Might is right (in times of weakness and turbulence)
Debate Rounds (4)
Mighty people should not take power because there mighty.
People should take power because there elected.
I suppose my oponent means when there is a crisis a man should take complete power to solve it.
I will site examples of when mighty people took power in former free countries.
Roman Republic: Caesar took power of the republic it ended becoming the roman empire the republic as dead.
Hitlers Germany:After the injustice of the versaille treaty and the attacks to Germany from allied forces the German people gives absolute power to Adolf Hitler.We know how that went
The poin that I'm tryng to make is that those elevated to power like to keep it with often terific results.
Now i will begin to argue logically through a series of questions.
What would happen if the mighty (ambitious, talented, charismatic, intelligent) did not take power in times of corruption, anarchy etc.?
What would happen is that a nation and its people would fail to work at all and ever work again. For instance, take leaders that progress their nation and its powers. These leaders have the might to lead, but if a government is corrupt then they cannot elad and if their is no government they must take what they cannot earn by force. Therefore, if no people with the qualities and might of a leader step forward, then there is no longer anyone who can lead sucesfully with ou devolving into anarchy, decay, and coruption.
Why should the mighty get power?
Because the mighty are the only ones who can use it for the good and empowerment of their nation. The mighty are the ones who will use so that their nation will remain and become strong.
He has to prove that Might is right in time of instability.
I only have to disprove his points.
First my opponent puts power over liberty as I see it for him being powerfull is more important than being free.
Of course most people do not agree hince the creation of human rights.
So in liberty vs power.
Roman republic was more free than the roman empire less democratical as we here in europe but still more free yhan the roman empire.
Roman empire was more powerfull than the republic but less free so the taking of power of Ceasar was a bad thing.
Hitlers Germany would have been better of without hitler.
No post war destruction completly destroying Germany.
No post war occupation by allied forces.
No losing basic human rights during his reign.
No losing almost all of it's military strenght.
No murder of millions.
How did Hitlers take to power help germany in anyway in the long run?
Bolshevic Russia :Gaining power destroying democracy.starting mass killings.putting up a system that had no chances to function in russia and this is by Karl Marx him self.
The U.S goverment has been ruled by allot of leaders at the same time.
There was no real centralize power.
Ask yourself this, since when has liberty been taken, before power has supported it? The answer is it never has been. Power and liberty come hand in hand, without liberty how does one exert power? Without power how does one exert liberty? Liberty must come with power (or might) to be able to exist. In the same root, one must have liberty to have power, if one does not have liberty than it is impossible to have power.
But how is power the greater over liberty? The truth is that power defines liberty, it shapes it. Those in power define what liberty is because they have power. Power gives the ability to shape the world, i point to North Korea. Kim Jung Un and his father are worshipped as gods amongst men, thus they create what is good, what liberty is.
If you want something more close to home then I point to the bible, quran, and torah. I will be defining "god" as the being who appears in all three of these books.
Religious differences asside, it is obvious to see that even in these books (quran, torah, judeo-christian bible) that God defines liberty. Heck he puts laws on a piece of stone and says these are universaly applicable. Well god is omnicient, omnipotent, etc. But that gives him a position of power, therefore God can do whatever he wants and define whatever he wants, he may give power or keep it. You see, even in the stories that humans (or divinely channeled human) have made, power gives the power to decide liberty.
Now, the question one may ask is why power should give people the authority to decide liberties? Are they not natural rights guaranteed?
No. Natural rights are a man made concept, but so is the concept of everlasting power. It is the duty of the citizen to strive for power, and overthrow those who are to weak to rule. Natural rights are only given by those currently in power, and are meaningless. Why should power give people the authority to interfere with others rights? It doesnt ever interfere with "rights" because people in power decide "rights". If someone has the strength, ambition, and fortitude to defend their "rights" than they have the power to decide rights.
But I am getting off the main point I want to defend. I said might is right in times of weakness and chaos. Both of these things defile what people think of as "rights" anyway so why does it matter if a person in power steps in to redefine rights? If their is total anarchy and total weakness in government, then it is irrelevant that someone in power steps in because another who desires power would do it anyway if the aformentioned person did not.
But for the record, if a revolution is launched to destroy a stagnant, weak government, and said government fails to be the victor I would consider said previous government to have been weak, and that the revolution would be strong.
But that is irrelevant, because what i am trying to get at is that people who are might in times lf weakness and chaos not only should be allowed to take what is theres, but that they need to before another does. Even if one does not hold the reigns of government in times of weakness another will, so it is inevitable that a "sole" or collective body of the powerful will take hold either way, the only difference being that one will be quicker and stronger than the other.
Rebuttals... (Please tell me if I restate any of your statements incorrectly.)
"Though the roman republic was less free than in Europe, it was still more free than the roman empire"
As I have shown above, power is above libery and freedom. But more importantly the roman republic itself was weakening and becoming more and more corrupt. The roman empire itself treated its citizens well enough, but it was still incredibly powerful and primarily run by amsole emperor. It became weak in its later years because of weak emperors, but that is the exchange ne must make for incredible national power for a short period.
"The taking of power by Caesar was a bad thing because it limited freedoms though the empire became more powerful"
If the roman people were strong enough, an they had the weapons and power to do so, then they could have taken back what they believed to be their freedoms, they rarely even protested as the roman government became solely reliant on a single leader.
"Germany would have been better without Hitler"
For the record I don not agreee with Hitlers ideas of superiority and his genocides. Of course hitler was a terrible person, but for a brief time he turned Germany into a powerhouse of a nation, with an incredibly strong military and blitzkrieg tactics Nazi Germany could have won World War 2 if Hitler hadnt been a fool.
"No post war destruction destroying Germany."
If Grrmany had not entered World War 2 they would be in much worse shape. The time after versailles destroyed the german economy, and made it into an incredibly weak nation. World War 2 kickstarted their economy again, and though it was hurt after WW2, it was nothing compared to post WW1.
"No post war occupation by allied forces"
I am confused about what is so terrible about an occupation by allied forces. They put a stop to Nazi Germany so isnt that a good thing? Besides the allies did help a bit with Germany.
"No loss of basic human rights"
As i put above human rights are a man made construction. You must defend what you consider "rights" if you wish to keep them. Hitlers kdea of genetic superiority was ridiculous, and his countries anti semitism was themeselves blaming the jews fr their failings. Either way, using these ideas bolstered his level of power, and he perhaps could have not acted on it if he had not himself believed so fervently in these ideas.
"No loss of all of its military strength"
Germanys military strength was bolstered exceedingly during the years of WW2, only afterwards did it fall and that was only because of nazi germanys own failings.
"No murder of million"
I do not agree with genocide myself, it created to much distrust, weakness, and not to mention death. This is a flaw with nazi germany though, it has nothing to do with might should give right in times of weakness and chaos.
"Bolshevik Russia killed millions, destroyed democracy, put up a system that had no chance of suceeding in Russia, and all of this is Karl Marx who started it."
Communism doesnt work because humans are to selfish and greedy. Pre bolshevik Russia was worse. You had a weak and corrupt system run by a weak corrupt tsar. Its people starved. But most of all it was worse than bolshevik russia. Bolshevik Russia gave progress, and at first was a great government before Stalin came along and did cause millions of deaths sadly. But unlike Hitler Stalin made his country a globa superpower. Also Karl Marx hadmonly the purest of intentions in my mind when he wrote the Communist Manifesto.
"The U.S. government was run by a group of individuals at the time, there was no true centralized power."
Centralized power is irrelevant, they worked as a collective, and without authority from "votes" declared war on Britain, declared independence, and made the FRAMEWORK (key word) for what would later be the articles of confederation and then the constitution.
DrySponge forfeited this round.
But if you reasaerch the defenitions of freedom that the goverments of this example had they were breaking them.
The powerfull were breaking freedom as they defind it.
I suggest my opponent to loock it up but is quiet complicated stuff to find and squeez into a text in only tree days.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Jay-D 2 years 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:||5||2|
Reasons for voting decision: S&G goes to Pro. Conduct also goes to Pro by virtue of Con's forfeiture. Pro's arguments in round 3 went unchallenged, and so he gets arguments as well. Just for the sake of it, I'll award sources to Con since he was the only one who used the single source seen here.
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.