtedly, it was unwise for you to say democracy itself deserves the credit of lessening crime rates." Is this a refutation, or is this a mere statement thrown in at random? Firstly, I never said democracies reduced crimes: I ultimately said three things. I have said that (1) the judiciary quality in democracies are higher than those of undemocratic regimes, (2) that organized crime is ultimately deterred by democracy, and (3) that democracy deters crimes from happening in the first place. Hence, the opposition fatally misunderstood my case. The opposition's strawman of my case hence is refuted.


1.) Quantity vs. Quality

The opposition here talks "quantity" rather than "quality." But what does this mean in the opposition's case? The opposition then supports the rule of the wise i.e. the notion of a philosopher king. I shall not go in this Platonic notion much, but I should like to highlight what the rule of the "wise" has led men to. The intellectual philosopher dictator, Mao, was the author of a regime that killed 45 million Chinese. Mao's intellectual achievements are admirable, but his practical philosophy not so. We could go back to the realm of Emperor Nero, who was playing a Harp whilst watching the city of Rome burn: he was a philosophically trained and intelligent person. [3,4]

Ultimately, the opposition must understand: wisdom does not automatically give a person a hand over others. What is good or bad ultimately depends on the utilitarian notion.

2.) Inefficiency and Corruption

The opposition necessarily ignores my case in the last round. There is a "U-relationship" between democracy and corruption i.e. corruption would increase so much so until democracy finds a stable institution, then declines again as institutions get stronger and stronger. Efficiency might also be included in this.

3.) Opportunists and Self-Seekers

Again, whatever is good is determined not by an individual's opinion, but by the effect of that opinion on the utility of the populace. An opportunist in one person's view might be a hero in another. There is no objective opportunists.

4.) Expense, and the Role of Money in Democracy

Monarchical countries actually have more money than democracies. In Saudi Arabia, the King has a budget of $21 billion. Although the costs for democracy is actually much more than this, this highlights one thing: that democracies actually invest in the people, rather than invest in worthless projects like Yachts or self-portraits. Actually, if the opposition were to think about it, a dictatorship is much more plutocratic than a democracy: the Banana Republic of Honduras, in 1912-1913, was led by a coup-installed government of Manuel Bonilla, who was backed by a mercenary army from the Cuyael Fruit Company (CFC). The US turned a blind eye to this, and soon, the CFC ruled Honduras as their own private company, allowing for the rich elite to stay atop of Honduran society. [5,6]

5.) Tyranny of the Majority

This only happens, big time, in direct democracies, not in representative democracies, which are the only type of democracy covered in this debate.

6.) Education and Democracy

This is the most empirical false case that the opposition raises. There is too much evidence of a positive relationship between democracy and education. A good democracy depends on education, for with a more educated mass, a more intelligent electorate would be created. Shleifer (2007) notes a positive correlation between democracy and education in his study. [7]

Fig I: Schooling vs. Polity Democracy Score 1960

Fig II: Change in Education Levels 1960-2000 vs Polity Democracy since 1960

7.) Curtailment of Liberty

This case was refuted in R2 by a study that showed a relationship between Democracies and Rights.


The opposition drops the defense of his "democracy is irrelevant" case, and ultimately, most of his case is just a new plagiarism of his sources (unacceptable). His constitutional monarchy has been shown to be compatible with democracy, and even if his case stands, he does not say why constitutional monarchy is better than democracy (which are the same thing). His case is hopelessly flawed. The resolution is AFFIRMED!



Debate Round No. 3


Sadat_Hossain forfeited this round.



(oi ppl who don't like World Schools, this has been a World Schools debate, and WS require reply speeches written in the following format)

What has side opposition told you? Quite simply, they have affirmed the baseline of side proposition-they proposed a constitutional monarchy as a model for a better government than a "democracy": in the defense of this, they have stated in a constitutional monarchy is incompatible with democracy, as the head of state is often elected. When side opposition raised the example of the United Kingdom being a "model" of his yardstick, side proposition quickly proved him to be wrong, by stating that the UK was much more democratic than his presentations of "democratic state" i.e. Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

What has side proposition told you? Put simply, that democratic states (a) results in a positive correlation with justice (which the side-opposition strawman'ed to being inclusive of petty criminal acts, which we have shown to be true in the case of Belarus etc.), that democratic states protect rights (b) more so than illiberal regimes. To this, the opposition keeps going to the examples of Pakistan and Sri Lanka. However, when side proposition cited a study that noted a correlation and causation, side opposition continues to refer to these examples. Lastly, side proposition has told you that (c) a democratic government is more justified than any illiberal regimes created by reason or irrationalist thoughts. To this, the opposition has simply said: "look at the UK, much aristocracy, much freedoms!" In this, side opposition has been proven wrong again.

Ultimately, the debate (apart from the fact that side opp. almost directly C&P'ed from his source 12) comes down to which arguments stand in favor of the resolution: the proposition has given three solid cases, which still stand in the face of the attempts at refuting it, that still stands and is empirically valid. To this, side opposition has given you 14 cases, all of which have been shown to (a) not be empirically true, or (b) actually affirms the baseline. The resolution is affirmed!
Debate Round No. 4
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bluesteel 3 years ago
>Reported vote: ColeTrain // Moderator action: Removed<

4 points to Pro (arguments, conduct). {RFD = Reasons for voting decision: Con made some good points, but lost a whole round of argumentation due to forfeiture, which allowed Pro more time to build up his arguments and affirm the resolution. Criticisms aside, great job to both debaters.}

[*Reason for removal*] A single round forfeit is not a sufficient reason to award arguments. This RFD provides no topic-specific reason why Pro's arguments were better. It just states the truism that a forfeit makes it harder for Con to win arguments, but doesn't say which specific arguments were therefore dropped or were more persuasive because Con had less time to respond to them. An extremely generic RFD does not suddenly become valid merely because Con forfeited a single round. There were still plenty of arguments that ought to have been evaluated. The debaters put time into this debate, and an RFD at a minimum must provide some meaningful specific feedback to the debaters.
Posted by YYW 3 years ago
CON's second round of argumentation is far more expansive than his first; he clarifies that his counterproposal is constitutional monarchy. A lofty bet, indeed. CON's phraseology is awkward, and unnecessarily contrived. This is already frustrating me.

The fact that CON uses the examples that he does is sufficient to show that democracy is not irrelevant. He has lost this point.

PRO did not say that crimes are only eradicable in democracies. PRO didn't' even talk about eradicating crime. He talked about the positive correlation between democracy and justice. CON thus straw mans PRO's case. Homicide rates in democracies does undermine PRO's point about the correlation between democracy and justice, but it's a de minimis impact.

China, Cuba and Pakistan are not democracies; and moreover CON doesn't really undercut the "abstract" case for democracy. The UK is more of a democracy than China, Cuba or Pakistan. I would advice CON to investigate what "democracy" means. A country is a democracy to the extent that its political offices are held by popular elected individuals who hold those offices.
Posted by YYW 3 years ago
To pro's first point about democracy and justice, this was more promising. He gives multiple examples of how democracy leads to justice. That's good. I'd suggest that he research the phrase "rule of law" via the inter web's search engines. However, it's not enough to talk about how excellent Democracy is, when you're contrasting democracy and dictatorship, as PRO does in his conclusion to his first point: "We can conclude from this that the private citizen in a democratic society is much less likelier to experience organized crimes and even much less to experience judicial injustice in a democracy when contrasted with a dictatorship." He needs evidence to support the claim about dictatorships.

To pro's second point: PRO should have just reported what the research said... like, compare human rights violations of democracies to non-democracies. The point about social contract stuff is outside the scope of the first argument, and should have either been included in its own category, or left apart from this one.

To pro's third point: Change "the abstract case for democracy" to "the case for democracy." There is no need to have the word "abstract" there. Also, the social contract is not legally binding. It's philosophical hoopla conjured up by very smart guys in the enlightenment with too much time on their hands. It's morally and ethically binding, but not legally binding (natural law is not human law, even if you accept that natural law exists, and only human law is legally binding).
Posted by YYW 3 years ago

CON's first round is perplexingly weak; the word is "unstable," not "instable." His analogy to buildings is not persuasive. His claim that democracy is irrelevant is absurd on its face. PRO must show that democracy is the best form of government. CON must show that any other form of government is at least as good as Democracy. (Why, you ask? Because of what the definition of the word 'best' is.) PRO's trying to define his way into victory (by saying that better forms of government are more or less democratic) isn't really starting off too well.

PRO's rebuttals obviously overwhelm PRO's. It's not 'proof' per se a lack of proof that PRO should have pointed out was at issue with CON's first round, so much as its lack of persuasive force. He offered no warrant for his claim. Warrant is broader than "proof;" they're not interchangeable. The second reason about cheerful audiences doesn't persuade me either.

I'm also not sure why we transitioned from "cheerful and accepting audience" to "UN Millennium Development Goals." Are these democratic goals? PRO should be more clear about this. They look good, but I'm not sure they are all unique to democracy. PRO has to explain 'why' that is the case, rathe than just saying that these things only come to pass under democratic government. (I lol'd at the name "Angelina Sithole,' because I read it as "Angelina Shithole" -but I digress.) That sad, this conclusion: "Democracies are henceforth a precondition to meet five out of the six goals that the United Nations has subscribed to. " doesn't really have enough support. It's still better than CON, though.
Posted by 18Karl 3 years ago
You should have thought of your arguments instead of taking something off the internet, and your egotism impresses no one. Nevertheless, let us just end this petty comment debate like the people who we wish to be.
Posted by Sadat_Hossain 3 years ago
Seems to be a commentary debate:-):-)
Posted by Sadat_Hossain 3 years ago
I enjoyed your stupid logics too. Furthermore, you should have drawn the graphs yourselves according to your prescribed formula.
Posted by Sadat_Hossain 3 years ago
I think this saying is more appropriate in terms of you, rather than me.
Posted by 18Karl 3 years ago
btw, it ain't arrogance when the other side can't think.
Posted by 18Karl 3 years ago
And I enjoyed your Gohmert logic and your C&P'ed bs!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by YYW 3 years ago
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Comments. Conduct to PRO because CON forfeited a round.