The Instigator
aquaman20
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
yixuan
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

No true republic in history has ever lasted longer than three hundred years

Do you like this debate?NoYes-4
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 2 votes the winner is...
yixuan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/25/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,880 times Debate No: 12624
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (2)

 

aquaman20

Pro

A republic is a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.
yixuan

Con

Roman Republic? 509 BC–27 BC
There was a set of laws that were placed in each forum and acted as supreme law, listing the basic rights of citizens.
Your definition is only in the sense of the United States. Therefore, you are ruling out most other major nations in the world, that are either missing an executive branch (UK, Japan) or are non-democratic in nature.
As a majority of the world is represented by democratic-derived government, the world can reasonably be split between democracies and non-democracies. A non-democracy is one that does not support a democratic government. As for that, it doe...isn't even matter if it is in "form" or "nature," for as a nation whose constitution is "...-adopted by the people and changeable...", it is a democracy by definition. On another note, in most senses politically, the USA is a representative democracy in nature and a federal republic in form. As for your point on the Rome Republic, it did establish such a government form as described above.
Nature is the "how". Form is what it actually is.
Debate Round No. 1
aquaman20

Pro

A set of laws is not the same as a constitution. The basic rights would roughly fit with our bill of rights. I still don't get the nature part.
yixuan

Con

A constitution is a set of basic laws that outline the way a government would work. Nature, is the party or ideology that a government stands for.
Debate Round No. 2
aquaman20

Pro

The constitution is also a set of rules defining the fundamental political principles, and establishing the structure, procedures, powers and duties, of a government. Ah, thank you for that explanation. So, then we are a federal representative democratic republic?
yixuan

Con

Just because you are more than one thing, doesn't mean you don't count for the other. If you are an Asian boy, would you not be purely Asian? Anyway, all that you stated for a constitution is encompassed within a set of basic laws and rights.
Debate Round No. 3
aquaman20

Pro

Where did the Romans write that a dictator could only rule in military emergencies for 6 months with absolute power and then step down? Isn't that a power and duty of a government?
yixuan

Con

That was written down actually, among countless other laws decreed by the Roman Republic, otherwise, we woul have no knowledge of such now. As for the USA, define a "pure democracy."
Debate Round No. 4
aquaman20

Pro

What was the name of the law, and where can I find it on the internet? A political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them. I merely followed your example of an Asian boy. Surly he must be purely Asian and purely boy, so since we are a democratic republic, we must also be purely democratic and purely republic.
yixuan

Con

Exactly, we are both purely democratic and purely a republic in a political sense. As for the law, I have no idea EXACTLY which law it us. That is a ridiculous question. However, it is commonly accepted as a defining aspect of Roman government; therefore, it is a law, whether it is written down or not.
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
"PRO and CON are both uneducated at the topic given and incapable of producing convincing arguments." Brutal!!!!
Posted by sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
And you are right about republics falling, this one is sure to fall soon and become an Oligarchy. It already is. To impeach a president requires that a majority of congress agree. It is conceivable for Barack Obama to bribe all the Democrats in congress to move that the constitution be invalid and create an Oligarchy with Barack Obama as the lead figure head. The Dem's hold the majority in both the house and the senate and could just vote not to enforce the constitution or impeach the President and take over the entire nation. Don't think for one minute the constitution can protect you from tyranny. Only people who know what a Republic form of gov't is and what can destroy it can protect you from tyranny
Posted by wjmelements 6 years ago
wjmelements
PRO and CON are both uneducated at the topic given and incapable of producing convincing arguments.
Posted by sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
So in conclusion you can see that America is headed down the exact same road as Rome. Rome didn't fall because of a strong standing military. It didn't fall because it took on to many wars at one time. It didn't fall because it spent to much on the military. It fell because the people abandon it's Republic form of govt and traded freedom for security and the rest is history. And as you can see today in America the very same thing is happening now. "America can survive a foolish President but it can't survive a population that would have him as President" A quote from a newspaper in the check Republic. One of the most oppressed war torn countries in history. Ask them what they think of giving up freedom for security.
Posted by sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
wpfairbanks Now that you have calmed down, I present a video for you viewing pleasure that should be mandatory viewing in every high school and college in America in my opinion. It should be shown every year that a student is in high school or college until they graduate. Virtually no one learns from history unless that history lesson is repeated time and time again. And without further ado:

http://www.wimp.com...
Posted by wpfairbanks 6 years ago
wpfairbanks
hahaha, I like you. I really do. I would NEVER defend a government deficit, nor would I call for a welfare state. I am not a Communist. I do not believe in unfunded government entitlement spending, and I do believe that it is the job of the state to maintain an army. But we should take a hint from Jefferson here. When we came into office he cut the military back to 2,000 men, saying "The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." We need a strong defense against attacks on America, but to have this huge and unwanted defense that is still in other countries is absurd. We are America. We stick to our own side of the Atlantic. I hope we can agree there. I believe it is the role of government to protect jobs and the middle class so the government doesn't need to have entitlements. Our "free trade" policy is costing jobs. I believe in the government by and FOR the people. We have a social contract, and if we deem in necessary for the government to act as a collective agent for the will of the people, call it what you will, it's democracy. And we'll stop the attacks now. I apologized. I like this discussion and you, so let's continue to have fun.
Posted by sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
"You can try to insult me with your attack on my age, or my parents" Eh who made unwarranted insults. Diamond back rattle snakes are to socialism as king cobras are to communism. They both suck the life out of the human spirit and they both demand dependency on govt in order to remain viable forms of govt. Both spread like diseases and gobble up and redistribute personal wealth to those who don't deserve it. And the 53 trillion in unfunded govt entitlements just some how disappeared? with your explanation of "there is a tax that pays for it" What about your offset of 300 billion what pays for that. Military spending is a legitimate function of govt there is no specific tax needed for it. People cannot operate a standing military, that is a function of govt. Along with building roads and infrastructure. Paying for a child's school lunch is not a function of govt nor is paying for cell phones, water bills, electric bills, your college education should you decide to do so. You are entitled to nothing but a big old cup of get to work. I didn't even mention the tea party but some how in your illogical thinking it has something to do with this conversation. I think you should go ahead and play the race card now.
Posted by wpfairbanks 6 years ago
wpfairbanks
Well I am very sick of these right-wingers (like you) coming in and poisoning everything with trite political rhetoric. You can try to insult me with your attack on my age, or my parents, but I think all that Socialism/Communism/asking government if you can sh*t talk is pretty juvenile and pathetic. And it warrants being called an idiot. Sir, "Socialism and communism always destroy Republics", this comment is patently false. If we are having a discussion on political ideology, you can try to state your case, but to just barge into some random debate, and go all tea party ape sh*t is just stupid. You can look at the budget here: http://en.wikipedia.org.... We spend about 1.2 trillion a year on social security/medicare/medicaid. But, we have a specific tax for it, which brings in 900 billion, which leaves the offset at 300 billion. The military spends about 700 billion, and there is no "miliary tax", and therefore is more strenuous on the budget. Empires like the Roman, Venetian, Persian, British, and many more were ruined by their imperialist rules causing debts. I apologize for the personal attacks. That was wrong. But you need to stop trying to politicize things that don't need it. Our country is divided enough, and people like you make it worse, contrary to what you might believe.
Posted by sadolite 6 years ago
sadolite
wpfairbanks "We spend more on military than bureaucracy and entitlements. Moron" Eh better check your facts. 53 trillion in unfunded mandates. 412 billion and rising just to service the debt to barrow money to pay for unfunded entitlement mandates each year. And last but not least were your born a rude insulting jack a## or did your parents teach you to be that way. Unprovoked name calling, a true sign that the person is unsure of their position and facts.
Posted by wpfairbanks 6 years ago
wpfairbanks
haha, Sadolite, you're an idiot. The vast majority of states that resorted to socialism and communism were not republics to begin with. Socialism is extremely different than communism, but I think a stronger argument is that outlandish military spending is what ruins republics. The Roman republic, and now the United States. We spend more on military than bureaucracy and entitlements. Moron
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by meinperpetualmotion 6 years ago
meinperpetualmotion
aquaman20yixuanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Grape 6 years ago
Grape
aquaman20yixuanTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03