The Instigator
McNichol19
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points
The Contender
thegodhand
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Is democracy a better form of government compared to communism?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/15/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,255 times Debate No: 14788
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

McNichol19

Pro

I believe democracy is a better form of government in comparison to communism because of the fact countries that have a democratic government have higher education rates, lower unemployment rates and lower poverty rates.
thegodhand

Con

Disagree. At basic levels communism does all of the following-

Makes all people equal.

Makes economy perfect.

Forms a utopian society.

Puts all people at the best job they can do.

These often fail in practice, but since my opponent fails to address reality in place of theory, these are all true. CON, therefore, should have the win.

Not much to debate here, but oh well.

-The God Hand
Debate Round No. 1
McNichol19

Pro

Throughout time there has been a common debate between whether or not democracy is the best form of government. Like every government system, democracy has positive and negative effects towards society. In the past two hundred years, democracy has proven to be a defective way to run a country. In the world we live in, a democratic government is a potential danger to civilization and at any point in time it could lead to a disaster. Within many countries in past and present times, a representative democratic government puts an unneeded strain on the economy for funding where money could be used elsewhere. In the end, a democracy doesn't seek out what is best for all citizens but simply does what the majority wants. For a democratic government to work there are many changes that will need to be made for it to be the best form of government.
First of all, because we don't live in a perfect world and we have realized that man is a fallen creature, a democracy could easily lead to disaster. In a democratic government, the majority has the power to destroy a minority. Throughout history there have been many examples where the majority has had the power and destroyed the minority. For instance, in Germany in 1933, Hitler and his National Socialist Party were voted in by the majority. From here, Hitler then incorporated his power into the Nazi dictatorship with his strong sense of racism and plans for world domination. During this time, Hitler produced a novel," Mein Kampf," dedicated to Thule Society member Dietrich Eckart. The novel was an autobiography and an exposition of his ideology about racial purity which also incorporated future plans Hitler had which any German citizen could have read and used against him. Although at first, German Jews assumed that Hitler would not last long due to the fact, the nazi movement was so much against basic German traditions of cultural and religious tolerance. In the end, if the democracy had not been seeking change, in the year 1939, the Holocaust wouldn't have occurred. Therefore, collaborationist governments and recruits from occupied countries wouldn't have systematically killed between 11 and 14 million people, including about six million Jews, in concentration camps, ghettos and mass executions.
Secondly, in some countries, a democratic government seems to be increasingly about money. Throughout the past ten years, the United States of America are an obvious example where millions are spent on elections with big events and advertising campaigns. This is not what democracy is about and it discourages countries from moving along the path to democracy. In the United States, democracy plays a role of being a hypocrite itself as it undermines the very idea of democracy. Democracy isn't when money is involved to the extent that it is in the U.S.A. Therefore, when mass amounts of money are involved, it becomes elitist and corporatist because only the elite and rich businessmen can afford to fund the campaigns for congress let alone for the presidency. For example in 2009, the campaign for the White House cost $1.6 billion and the whole 2009 election overall including senate and House of Representatives races cost $5.3 billion. With large amounts of unneeded advertising being used, it leaves the question of, "couldn't that money be used somewhere else?" Although the United States of America is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, 13 percent of people living there, live in poverty. Of the other 87 percent of people living in the United States, 14.6 % of the households struggle to put enough food on the table. With such struggle to survive already, it doesn't help that in 2010, the unemployment rate in United States was 9.4 % .( Trading Economics, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistic)Finally, in a study of international health care spending levels published in the health policy journal Health Affairs in the year 2000 found that the U.S. spends substantially more on health care than any other country in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and that the use of health care services in the U.S. is below the OECD median by most measures. The authors of the study conclude that the prices paid for health care services are much higher in the U.S and it will continue to rise. (Wikipedia) Furthermore, with the lack of education, unemployment and money, it becomes next to impossible to afford health care. Therefore in many minds, the millions of dollars used to advertise elections are a clear waste of money seeing as there are any other ways to run a country such as autocracies that avoid this immense expense by avoiding elections.
Thirdly, in many points in history and today, countries have been led by representative democracies. In a representative democracy, an elected leader is chosen to run the country with the best interest of all citizens. With the world not being perfect, it's simply impossible for an elected leader to take into consideration every idea from every citizen. Therefore, the government doesn't seek out what is best for all citizens but simply does what the majority wants.

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a
permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until
the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from
the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for
the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury,
with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose
fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."
-Alexander Tyler 1747-1813

For a democratic government to work successfully they have to listen to the majority while taking into account the feelings and lives of the minority. Every citizen would be involved in government, and would take a strong interest in the way that their government works. There would be elected citizens that would be monitored to make sure that no one part of government had more power then another. From here, all citizens would be heard and they'd have full satisfaction in the way there government was being run. For example, the comparison between the U.S democratic government and the Cuban Communist government leave many differences. In Cuba, a communist government has free education and health care which provides the citizens with a proper education which overtime helps provide money. With Cuba not being one of the wealthiest countries in the world it's hard to believe that it's 6th out of 108 countries for the lowest rate of poverty with 3.2%. Also with other facts in comparison to the United States, the U.S has an employment rate of 9.4% where Cuba only has a 1.4%. Finally, with over powering facts such as these, a communist government could have a better impact then a democratic government. Therefore, I believe that a democratic government isn't the best form of government.
In conclusion, a democratic government has negative aspects and is a defective way to run a country. Democracy always leaves a potential danger of a poor elected leader such as Hitler to cause danger to society, unneeded economic strain by poor funding, and poor involvement of all citizens on ideas on how to run a country successfully. Throughout history and in our future, a democracy will never be permanent due to the fact every democratic system has there flaws and doesn't cover the demands for all citizens leaving then in a sense of poor security. Therefore, I believe that democracy isn't the best form of government.
thegodhand

Con

thegodhand forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
McNichol19

Pro

McNichol19 forfeited this round.
thegodhand

Con

Pro has forfeited. Please vote CON.

Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by thegodhand 5 years ago
thegodhand
no frigging way, NK can SUCK IT.
Posted by InsertNameHere 5 years ago
InsertNameHere
OreEle, this is the kind of person who probably thinks USSR and North Korea = true communism. I'm no commie, but Marx would be turning in his grave at those two countries.
Posted by thegodhand 6 years ago
thegodhand
Way to make a debate ludicrously harder in R2 :)
Posted by gizmo1650 6 years ago
gizmo1650
Communism is a way of distributing resources. Democracy is a way of distributing power. There is no reason that we cannot have both.
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
communism is not inherently opposed to democracy. You should be comparing to a dictatorship.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by innomen 5 years ago
innomen
McNichol19thegodhandTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by reddj2 5 years ago
reddj2
McNichol19thegodhandTied
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 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: con forfeited first then say vote con for his last argument- Bad sportsman ship
Vote Placed by InsertNameHere 5 years ago
InsertNameHere
McNichol19thegodhandTied
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: Both forfeited at least once so that's a tie. Most reliable sources goes to pro simply because he used a quote and put the author's name.