The Instigator
lukemiller11111
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Zarroette
Pro (for)
Winning
30 Points

Mps

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 5 votes the winner is...
Zarroette
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/11/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 477 times Debate No: 69864
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (5)

 

lukemiller11111

Con

MPs can lie in front of parliament, after swearing on the bible to tell the truth with all the other mps there...
So what's the point in voting if we can't trust them?
There in it for the money.
They don't care about us they care about themselves.
Zarroette

Pro

I accept. I await my opponent's opening round of arguments.
Debate Round No. 1
lukemiller11111

Con

lukemiller11111 forfeited this round.
Zarroette

Pro

I will now construct an affirmative case arguing for the existence of "MPs".



Premise: Representative Democracy


MPs exist in a political realm wherein there is representative democracy (or indirect democracy): "A representative democracy is a system of government in which all eligible citizens vote on representatives to pass laws for them" [1].


In other words, officials are elected to office by the people in order to represent the people.



Premise: We need a political structure; what is the alternative?


While it is reasonable to be critical of certain political structures, we need to consider what is best for a country, not what is necessarily ideal as the ideal may not be possible. Representative democracy is best for the countries that currently have it (as I will substantiated with my later arguments). If my opponent thinks otherwise, then he/she must argue for a better alternative, or even argue for no government. Elsewise, it stands that representative democracy is the best form of government these countries can have, even if it is not ideal.



A1: In a democracy, the informed should steer the ship


As the great philosopher Plato made his analogy involving politics in The Republic, politics is much like a ship [2, 169-170]. A problem with voting, outside of representative democracy, is that the average voter knows little or even cares little about politics. Would you trust the average sailor (voter), who knows very little about navigation (politics) to steer the ship (make correct political decisions)? I think that no reasonable human would think so, hence it would be unwise for the ignorant to be given so much impact in political matters.


Now, if you consider the alternatives (say direct democracy, wherein voters vote on the policies themselves), why is the person, who has never held office or been involved in politics, making decisions on whether a certain political decision is sound? Do you hire a plumber only to tell him how to do his job? Or do you pay this plumber to have the expertise and knowledge to do the job without your imput?


Let the informed steer the ship, or else we will capsize or wreck. Voters should choose who they best think will lead, not on intricate details of politics of which they have no experience to relate. The average MP is far more fit for politics than the average, untrained voter.



A2: Save time


To understand a position in detail would take much time. A simple Google scholar search on "Gay marriage" returns "About 457,000 results" [4]. There are simply so many facets and intricacies on every political topic that to learn about these, the voter would require an enormous amount of time in order to be informed. Remember that this is only one issue! Imagine how much you would have to know about politics in order to be competent in deciding political decisions!


Also, to listen to hours, upon hours of detail that is required to have a firm idea of an issue is simply not feasible. According to a Stauffer, Frost, & Rybolt (1983), "on average, viewers who just watched and listened to the evening news could only recall 17.2% of the content when not cued" [3]. Clearly, information would have to be repeated several times in order for the listener to understand, and I am not even taking into consideration the more complex topics that require higher I.Q. to process quickly.


Alternatively, MPs are professionals who can spend this huge amount of time researching, understanding multiple areas of politics and being involved with the processes involved in law-making and cutting red-tape for policies to be enacted [6]. People simply do not have the amount of time to do both a PM's job and their own job. Thus, a need for PMs is created.



Counter-arguments


"MPs can lie in front of parliament, after swearing on the bible to tell the truth with all the other mps there...
So what's the point in voting if we can't trust them?
There in it for the money.
They don't care about us they care about themselves."


My opponent merely provides a list of bare assertions, in that there is no evidence or sustained logical argumentation provided to reach any of these conclusion. Moverover, this is a fallacious kind of argument [5].

My opponent not only needs to provide evidence for his negation claims, but he also needs to argue what would be better, as all countries need some kind of political system, even if it is lack of one (if that would be best).


References

[1] http://education-portal.com...
[2] http://www2.hn.psu.edu...
[3] http://d1025403.site.myhosting.com...
[4] https://scholar.google.com.au...
[5] http://www.toolkitforthinking.com...
[6] http://www.parliament.uk...
Debate Round No. 2
lukemiller11111

Con

lukemiller11111 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
lukemiller11111

Con

lukemiller11111 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
lukemiller11111

Con

lukemiller11111 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
Blade-of-Truth
lukemiller11111ZarroetteTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Pro. Con forfeited every round of the debate. S&G - Pro. In the one round that Con did argue in, he used the wrong form of "there" when it should have been "they're". I saw no such errors from Pro. Arguments - Pro. Con failed to present any challenge to Pro's arguments whatsoever, leaving Pro to stand unchallenged thus maintaining her BOP. Sources - Pro. Con failed to present any sources whatsoever whereas Pro did.
Vote Placed by Philocat 1 year ago
Philocat
lukemiller11111ZarroetteTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.
Vote Placed by ResponsiblyIrresponsible 1 year ago
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
lukemiller11111ZarroetteTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.
Vote Placed by zmikecuber 1 year ago
zmikecuber
lukemiller11111ZarroetteTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm bored
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
lukemiller11111ZarroetteTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture