The Instigator
DucoNihilum
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
JoltifyTheWorld
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points

Majority should decide whether or not a political policy is implemented.

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
Con Tied Pro
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: 2/10/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 862 times Debate No: 2523
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (6)

 

DucoNihilum

Con

I do not believe that majority should decide whether a policy is implemented, as majority is not necessarily correct- nor will majority generally maximize liberty. My opponent is asking me to hurry up on AIM so I'll keep my opening short.
JoltifyTheWorld

Pro

I believe that whether the majority is correct or not on an issue is based on your views or opinion.You might believe something is correct but the rest of a nation might believe it is incorrect.To decide these matters in a way that is fair to everyone would be by voting and the action taken would be the one the majority chose,for if only one person is supporting a proposal and the rest isn't,it would be dictatorship to impose that on the nation if they disagree.^_^
Debate Round No. 1
DucoNihilum

Con

I agree that without a democracy there is the possibility of a dictatorship. Dictatorships are not necessarily bad things, there can be totalitarian dictatorships and benevolent dictatorships. Theoretically, a benevolent dictatorship can maximize liberty without taking into account the prejudices of the citizens.

If the entire nation, minus one person, disagrees with Liberty Liberty is STILL correct. To argue otherwise would be an appeal to popularity. If the entire world claims that 1+1=5, yet you believe it is two you are the correct one!

Tyranny of the majority is not fair, it is simple oppression. In order to avoid oppression, government must not follow by a system in which 51% of the population can oppress 49% of the population.
JoltifyTheWorld

Pro

Well its an exaggeration to say that people would argue that 1 + 1 = 5 lol because the math system has already been developed and 1 + 1 = 2 for your information but okay btw..that math system had to be reviewed and people VOTED to decide if it was correct,majority won.I don't think I need to say much other than an exaggerative view of a system to make it look bad wont be something people will fall for.The simple matter is that you cant force your views on a whole nation if you dont have the support of the majority of people who live in that country.You live in our nation,you go by its law..and the law of our nation states that voting and the majority winning is the correct way to go and I cant see how you would disagree.While it may be true that not everyone would agree on a certain topic and the voting might end up close like you stated,saying that the minority should win just because you supported the view the minority had,is wrong.Everybody has the same right to express their opinion as you do.We have to respect that.In the end of it all we all try to be educated individuals who strive to pick whats best for our country.To avoid further conflict,people vote,and it goes the way the majority of the nation picked because like I said,its dictatorship if you force something the majority of the nation doesnt want.I dont see why we need 5 rounds for this,I have made my point and my opponent is just giving exaggerated views of the arguement to try and make the system look bad.Lol but its cool,just try to not take 2 days and a half to come up with your next response XD.
Debate Round No. 2
DucoNihilum

Con

I wasn't so much exaggerating as I was showing you an example. I was trying to show that if majority does not necessarily mean 'right', after all, if two people in a room were ignorant about the mathematics system and thouht 1 + 1 actually was 5, would they be correct? By your standards they would be- after all, majority rules. Your entire argument is based off of a logical fallacy- the fallacy is called appeal to popularity. Flawed logical that appeals to the 'because it is popular it is right' is incorrect. For more information about this fallacy, you can check out this page http://en.wikipedia.org...

Your comment on the mathematics system being 'voted' upon, as if in a 'democracy' is laughable and ridiculous. For more information, might I suggest here. http://en.wikipedia.org...

You suggest I can not force my views on a whole nation- and disapprove of the minority ruling over the majority. You misunderstand two things.

Firstly, you misunderstand democracy itself. Democracy is in fact tyranny of the majority- 51% of the people have the right to decide what happens to 49% of people, in a true democracy that could mean as much as the death of a minority group, to certain groups being oppressed, to certain others being given privileges. Democracy still involves force, and people supporting that force in numbers does not justify it.

You believe that a minority imposing their view on the majority is necessarily bad. If, for instance, the majority of the people in the USSR supported it while 40 million of their people were starving, would that make what they do just? No- in fact, the minority of people supporting freedom and liberty would be the just ones! I agree it is unethical to force your views on others- however, democracy just does this- it forces the view of the majority on the minority. My system would not be so much 'force', but allowing all views to be equal- everybody to be equal without fears of one group getting special advantages over another. This should be enforced by a strict constitution, one that can not exist in your idea of a democracy.

Democracies and liberty stand opposed to each other, if you want people to be the most free you must allow them to be free in their actions, letting the two wolves and the sheep live their lives as they see fit, rather than as in your system, allowing the two wolves and a sheep to decide what is for dinner.

You argue that if you live in a nation you should respect its law, and that thusly the law of our nation is in support of democracy- thus it is correct. In fact, you believe it is so correct to say that you can 'not see' how I would disagree with our government. Your core argument here is fallacious, and thusly bunk. This argument is an appeal to authority http://www.nizkor.org...

I am not arguing about whether or not 'democracy' is actually law (although I could if I wanted), I am arguing whether or not majority SHOULD decide if political policy is implemented. Current laws have nothing to do with that, and are, in this case, fallacious to bring up.

Everybody may have the same right to express their views in my system. My system would allow absolute liberty though a constitution and a very limited government rather than a democracy or thousands of representatives deciding on how we can further erode our freedoms.

In your system, everybody does NOT have the right do do what they want inherently. The people decide what rights will be left alone by the government, and what rights will be taken away by the government. In your system free speech could very well be taken away. My system would allow all liberty to flourish, regardless of petty issues on whether or not people agree with it or not. People tend to be very selfish, they support things that are in their favor rather than the favor of everybody. People might support banning of homosexual sex because it makes them feel uncomfortable. They might pay no attention to the fact that they are denying the homosexuals with liberty that they must have, they are in fact oppressing via 'democracy'. Thusly, democracy is not a system that maximized liberty, and regardless of whether or not people want something it should be done. People will always 'want' privileges- it's their nature, if we allow people to get whatever they want we will have a system slightly like what we have today, movements for less and less freedom. Why would people support less and less freedom though? Because they support less and less freedom for other people, while griping about the less and less freedom they are receiving. They are hypocritical, criticizing freedoms that others wish to take away while taking away freedoms that have no effect on them, but have plenty of effect on other people. To fix this problem of the possibility of Liberty or totalitarianism, a system of Majority Rule should not be used, it is unfair and puts some people at an unfair advantage of others.
JoltifyTheWorld

Pro

Well like I said in the previous round.I dont see the need for 5 rounds for I already feel I made my point and im sure that if the people reading this debate look up information on their own,they can make their own conclusions on the subject.The fact of the matter is,that your 'system' is flawed and ontop of that people just wouldnt accept it.I believe that people with your state of mind on this subject are a MINORITY and that the MAJORITY of the nation would agree that the MAJORITY winning in votes is the CORRECT way to go and thats why it is the way we DO it this day.So feel free to continue answering with page-long rambles that are incoherent while I wait for the votes of the people who have seen this debate.They dont even have to look up information if they dont want to.I mean its logical to see that a minority just cant have the upperhand in votes,thats like saying a basketball team that scores 100 points loses to a team that only scored 50 points,it doesnt make sense.Cya at the vote ^_^.
Debate Round No. 3
DucoNihilum

Con

True, you have made your points- but all of your points have been throughly refuted by me. It's your job to give them the information, and it's your job to convince them of the conclusion you wish to support- not theirs. Regardless of whether or not people would accept it I suggest it should be implemented. You are again using the argument from popularity fallacy. Just because people support something doesn't mean it's good, and just because people don't support something doesn't mean that it is bad.

You start to use circular reasoning later on, saying that Since I am the minority I am incorrect, therefore you are correct- when the subject is on democracy or 'majority rule' itself, It becomes illogically circular.

While you might find my arguments incoherent I suspect those who have the intellect to understand them do not find them to be so. If either of us have any incoherent arguments it would be yours, the ones you continue to bring up however fallacious they become.
JoltifyTheWorld

Pro

Let the people look it up and make their own decisions.I am sure they will see that your arguements dont make sense.
Debate Round No. 4
DucoNihilum

Con

My opponent has clearly lost this debate.

Not only were his arguments inherently flawed and fallacious, as I proved already- he constantly tried to avoid the main subject of the debate by attacking my argument as simply wrong without giving an explanation, and suggesting (twice, even) that people should simply research this issues for themselves.

That is not the point of a debate, it is his job to prove his point, not your job to 'research it yourself'.

By all standards I have won this debate.
JoltifyTheWorld

Pro

I feel I already proved my points in round 1 and 2,thats why I didnt bother going over every single topic you put up in that page-long response.You yourself asked them to go to sites and look at the info,so why cant I ask them the same? Even if they dont read anything,its logic that a minority shouldnt have the upperhand in votes.If everybody has the same value and rights under our system then we have to respect that majority.We cant just pick the minority because you(personally) like it more.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by DucoNihilum 8 years ago
DucoNihilum
I was playing devils advocate / wanted to see the arguments, not a very strong supporter of that issue- so I declined.
Posted by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
Duco, are you going to accept or decline my debate challenge or what?
Posted by ericjpomeroy 8 years ago
ericjpomeroy
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."-Thomas Jefferson
Posted by Donlatt 9 years ago
Donlatt
If Joltify wins this debate, I'm leaving this site for good.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by dlw7505 8 years ago
dlw7505
DucoNihilumJoltifyTheWorldTied
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 
Vote Placed by HandsOff 8 years ago
HandsOff
DucoNihilumJoltifyTheWorldTied
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 
Vote Placed by SportsGuru 8 years ago
SportsGuru
DucoNihilumJoltifyTheWorldTied
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 
Vote Placed by DucoNihilum 8 years ago
DucoNihilum
DucoNihilumJoltifyTheWorldTied
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 
Vote Placed by blond_guy 8 years ago
blond_guy
DucoNihilumJoltifyTheWorldTied
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 
Vote Placed by JoltifyTheWorld 8 years ago
JoltifyTheWorld
DucoNihilumJoltifyTheWorldTied
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