The Instigator
Leo.Messi
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
mrpilotgamer
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

Democracy or Dictatorship? (Democracy is pro, Dictatorship is con)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 3 votes the winner is...
Leo.Messi
Voting Style: Judge Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/21/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 985 times Debate No: 68645
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)

 

Leo.Messi

Pro

Democracy or Dictatorship? Which one is a better form of government?

Democracy: a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting
Dictatorship: rule, control, or leadership by one person with total power
Better: more attractive, appealing, effective etc.
government:a particular system used for controlling a country, state, etc.

1st Round:Acceptance
2nd Round: Arguments
3rd Round: Arguments+Rebuttals
4rth Round Rebuttals+Conclusion


Please only debate this IF you are serious. I would like a decent debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Leo.Messi

Pro

Democracy over Dictatorship.

Democracy…defined as a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting.

In this system, people are allowed to vote and decide on whom they think is the best. A dictatorship is a often tyrannical one man rule.

I am going to explain to you why a democracy is more appealing than a dictatorship…

  1. I. What the past has told us.
  2. II. The Benefits of Democracy
    1. A. Power to the people
    2. B. Keeping the leaders in check
  3. III. Tyranny…what it is.

  1. I. What the Past has told us…

Let us visit exhibit A. USSR and the tyrannical reign of Joseph Stalin.

“By 1928, Stalin was entrenched as Supreme Soviet leader, and he wasted little time in launching a series of national campaigns (the so-called Five-Year Plans) aimed at "collectivizing" the peasantry and turning the USSR into a powerful industrial state. Both campaigns featured murder on a massive scale. Collectivization especially targeted Ukraine, "the breadbasket of the Soviet Union," which clung stubbornly to its own national identity and preference for village-level communal landholdings. In 1932-33, Stalin engineered a famine (by massively raising the grain quota that the peasantry had to turn over to the state); this killed between six and seven million people and broke the back of Ukrainian resistance. The Ukrainian famine has only recently been recognized as one of the most destructive genocides of the twentieth century (see Robert Conquest, The Harvest of Sorrow, and the Web resources compiled by The Ukrainian Weekly). The Five-Year Plans for industry, too, were implemented in an extraordinarily brutal fashion, leading to the deaths of millions of convict labourers, overwhelmingly men. These atrocities are described in the corvée (forced) labour case study. The millions of deaths in Stalin's "Gulag Archipelago" (the network of labour camps [gulags] scattered across the length and breath of Russia) are dealtA leader whose callous disregard for human life was matched only by his consuming paranoia, Stalin next turned his attention to the Communist Party itself. Various factions and networks opposed to his rule had managed to survive into the early 1930s; many in the party were now calling for reconciliation with the peasantry, a de-emphasizing of industrial production, and greater internal democracy. For Stalin, these dissident viewpoints represented an unacceptable threat. Anyone not unquestioningly loyal to him -- and many hundreds of thousands who were -- had to be "weeded out." The Communist Party would be rebuilt in the image of the "Great Leader." This was the origin of the "cult of personality" that permeated Soviet politics and culture, depicting Stalin as infallible, almost deity-like.

Source: http://www.gendercide.org...

Stalin used his tyrannical power to murder millions of people, stamp out any resistance to him, and shape the country as he saw fit. The people were oppressed by this dictatorship and struggled to keep living.

Now, exhibit B. Nazi Germany.

Nazi Germany under the leadership of Hitler soon became a dictatorship. A dictatorship requires one person and one party to be in control of a nation and a climate of fear - this was provided by Himmler'sSS. Personal freedom disappeared in Nazi Germany.

When Hitler was appointed chancellor on January 30th 1933, it was at the head of a coalition government. It was very clear in his mind that it would not remain this way for long. By the end of March 1933, he had acquired much greater powers than the former leading politicians of the Weimar Republic could ever have foreseen when they supported his appointment as chancellor. The death of President Hindenburg in August 1934, allowed him to combine both chancellor's and president's positions into one when Hitler became the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...

The heinous crimes commited by Nazi Germany are nearly endless, (the holocaust, nuremberg laws. They where all a product of this dictatorship) so I will move on.

It is all the same. Mao Zedong, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Leopold II, Hideki Tojo, Emperor Hirohito, Kim-Jong Il, the list goes on and on, but the message is the same. Death, destruction, insane lust for power, horrible atrocities, and endless fear. Dictatorships are not at all better than democracy.

Now, to explain why democracy is better.

What the past has told us…

Exibit I. The United States of America.

Founded out of one of the cruelest dictatorships, the US broke free and established possibly the best democracy in history. People have a freedom to vote for their leaders, make change happen, they CAN do stuff! They can lobby for different things, advertise, not be censored…it is true freedom. They can live in good conditions, succeed by there own merits, voice their opinion. It is wonderful. It is peace. It is Democracy.

Exibit II.

Democracy can be traced back from the present day to classical India or Athens in the 6th century B.C.E. Democracy is a type of political system, or a system of decision-making within an institution, organization, etc., in which all members have the equal share to power—Wikipedia

All members have an equal share of power. So no man can grab all the power for himself and the people can be free from oppression.

So, to summarize:
Dictatorship is a tyrannical one man rule resulting in horrible crimes, cenorship, and absolute conrol by a oppresive government.
vs
Democracy is a peaceful enviroment in which one can voice their opinions, make their own decisions, and succeed by their own merits.

That is all I have to say so far (Next arguments wil be presented next round)-but I wish my opponent the best of luck!

mrpilotgamer

Con

mrpilotgamer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Leo.Messi

Pro

Since my opponent has forfeit-I will briefly restate my arguments:
I. What the past has told us.
II. The Benefits of Democracy
A. Power to the people
B. Keeping the leaders in check
III. Tyranny"what it is.

What are the benefits of democracy? Well, in capitalistic democracies, every man can reap what he has sown. Which is basically a fancy way of saying "IF you make the money, you can use it how you like-not what the government tells you to do with it". You can vote for leaders in a democracy, you can be the leader (yes-every man makes a decision on government matters) in a direct democracy, it makes your voice heard.

Anyways-thanks for the debate. If you do not forfeit again then I will make a longer argument!
mrpilotgamer

Con

mrpilotgamer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Leo.Messi

Pro

My opponent forfeits once again-vote Pro!
mrpilotgamer

Con

mrpilotgamer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by numberwang 2 years ago
numberwang
Voice- what point would Con get, exactly? There are criteria for points, none of which are individually for factual accuracy. If that is your only reason to give con any points, you'd still have to give pro all of the points.
You couldn't give the conduct point to con because pro made an errant statement, because that point is for conduct not for arguments.
You couldn't give the S&G point for that reason because you haven't put forward a spelling or grammar issue.
You have to give all 3 of the argument points to one person, and considering con didn't argue, you couldn't give him those points for that category.
Con posted no sources, so you can't give him source points, even if you don't give those to pro.

Regardless of whether you think con should get a point pro misstating something, you still have to vote within criteria of the debate. You can't give points for reasons that are outside the judging criteria. Since your point against Pro can't be an argument point, you shouldn't think to give it at all. Giving points when they should not be given results in bad RFD's and, sometimes, the wrong people winning debates.
Posted by The-Voice-of-Truth 2 years ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
I can't vote. If I could vote, this is what it would be: "FF. United States is not a Democracy; it is a Republic. Con gets one point due to the fact that Pro falsely used the United States as an example of democracy."
Posted by Leo.Messi 2 years ago
Leo.Messi
thanks!
Posted by Leo.Messi 2 years ago
Leo.Messi
mrpilotgamer-please post your arguments.
Posted by mrpilotgamer 2 years ago
mrpilotgamer
meh. ill bite.
Posted by 2001bhu 2 years ago
2001bhu
A dictatorship would be fun to fight for. But I don't have the time or knowledge to accept.
Posted by 21MolonLabe 2 years ago
21MolonLabe
The-Voice-of-Truth,
I could not have said it better.
Posted by The-Voice-of-Truth 2 years ago
The-Voice-of-Truth
I side with democracy, of course, because Murica.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by numberwang 2 years ago
numberwang
Leo.MessimrpilotgamerTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by Domr 2 years ago
Domr
Leo.MessimrpilotgamerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Leo.MessimrpilotgamerTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:61 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture, but I give S&G to Con due to the US not being a Democracy. The US is a Republic.