Our biggest problem is not having the means of effectively dealing with problems
Debate Rounds (4)
My main concern initially would obviously have to be something like trying to convince other people to join me, whether it be politicians or my neighbor Joe....but....most people are already against war and poverty etc... but they don't want to spend half their lives or even 1% of their lives on this issue because of the same reason no one else is doing it! There is little hope for an individual to change the world....
So what if instead of letting few people dedicate their entire lives on global and local issues, how could we engage the majority to contribute say....an average of 5 minutes per day on issues. Would you contribute if you knew everyone was doing it and it only took 5 minutes instead of 100 years? And was more successful in 5 minutes with everyone doing it than you could ever be in your entire life?
My position here is what the title says, and I can't help but consider solutions....so in the next round I will propose something and people can vote on whether it's feasible and a good idea.
You said that you would just be posting some ideas and having people vote...
...Or do you actually want somebody to argue with you and explain to you exactly how a representative democracy works?
I'll assume the latter.
There is a means to solve problems, and that is voting in elections. This is the way a representative democracy works.
Frankly, it isn't the job of the citizenry to 'contribute say....an average of 5 minutes per day on issues', and they really have no way to do it.
You need to explain what this contribution would entail. Lobbying congress? Petitions? Bombing governmental buildings until the government bends to your will?
What I'd propose is something along the lines of a direct democracy but this debate is about whether our means of dealing with problems are EFFECTIVE, now obviously that adjective is relative so we will leave it up to the voters to decide.
That statistic is for the entire world. The entire world is not a republican democracy.
'every life supporting system on earth is in a state of decline that includes our "economy"'
Not quite sure why 'economy' is in quotes, but I'll run with it. The United States economy is, yes, trashed, but the problem isn't the system. The problem is that we've had an utterly imbecilic budget for the past seventy years (more or less).
'the deterioration of the environment through depletion of resources'
Like what? We haven't yet run out of any resources.
'the destruction of ecosystems'
If you're referring to forests getting cut down and stuff, that, again is not the fault of the system. That is just companies doing what they're legally allowed to do, and for your information, trees do this strange thing now called growing, so when you cut them down, more trees grow back.
'the extinction of wildlife'
Well, there are somewhere near 10,000 species of animals being killed off every year, but those are the ones that are virtually indistinguishable from hundreds of other species, and probably have been endangered for the past 10,000 years, and lived on a little island in the Pacific with a name nobody can pronounce unless he/she knows some half-dead dialect of a nearly-dead Samoan language. It's called natural selection, and, again, this has nothing whatsoever to do with a republican democracy.
And I'm evidently missing the point of this debate but it was somewhat hard to understand exactly what you were looking for in a debate.
FinickyRealist forfeited this round.
FinickyRealist forfeited this round.
Alpacthulhu forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Gabe1e 1 year 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:||1||1|
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture- But Con was acting foolish at the end.
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.