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

Fascism is a superior form of rule than theocracy

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/10/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 956 times Debate No: 54396
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)




Rnd. 1 Acceptance
Debate Round No. 1


Our format of debate will be the following:

Rnd. 2: Arguments (no rebuttals)
Rnd. 3: More Arguments and Rebuttals
Rnd. 4: Rebuttals only
Rnd. 5: Concluding Statements

I would like to thank the opponent for accepting my debate request, and I hope to have an interesting debate with him.

Firstly, before I present my argument, I would like to define several terms in the motion presented today.

Superior: Being better than

Theocracy: A form of rule in which the ruler, the state or the regime insists that a divine figure has installed its rule. With this defined, we can clearly negate regimes such as that of Israel, whose laws are only partly based on the Torah. We can also dismiss regimes with a state religion, as a secular state can coexist with a state religion.

Fascism: A form of radical ultranationalism in which the state obtains total control of many aspects of life. With this in mind, we may not confuse many authoritarian states; authoritarian states do not have any legitimacy to rule, while a totalitarian fascist state does.

For many years, god has been used to justified the existence of the state in many communities. From the Holy Roman Empire to the Ottoman Empire, theocracies have created sprawling economies and strong armies. But as the world got more rational, many questions rose. One of these questions directly attacked the justification for a state of all theocracies: the existence of a divine deity, also known as God.

As the rise of Liberal Atheist Philosophy grew, theocracies were starting to fail. With many discoveries, like those of Darwin and Evolution, many people were becoming unsatisfied with the "truths" that religion once deemed to be true. With this also came an unstoppable rise of a new philosophy that was to change the world forever; nationalism.

As science grew more intense in study, religion became weaker and weaker. The Liberal Atheist community, supported by science, grew with an unstoppable pace. By the beginning of the 20th century, many philosophers were influenced by liberal athiesm. Radicalism was on the rise; the creation of communism and anarchism, along with it's rise, led to the decline, albeit slight, of conservative culture.

Soon, rule by divinity's right was no longer an accepted justification for the state. A new ideology was needed to salvage both the religious right and the modern left from the dustbins of history. And therefore, fascism was born.

I would like to divide my arguments into two sections. Section one deals mainly with the faults of theocracy, while section two will move into benefits of fascism.

Section One: The Social Contract of Theocratic Government has been in place in doubt, therefore creating more athiestic dissent internally and externally

1. Internal Public Dissent from "Obsolete" Ideals

When a country enacts a form of theocratic rule, they are in the same way enacting a government in which it's justification is based on several things that we have no way of proving mortally. These things highly revolve around God; the existence of God, the powers of God etc etc.

As explained, the rise of liberal athiestic philosophy of the 19th and 20th century has led to several things; the doubting of religious authority is one of the unintended (one might say) consequences of the rise of liberal athiestic philosophy. Therefore, when a theocratic government comes to power, one under the system may ask "why is homosexuality wrong?" or "why did God shun the actions of greed"? When these questions go unanswered (or answered in only a religious context), unsatisfaction arises (as this question is answered in an obsolete manner), causing internal dissent. With secularism on the rise, even in theocratic countries, we can then see that internal disruption could be caused by such simple questions.

2. External Abhorrance

Theocracies are highly devoted to religion; they are fundamentalists in their own ways. Religion, although commonly seen by many as a force advocating for peace and prosperity throughout human culture, has led many "religious followers" to commit atrocities beyond human comprehension. Many theocracies, being highly religious themselves, have turned to support this action. An example of this is the Taliban's endorsement of Al-Qaida during it's regime in Afghanistan. Because of the Taliban's theocratic fundamentalism, Al-Qaida quickly took hold in Afghanistan and this soon led to 9/11 (and the destruction of the regime). Many theocracies do support fundamentalist groups, and therefore receive external hate from many other countries.

This therefore leads rightfully to a view that theocracies are violent and rouge in nature; they always need to follow and support their brothers, even the most radical ones. As stated before, religion has now become a weaker justification of every government, since religion has been weakened by athiestic philosophy.

Contention Two: The Benefits of Fascism

1. Fascism destroys Internal and External Dissent

This concept was embraced by the syncretic positions that fascism held; it was neither reactionary nor revolutionary. It was neither communist or capitalist. It was either athiestic or religious; fascism is a segment of that combined into one ideology. The social and political aspects of this are the ones that make the most relevance to us, although the economic aspects cannot be ignored. Fascism is superior to theocracy in the sense that it's social contract is not based upon a deity whose existence is still in question; it's social contract is based highly upon the existence, and the protection, of the people under the fascist state. Internal dissent under fascism is therefore almost limited and contained under one group of people, most notably, communists. Fascist governments usually confine these threats by simply outlawing the parties in question, and arresting key members of that party on the pretext that that member wants to destabilize the state. External abhorrance under fascism is also limited; before World War II, many conservatives and even some socialists saw fascism as either, in the conservative case, a "force built up to stop the rise of communism", or in the socialist case, the "bourgeiosie revolution" (the last step before a proletarian revolution under communist theory). With the two largest threats to the state confined by the inital nature of the fascist government, the fascist government presents a stable government (albeit a totalitarian one). Apart from this, the legitimacy of the fascist government goes unhindered; a fascist government is totalitarian, and a totalitarian government has complete legitimacy whatsoever (if it doesn't have legitimacy, then it is an authoritarian state, and not fascist)

2. Fascism presents a modern economic model based on both capitalism and socialism

The Fascist Corporatist model is a model based on both capitalism and socialism; it is a corporatist model in which class interests are casted away in the sense that the national interest is put on key. Although religious macroeconomic models, such that those of Islam and Christianity, have proven to be successful, their economic systems have been outdated by the forces of capitalism that we are now presented with today. For example, modern economics have resulted in many Islamic banks (based on Islamic finance) losing profits. Zakat is also proven unneeded in a fascist state, as welfare programs under a fascist state would be huge; Zakat has become a widely obsolete part of the Islamic Finance system (as it is collected voluntarily, so evasion is easy. However, taxes aren't optional). Fascism is superior in the economic sense that it has the ability to destroy inflation in virtually 3 years by introducing Keynesian-based policies, and these policies can change to adapt with the period; for example, the economic policy of Francoist Spain before WWII and after were highly different because of changing times. However, theocracies can't change their economic policy, as it is fixed upon religion (unless that theocracy wants to change the religion itself)

It is because of the theocratic states create internal and externa dissent, while fascist states don't and have a superior economic model, is why fascism is superior to theocracy.




My argument is that theocracy is a superior form of government than Fascism.

A Theocracy can work as long as all have an objective way to learn about God. For example, Moses is an example of a Theocratic leader and proved that God was his authority by doing miracles. Theocracy in ancient Israel was very strict in it's regulations and form of rule. Everyone should have access to the Bible in which God can speak to the people in order to prevent corruption. With an outline of commandments to follow in the Bible, the leader cannot justify his selfish actions.
Debate Round No. 2


On the Story of Moses: Adaptation to Modern Times

Firstly, we don't live in a world where human interaction is limited to people of your own/neighbouring countries. The world is now smaller in the sense that everyone is connected. The opponent uses Moses as his only example of a theocracy; if a theocracy like that one of Moses exists today, then we would find that the theocracy would be very difficult to sustain, as internal and external dissent will always arise. Also, the opponent talks about how commandments outline what the government is to be. However, these commandments can and would be violated; fascism, however, has no commandments, and its outline has been ambigous (to a point where the three main points exist as things that should be implemented, not followed). When the highest person has to follow a law, and only a divine entity could punish that person, then humans in nature are selfish, and they will turn an ignorant eye into this law. This is exactly what happened with the Pope (during the Papal Era); he sent men to fight for his own political reasons during the Crusades, in which it was diverted from its original purpose (reclaiming the Holy Lands).

The theocratic state of Moses would also do poorly in a comparison of economics between a fascist country like the Third Reich. This would be attributed to the proto-capitalist system that would be adopted by the theocratic state. The theocratic state would most likely adopt an economical model based on the teachings of their prophets; this led to the nationalization of many industries and the departure of the market production process to a government planning proccess. With external hatred coming from outside, sanctions would most likely be implemented on these countries, straining their economies to the max. An example of this is Iran; the Iraninan Rial fell to almost 28,000 rials per dollar in 2012. This is a sign of a low economy; Iran has an economic growth rate of 1%, even though it has 10% of the world's proven oil resources. This is because of the economy; it isn't a market-based one, but a government planning-based one. Even with a government planned economy, its unemployment is now exceeding 15%; this clearly shows that a theocratic state, based on highly religious principals, will cause an economic disaster in the country. If we were to look at the case of the Third Reich however, we would see a high difference; although inflation control and other programs (based on Keynesian principles) caused massive debt, by 1938, unemployment was non-existant and wages increased by 11%.

The most important aspect, however, that makes fascism superior than theocracy is the justification for ruling; the athiestic community is growing at such a fast rate that believing that god exists is looked upon as a belief for the conservative minority. What this means is that if a state is justified by god, then the whole state exists on a minority belief; a state does not run like that. Take the Soviet Union for example; communism is its justification. The communist thought was pushed to the minority by the growing educated elite (who received words about democracy and capitalism from America) and the communist state ultimately fell. Therefore, we come to a concluding formula that if a state's ideology, or main justification, is pushed to the minority, then the state will fall. This makes a theocracy unsustainable; however, we must look at fascism. It's main justification, national honour, can never be pushed the minority because a nation, unless that nation is completely dissolved, is a symbol of unity and power of one people. If we were to push nationalism to the minority, then patriotism would still be in the minds of the many liberals and anarchists who did so. National pride can never be pushed to the minority; fascism's justification is eternal and it is not to be doubted.

It is because of these reasons, fascism is superior to a theocratic state.


With a Theocracy, there would be no room for dissent as punishment would fall upon those who disobey directly.

As i've stated before, if everyone had access to the Bible, there would be little room for corruption as God's will is always to be held above human governments.
Debate Round No. 3


Due to time restrictions, I would like to extend my debate arguments for now.
Debate Round No. 4


Response to the Opponent's Arguments

The Bible and Theocracy:

I do not dispute the fact that the Bible condemns corruption, and those who follow it are incorruptible; however, I dispute the fact that humans can and will follow the Bible. Entire Churches have been found upon for personal greed and lust; the Church of England founded by Henry VII was founded after the Papacy refused to divorce him with one of his eight spouses. The Hobbesian view that “humans are salvages and evil by nature” is adopted to understand this; the creation of class inequality, as observed by Rousseau further supports this view. The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said "This is mine," and found people naïve enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society”
This quote starts his view with a point that he has for so long followed and praised; he argues that men possess the want to propel their living standards (survival) and will do anything to stop this. All theocracies, or many to say the least, fell into this state of post-revolutionary trauma; as the revolutionary spirit died down, the leaders of the nation started forgetting their true doctrines. This then leads to outright corruption, especially when the state was created and sustained in a name of a divine person. When men aren’t regulated, then the society falls; when leaders aren’t regulated, then the state falls. A book, a document or a powerless parliament does not interfere with the unregulated powers of leaders; people do. People will speak out against needless injustice; people will speak out against limitless power. Theocratic states are burdened with solving this phenomenon, especially when theocracies already have a weak justification for ruling.

But my opponent may argue, “what about fascism?” It has been agreed; fascism isn’t stable either. But what fascism has is the ability to sustain the “revolutionary spirit” A quote by Mark Twain says it all. “Loyalty to country, always. Loyalty to government, only when deserves it.” Many citizens, certainly the majority (especially in fascist countries, due to the nationalistic education received), will always stay loyal to their government. Where there is demand, there is supply; the fascist government is the supply to a highly nationalistic and revanchist-minded population.

Theocracies and Dissent:

The opponent states that there is no room for dissent in a theocratic state. That might be true in the case of a previously ignorant and law-abiding generation; perhaps that of the Dark Ages before the re-enlightenment of society. BUT we now live in possibly one of the most well informed generation ever; recently, a coup was carried out in Thailand. All of you would have remained ignorant of this until today; however, with such advances as the internet, the news was posted within minutes of the coup. This flow of information has created a liberal atheistic generation, whose skills are limited to presenting facts to an audience. Facts; not philosophy! Theocracy is therefore rendered obsolete; with the majority of the generation turning to the a-word ­alternative, how can a theocracy sustain itself? Is it supposed to praise god and tell everyone to follow his rule? Is it? Many say yes. That, in itself, is done by the following of many religious texts, or eventually, departing it (but still justifying that with the reign of god). As explained before, many religious texts have obsolete ideas on gender roles; with such a highly informed generation, it would be impossible to deny news from outside countries. With this knowledge, many people oppress under a theocracy will need to rebel; this is also a problem in fascism, but perhaps more pressing in theocracies. Since genders are discriminated, about ½ of the entire nation is discriminated. That, in itself, is unsustainable.

Then fascism? Under fascism, all citizens are equal and have the same rights. Although dissent is suppressed by totalitarian means, the majority of the population is certainly not discriminated (and therefore, not dissenting). Fascists ought to imprison threats to the state; communist, anarchists, and other radical leftists. We can all agree radical leftists are the minority, the very small tiny (but loud) minority that ought to speak whenever unsatisfied. It takes a stick, a huge on, to sufficiently poke a fascist state into submission; World War II poked two fascist states into submission. But alone, an internal revolution under fascism seems really unlikely.

With this, I would like to conclude my arguments:

Argument One:

P1. All Theocracies support an extreme branch of religion

P2. All Religious Fundamentalist group support an extreme branch of religion

C1. All theocracies support religious fundamentalist group

From this conclusion, we must also see that:

P1. Many religions have an obsolete view of gender roles

P2. All theocracies support this view

P3. Many citizens in one state are of one gender that is discriminated

C1. All theocracies have a large minority (perhaps majority in some cases) of the population in dissent


P1. All theocracies support religious fundamentalist groups, which are hated externally

P2. All theocracies support an obsolete view, which creates dissent

C1. Theocracies face both internal and external dissent

Concluding at:

P1. Theocracies support religious fundamentalist groups

P2. Theocracies face both internal and external dissent

C1. Theocracy is inferior to fascism

Argument Two:

P1. All theocratic economics are obsolete

P2. Some economics of fascist countries are modern

P3. All aspects of fascist economics are adaptable

C1. Fascism has a better economic system than theocracy

Another conclusion that I presented was that:

P1. All fascist countries suppress anti-government groups

P2. Many fascist states have therefore suppressed a slight minority of the nation

P3. Many people remaining however, are more or less satisfied with the fascist government

C1. Fascism faces slight internal dissent


P1. Fascism has better economics than theocracies

P2. Fascism faces less internal dissent

P3. Fascism is superior to theocracy



While yes, churches exercise corruption, it is only because there are no biblical principles involved ensuring that they wouldn't exercise complete control.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by SeventhProfessor 2 years ago
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: All Con did to argue for theocracies was say law enforcement would be simpler in an ideal situation, which Pro successfully rebutted. Con did not attack any of Pro's points, and therefore conceded to each one.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Not mutually exlusiv. 3rd Reich controlled religion to control people.
Vote Placed by baus 2 years ago
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro has so many uncontested points whilst all of Con's points were torn apart by Pro's case. Pro was the only one to use credible sources.