The Instigator
DemocratieDirecta
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
9spaceking
Con (against)
Winning
19 Points

Democratie Directa

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...
9spaceking
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/30/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 671 times Debate No: 59745
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

DemocratieDirecta

Pro

Oamenii ar trebui sa aibe posibilitatea de a putea refuza in mod direct deciziile care le influenteaza viata.
9spaceking

Con

NOTE: This is not part of my argument. My opponent's resolution is "direct democracy". He is using romanian, so it will only be logical for me to use romanian too. For those that don't understand romanian, please use Google Translate. It may not be very accurate but at least gives you an idea of what I'm arguing for.

Adversarul meu face doar un punct în argumentul său: "Oamenii ar trebui sa aibe posibilitatea de a putea refuza in mod direct deciziile care le influenteaza viata." Cu toate acestea, acest lucru este usor de respins. Or înlăturată datorită faptului că în lumea modernă, popula ii mari de oameni există chiar ;i într-o zonă mică. Un exemplu bun este New York City, în care există milioane i milioane de oameni. [1] Într-o astfel de zonă, este imposibil pentru oameni să fie de acord;i încă respinge în mod direct deciziile de guvernul lor face în timp ce în mod efectiv efectuarea de drept.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Vot mine.
Debate Round No. 1
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
you have to click on the "rounds" button to change it...and people ignore arguments in the comments section.
Posted by DemocratieDirecta 2 years ago
DemocratieDirecta
Not at last : "Switzerland's voting system is unique among modern democratic nations in that Switzerland practices direct democracy (also called semi-direct democracy), in which any citizen may challenge any law approved by the parliament or, at any time, propose a modification of the federal Constitution".
http://direct-democracy.geschichte-schweiz.ch...

A valid argument would have been :

Peoples are to fool to decide for themself. Coz didn t was a challenge about technical system , but about a philosophy ... rather it is technically impossible ( which is not true )
Posted by DemocratieDirecta 2 years ago
DemocratieDirecta
Sorry , didn t thinking some english speaker will have curiosity about that.I m new here and didn t know how to set debate rounds , so i can t bring a new argument.
But http://arstechnica.com....
India allready use e-voting from years.Id Estonia is a small cpountry , India isn t ( there was over 400 mill peoples who used e-votin and everything was finished in just few hours.
Ant at the end , it s all about a ideea not about technical possibilities , things that can change from a month to other.
Posted by Adam_Godzilla 2 years ago
Adam_Godzilla
There you go.
Posted by Adam_Godzilla 2 years ago
Adam_Godzilla
For those who can't be bothered:

"My opponent just make a point in his argument: "People should have the opportunity to directly reject the decisions that affect their lives." However, this is easily dismissed. Or removed because in the modern world, large populations of people are really, and in a small area. A good example is New York City, where there are millions and millions of people. [1] In such an area, it is impossible for people to agree, and yet directly reject their government makes decisions while effectively making law.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org... ...

Vote me."
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
DemocratieDirecta9spacekingTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had a better arguement.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
DemocratieDirecta9spacekingTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: No rebuttals by pro also from what I know of English he spelled things incorrectly.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
DemocratieDirecta9spacekingTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had an argument; Pro did not.
Vote Placed by Adam_Godzilla 2 years ago
Adam_Godzilla
DemocratieDirecta9spacekingTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro asserts that people have a right to reject decisions that change their lives. Con offers a rebuttal and an example. Con deserves argument points. Also con provided a source, points are awarded. I will give a 'well done' point for pro in s&g for his use of Romania and confusing his readers.