The Instigator
Schopenhauer
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
DrySponge
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

Might is right (in times of weakness and turbulence)

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 1 vote the winner is...
Schopenhauer
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/11/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,610 times Debate No: 43772
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

Schopenhauer

Pro

Please, be patient with my blunders and fallacies, this is my first debate. I will be arguing in favor of the idea that might is right in times of weakness and chaos. Avoid trolling, and no sources will be needed unless you are using a particular website for information on historical support and patterns. I would like the first round to be for acceptance, meaning that the person has agreed with the above terms and information.
DrySponge

Con

First I'm not the best english writter since it's not my native language.

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.
http://www.roman-empire.net...;
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.
Debate Round No. 1
Schopenhauer

Pro

The republic was weak and corrupt in ancient Rome. Though I do not in the slightest agree with Hitlers idea of what makes a superior being, the truth is that the Weimar Republic was weak as well. Whether or not you agree or disagree with either of these men and their ideologies the truth is that they made their nation powerful. For example, Julius Caesar himself set up the situation for one of the most powerful governments in history to prosper. hitlers government, while short lived, gave Nazi Germany power that had not been measured since the holy roman empire. Whether these men were good or bad is irrelevant, their nations prospered. (In Hitlers case for a select breed). Now I will present evidence first by pointing to the roman empire itself. The roman empire was created, (or at least the steps for it were created) by a man who siezed power when the roman republic (soleley in my opinion) lay around ruled by the corrupt and lazy, weakened by their lack of ambition. For my second example I point to the communist revolution of Russia. Lenin, though he did not necessarily plan it, gave the way to an incredibly industrialized nation that became a global superpower. This of course came at the rather hideous cost of millions of lives. Now I would like to point to The American Revolution itself. If the founding fathers had not seized the reigns to create the government without distinct allowance to do so then the United States would be nothing, and the (once more in my opinion) great government article that is the constitution ( and the articles of confederation) would not exist. Another thing that proves that might is right in times of anarchy and chaos is the european dark ages. After rome fell people needed rulers, and warlords took the reigns to prevent further death and to give a sembleance of order.
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.
DrySponge

Con

My oponenent has the BOP.
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.
Debate Round No. 2
Schopenhauer

Pro

Before I proceed to present anymore evidence specifically for my case, i will have to show, as DrySponge said, that power is the greater over liberty.
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

Con

DrySponge forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Schopenhauer

Pro

DrySponge has forfeited the last round, so for this round I will like to close with my final thoughts. First I would like to thank DrySponge for joining in thus debate, it has been a pleasure and has been interesting, and thought provoking. Secondly J would like everyone to think about their own ideologies and see if it still holds up now in comparison to what they previously believed. Than you all for reading these past debates.
DrySponge

Con

Well I will give up this debate because it's to much work.
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.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
Might is right. In all situations. No elaboration needed.
Posted by Schopenhauer 3 years ago
Schopenhauer
By having the first round of acceptance i mean that you will accept that no sources will have to be cited unless used for historical support, no trolling etc.
Posted by Schopenhauer 3 years ago
Schopenhauer
Let me clarify and apologize. By might is right I mean power (whether mental or physical) in times of chaos, ex. Anarchy or weakness ex. A government shutting completely down, corrupt officials, and other signs of a weak government. By this question I basically mean that those with power should take hold of the government when it becomes weak or when chaos is spread throughout the nation.
Posted by DrySponge 3 years ago
DrySponge
I accepted your debatte when i read the title but when i read your first post i'm starting to doubt what is this debatte about.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Jay-D 3 years ago
Jay-D
SchopenhauerDrySpongeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:52 
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.