Every tyrants dream.
Debate Rounds (3)
Residing in my chair riot,
behind a window
The sacred soul!!
In this debate, I will be arguing against "Every tyrants dream."
As the BoP is still on Pro, I will wait until the next round to start arguing.
Dream - a strongly desired goal or purpose. 
Despite our rich history of politics, we still cannot create a flawless system. Evil men corrupt governments and create negative effects on populations. My following arguments are based on historic evidence and modal logic.
Argument 1: It is possible that a tyrant"s dream may be ethically immoral.
Suppose a tyrant dreamed to murder and rape people. We would judge these actions to be ethically wrong. Even some moral nihilists might say "that"s not fair!" or "that"s not right!" We somehow have an ability to perceive "right and wrong," even if it all is just relative. However, if one truly insists that there are no rights or wrongs, we can easily change the argument to "It is possible that a tyrant"s dream may impact society in a negative manner" or something similar.
Now this concept of a tyrant seems to be logically possible. When we use the word "every," we sometimes mean just the currently existing members of a set, but we sometimes mean all possible members of a set. The google definition is "all the individual members of a set without exception." 
This would include all possible tyrants- even some that do not exist in our possible universe.
Martin Luther King Jr famously said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."  So even if there is just one possible tyrant with a "bad" dream, this would still be bad. If there was a book with 999 true statements and 1 false statement, we could not honestly affirm every assertion in that book. Therefore, we should not agree with the dreams of every tyrant.
Argument 2: Hitler"s dreams were ethically immoral.
We can structure a solid argument like so:
1. Hitler"s dreams were ethically immoral.
2. We should not agree with the ethically immoral.
3. Hitler was a tyrant.
C: Therefore, we should not agree with the dreams of all tyrants.
Support for Premise 1:
Hitler desired to wage war.  I take it that wanting to wage war is obviously ethically wrong for numerous reasons.
Premise 2 is self-evident for everyone but the moral nihilist.
Premise 3 is practically self-evident. There is no need to provide resources if my opponent agrees with this premise.
"I am a Pope, a Mullah, and a President....."
Not every tyrant dreams to be a pope, mullah, or president. It is practically self-evident that this is not the dream of every tyrant, if this is what my opponent is asserting. Rather, tyrants would have many different dreams, just as people have many different dreams. One tyrant might be a sadist, and enjoy hurting people. Others might hate their positions, but they act cruelly through fear and ignorance.
The other statements by my opponent are similar to this, and do not affirm the resolution.
In conclusion, we have good ethical reasons to disagree and oppose the resolution. Until my opponent provides solid arguments against these objections and creates good reasons for affirming the resolution, I believe we must disagree with the resolution, just as we must disagree with a call for rape or a resolution for murder.
In conclusion, I'm somewhat disappointed by this debate. None of my arguments were properly addressed, and no argument was raised to affirm the resolution. The BoP was never fulfilled by Pro and this would warrant a clear loss in most debate settings. Even if my arguments are logically fallacious, they still stand because they have not been refuted.
My opponent finishes his side by calling my arguments "goobledegook". Not only is this a weak example of name calling, but it is also rude and inappropriate in serious discussions.
I therefore believe I have won this debate. Please vote!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by hidude45454 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited the debate. Con was the only one who used sources, and they benefited his debate. Con's point was weak, because he was supposed to argue that tyrants do not dream, but he argued the opposite. Still, con was the only one who argued anything, meaning that he wins on the argument point as well.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.