The Instigator
Beardon87
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
BlindBeliever
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Is a Republic better than a Democracy?

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 2 votes the winner is...
Beardon87
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/8/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 321 times Debate No: 89347
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

Beardon87

Pro

Which is better: Democracy or Republic? I will be taking the side of Republic. First round is acceptance.
BlindBeliever

Con



I represent my client, democracy with full confidence in its innocence! It has done no wrong and any attack on it is fallacious and in fact and obstruction to us finding true justice!
Debate Round No. 1
Beardon87

Pro

The most important reason that a republic is better is the fact that it doesn't leave out the minority. In a democracy, if the majority wants something from the minority, they can have it, even if it is completely unjustified. In a republic, the majority have no such power, and minorities are better protected. As Benjamin Franklin said, "Democracy is like two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." As you can see, the minority in a democracy have absolutely no power.

Another important reason why a democracy cannot compete with a repbublic is that the majority is not always right. If someone were to trick the majority into doing something in their interest, such as investing power in that person, any freedom people have could be ripped away. In a republic, such a thing would be much more difficult to achievedue to the solid laws in place that cannot be taken away by the majority.

My last reason is this: the rights of anyone should never be taken away by greed of the majority. Since a republic does not allow this and a democracy does, the obvious winner is the republic. Mob rule should never be tolerated.
BlindBeliever

Con

The prosecution has put forward a seemingly convincing case in favor of my client, Democracy, being inferior to the prosecutor's client, Republic, but I now have my chance to speak!

Hear me jury, hear me! How is it that the winner of this debate is decided? Is it that Pro or I have some inherent right to victory? Is it that if Pro has been on this site longer and happened to be there at the forming of some written document named 'constitution', 'bill of rights' or what have you that they can then make anything they like unbreakable and non-negotiable despite the vast majority of people challenging a point later on? No! The winner of this debate is decided by who the majority think should win and that is what makes not just this site, not just the art of debating but the very community that we call the 'human race' function so well. No other species on Earth has a concept of democracy, they either have strict unbreakable hierarchy and 'rights' like wolves and lions or they just go full on anarchist.

We came to dominate this very planet starting as a weak, frail hairless excuse of a primate but we used our wits and teamwork to get where we had to when it counted. At times, there were disputes, heck even today there still are. That's why we have different states, countries and such. That's not a problem at all, in fact a very important part of democracy is protecting the right of the minority to freely voice their opinion without harm coming to them. Pro seems to think that democracy in its purest form is an anarchic 'tyranny by majority' but in reality this would very soon become a republic whereby any minority group of any kind who didn't bend backwards to blend in would be seen as violating hte 'core rights' that the majority had decided upon and be the very republic I stand to oppose.

A Republic actually has no basis whatsoever; this is the fundamental flaw of it. One can point the finger at democracy and say 'why is it that if 60 people want a 'bad' thing and 40 don't that the 60 should get what they want? Well who says it's bad? Who is actually judging anything in a Republic? It makes no sense at all. It's like saying, 'oh some guys a while back wrote this list of irrevocable rules and we must take it as gospel regardless of how many people oppose it'.

So, for all we know, the supposed 'constitution' in this imaginary republic could have stated that women must have sex with three men per week and failure to do so should result in men having the god given right to rape them in horde to meet th quota. In democracy, assuming the majority are sane which would be required for any society to work in the first place, this 'rule' woudl immediately be challenged and tossed aside. In a republic, the fact that this rule was made in ancient times and is now considered a 'right' would mean that there'd be no legal means ot challenge it whatsoever and this, ladies gentlemen and gender neutral individuals, is why my defendant, Democracy, is not guilty of being inferior to Republic.
Debate Round No. 2
Beardon87

Pro

You seem to have forgotten the prospect of an ammendment, my good sir. An ammendment to this constitution could solve the unfair laws. And you have completely neglected to mention that the same laws could come into place with a democracy, as long as the majority wanted it.

Here is a hypothetical situation.

You are on an island with four other people. After discussing your government to be a democracy, you and a friend head up a hill and collect 10 apples each. The other three stay down at the beach. When you return, they demand you give them the apples. Of course, you want to keep those apples, or at least share them equally. However, the other three people, the majority, have decided that they get more for free from you and all because mob rule allows them to do anything they want as long as most of them want it. Next, The three will vote to exclude you and your friend from voting, and now you and your friend are slaves. This has no negative effects on the majority to enslave the minority, and only benefits them.

The situation will end with them voting for a leader, and a dictatorship follows. Then there is no freedom. Now if there is a set of laws to protect from such a situation, as is in a republic, none of this happens. It lasts much longer and is less likely to end in tyranny.

Thank you for your time in this debate, my wonderful adversary. I bid you good day.
BlindBeliever

Con

Amendments huh? What are they decided by? A democratic vote! Ahahahaha!

Dearest jury, before us we see not only someone persecuting democracy unjustly but furthermore outright supporting the defense while doing so. In the example, three people enslave two... Yeah, this will be a problem for them, it just takes one slip and revenge will be served cold that night. Aside from that, my opponent assumes that society is that psychopathic that the majority would support slavery in the long run, if that is the case then what's stopping slavery happening in a Republic? When the blacks were taken as slaves, it was assumed to be the whites' right to do so. Guess where slavery was more severe and widespread? In the southern states, which unsurprisingly also are those more prone to support a Republican USA rather than a Democratic one.

It is a severely Republican society that would ignore the voice of the slaves because somehow they can add conditions to their rights. Democratic societies do not work like this. It is in no way whatsoever democratic for a group of people to silence a minority amongst them because everyone is a minority of their own kind, think about that for a minute. Democracy works by having all minorities have equal say in the outcome to please the majority of minorities in any given situation. Republics randomly have allocated unquestionable rights that can only be amended via a democratic vote on the amendment.

The Prosecution of democracy has constantly said 'rights' but never once explained what are the correct set of rights and how to determine it. I have explained that best way to determine the current best set of rights is by allowing everyone to have a say and finding the best middle ground to please the most people at any given time in all ways (slavery would go against this).
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Debate357 10 months ago
Debate357
Would independent be okay to argue or is it strictly Democratic?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by random_noob 10 months ago
random_noob
Beardon87BlindBelieverTied
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: Neither side defined terms. This was a debate about Direct Democracy vs Indirect Democracy with Constitution if I understood this correctly. Pro 's position was that the Constitution can protect minorities, who are hopeless in a Democracy, Con argued that a Republic is still a Democracy, and that everyone is a minority of their own kind. I think that's fair. However, Con did not provide any arguments to show in what ways is a direct Democracy superior. Had he provided any good arguments I would have given him the win. (I assumed BoP is shared). So Pro argued better overall
Vote Placed by Emmarie 10 months ago
Emmarie
Beardon87BlindBelieverTied
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: RFD - Cons attempt at entertainment did nothing to strengthen his claims. R2 - Pro's claims were concise and focused on the reasons why a Republic is better than a Democracy, mainly that a republic includes everyone's rights equally not just the rights of the majority. R-2 Con attempts to refute Pros arguments but his argument is speculative that the majority would in fact care anything about the minority and he also implies that the constitution is outdated. Pro comes back to negate Cons claim by mentioning amendments, and by creating a brilliant example of how a democracy could hypothetically lead to tyranny he shows that a democracy is inferior to a republic and proves his claim. Cons final round he shows that he doesn't understand what a republic or a democracy is by implying that democrats are for a democracy, while republicans are for a republic. Argument points for Pro for proving his claim.