The Instigator
killingmysoup
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
jh1234l
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Philippines should run under One ruler

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...
jh1234l
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/1/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,152 times Debate No: 26790
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

killingmysoup

Pro

Con can now proceed
jh1234l

Con

For "under one ruler" I believe you are talking about a dictatorship government.

Dictatorship:a country, government, or the form of government in which absolute power is exercised by a dictator. [1]

You say "Con can now proceed",so I will start posting arguments.

1. Dictatorship can result in terrible consequences, for example, Nazi Germany.

"Nazi Germany under the leadership of Hitler soon became a dictatorship. A dictatorship requires one person and one party to be in control of a nation and a climate of fear - this was provided by Himmler's SS. Personal freedom disappeared in Nazi Germany." [2]

And this could happen in the Philippines too, if only one ruler controlled the whole country. Plus, millions of people are slaughtered by dictators.

" Hitler, who started the war, was responsible for approximately 50 million deaths as a result of the Second World War. Throughout recorded history of the world, dictators driven by anger, power, greed, pride, and/or paranoia have killed far more than 100 million people. Just in the last century, to name a few of the most well known: Stalin of the Soviet Union, Mao of China, Hirohito of Japan, Kim Il Sung of North Korea, Pol Pot of Cambodia, Amin of Uganda, Mussolini of Italy, and Hussein of Iraq have collectively slaughtered tens of millions of people." [3]

There are 92,337,852 people in the Philippines. [4] Putting them under one ruler puts all those lives at risk. The ruler/dictator might not listen to the people either.

Currently the Philippines is a republic. [4] A republic is "a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them. "[5]

However, things that happen in dictatorships are not chosen by the people, but one ruler!

[1]http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2]http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5]http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 1
killingmysoup

Pro

killingmysoup forfeited this round.
jh1234l

Con

Extend all arguments
Debate Round No. 2
killingmysoup

Pro

Hitler proposes to conquer other countries, hence, creating superhumans, hence, killing millions of people (eliminating weak people). It doesnt need to be a leader that kills, we need a leader that leads. Although, i dont care about the killings, as long as they kill the squatters, rapists, murderers and any person that doesnt obey the rules. I mean would you protect this people?

Having a one leader makes a country prosper. Corruption is inevitable for government officials, so instead of having a dump load of these so called "officials", why dont we just have a one ruler. You wouldnt have to worry about the amount of embezzled money if you only have one leader, instead of having so many sharks in the bay.
jh1234l

Con

A: "It doesn't need to be a leader that kills, we need a leader that leads. Although, I don't care about the killings, as long as they kill the squatters, rapists, murderers and any person that doesn't obey the rules. I mean would you protect this people?"

1. In a dictatorship government, the single ruler chooses the rules. So, they will kill everyone who does not obey what the dictator thinks. This means:

P1. The dictator is deciding by himself.
P2. The opinions of the people are not considered.
C. What the dictator wants is not always what the people want.

So, the ruler could to choose to kill the people of a specific race/religion, because the dictator/ruler just doesn't agree with their opinions. This would cause:

Chaos, hate towards the dictator, mass deaths, etc.

2. "As long as they kill the squatters, rapists, murderers and any person that doesn't obey the rules."

The problem is, the single ruler chooses the rules!

Anyways, to point 2.

"The Holocaust was the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of approximately six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators. "Holocaust" is a word of Greek origin meaning "sacrifice by fire." The Nazis, who came to power in Germany in January 1933, believed that Germans were "racially superior" and that the Jews, deemed "inferior," were an alien threat to the so-called German racial community. In the early years of the Nazi regime, the National Socialist government established concentration camps to detain real and imagined political and ideological opponents. Increasingly in the years before the outbreak of war, SS and police officials incarcerated Jews, Roma, and other victims of ethnic and racial hatred in these camps."[1]

Exactly how is this killing the bad guys? Do you think what Adolf Hitler did should be done in the Philippines?

B: "Having a one leader makes a country prosper. Corruption is inevitable for government officials, so instead of having a dump load of these so called officials, why don't we just have a one ruler. You wouldn't have to worry about the amount of embezzled money if you only have one leader, instead of having so many sharks in the bay."

Lets read that again.. "Corruption is inevitable for government officials."

This means that the dictator (single ruler) could be, inevitably, corrupt, and this does not cause the country to prosper.

P1. Government officials could be corrupt.
P2. The dictator is a government official.
C. The dictator could be corrupt.

C. "Hitler proposes to conquer other countries, hence, creating superhumans, hence, killing millions of people (eliminating weak people)."

Eliminating "weak" people. Hmm... sounds like racism, the key driver of the holocaust. Plus, although Hitler did conquer countries, most of the people he killed were due to Hitler hating Jews, Romas, etc (Racism). This in turn did not create "superhumans", but a bloody genocide.

Plus, you said this, (the weaker people should be killed) then you said only squatters, rapists and unlawful people, which is self-contradicting because weaker people are not unlawful. (Unless a ruthless dictator says that weak people should be killed.)

Also, with this logic, you can also say:

P1. Joe is better than Bob.
C. Bob should be killed.

This logic above is clearly flawed.

[1]http://www.ushmm.org...
Debate Round No. 3
killingmysoup

Pro

You didnt answer my question, would you protect this kind of people? It is not being racist, it is being practical. I mean, would you live in a country where this kind people freely linger around?

In the first place, why are we referring to the single ruler as a demonic kind of man. Remember, not all ruler think alike.

Please do read your history, Adolf hitler didnt intend to hate the races that you have mentioned, hate is an emotion, and as such cannot be completely explained and doesn"t follow the rules of logic.

(("Plus, you said this, (the weaker people should be killed) then you said only squatters, rapists and unlawful people, which is self-contradicting because weaker people are not unlawful. (Unless a ruthless dictator says that weak people should be killed.)"))

It is not contradictory because I didnt state such thing. You are not obviously reading my argument here, I said that Adolf did this and did that (killing weak people), I am not saying that this will now be the image of Single ruler. Which i stated will only kill unlawful citizens. Are you getting the point or do i have to spell it out?

The whole point of this is not the killing, it is about protecting and on your statement (("This means that the dictator (single ruler) could be, inevitably, corrupt, and this does not cause the country to prosper.")), didnt you read my last statement (("You wouldnt have to worry about the amount of embezzled money if you only have one leader, instead of having so many sharks in the bay.")). Hence, less official operating a country, means less money they will take. What more if we only have one ruler, right?
jh1234l

Con

A. "You didnt answer my question, would you protect this kind of people?"

You said that the ruler should kill whoever that disobeys the law.
The ruler decides the law without needing to listen to the citizens.
Therefore, the ruler can decide that anyone who wears pink should die.
This law is obviously ridiculous.
So these people should be protected.

B: "In the first place, why are we referring to the single ruler as a demonic kind of man. Remember, not all ruler think alike."

Not all people agree with the ruler either. This means that the ruler may decide something while the majority is against it. Not all rulers think alike, not all citizens think alike either.

C: "Please do read your history, Adolf hitler didnt intend to hate the races that you have mentioned, hate is an emotion, and as such cannot be completely explained and doesn"t follow the rules of logic."

"The Holocaust was the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of approximately six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators. "Holocaust" is a word of Greek origin meaning "sacrifice by fire." The Nazis, who came to power in Germany in January 1933, believed that Germans were "racially superior" and that the Jews, deemed "inferior," were an alien threat to the so-called German racial community. In the early years of the Nazi regime, the National Socialist government established concentration camps to detain real and imagined political and ideological opponents. Increasingly in the years before the outbreak of war, SS and police officials incarcerated Jews, Roma, and other victims of ethnic and racial HATRED in these camps."[1]

D: "It is not contradictory because I didnt state such thing. You are not obviously reading my argument here, I said that Adolf did this and did that (killing weak people), I am not saying that this will now be the image of Single ruler. Which i stated will only kill unlawful citizens. Are you getting the point or do i have to spell it out?"

1st. He did not kill weak people (as I stated before), he killed people of specific races/religion. [1]

2nd. You DID state such thing.

"Hitler proposes to conquer other countries, hence, creating superhumans, hence, killing millions of people (eliminating weak people). ... i DON'T CARE about the killings, as long as they kill the squatters, rapists, murderers and any person that doesnt obey the rules. "

E: "...didnt you read my last statement (("You wouldnt have to worry about the amount of embezzled money if you only have one leader, instead of having so many sharks in the bay.")). Hence, less official operating a country, means less money they will take. What more if we only have one ruler, right?"

"Less official operating the country" Do you mean the country should have less OFFICIALS?

1st. Each official only works for small portions of the nation, and not all will be corrupt.

2nd. The ruler has complete control on the nation, and him/her being corrupt means that the whole country will fall in victim.

Conclusion:
Pro dropped many of my arguments (lives, what happened in Germany, etc.) and instead refuted it with "The people killed are doing illegal things" while ignoring the fact that the ruler is the one who chooses what is legal and illegal.
Plus, Pro stated that any unlawful citizen should be killed (remember, the ruler decides what is lawful and what is not) , even though it is ridiculous to kill people just because:

They are in a specific race/religion
They speeded on a highway
etc.

[1]http://www.ushmm.org...
Debate Round No. 4
killingmysoup

Pro

its like talking to a brick wall here

anyways i shall proceed to my last argument

On your statement ((Therefore, the ruler can decide that anyone who wears pink should die.)), seriously man? We are talking about values and mores here, dont use metaphors that will degrade your ingenuity. If you did something WRONG, you will be punished. WRONG = unjust, dishonest, or immoral action

On your statement (("Less official operating the country" Do you mean the country should have less OFFICIALS?")), can you please read the below logic

A - single ruler

B to M - 12 officials

Z - 1 billion dollars

A only steals half a billion because this is enough for him, well mere abundant perhaps. While, officials B from M steals 100 million each, obviously the governments needs to produce more funds as the given money to the officials wasnt enough

.:government needs 1.2 billion to feed these sharks

GETS?
jh1234l

Con

"seriously man? We are talking about values and mores here, dont use metaphors that will degrade your ingenuity. If you did something WRONG, you will be punished. WRONG = unjust, dishonest, or immoral action"

However, in a dictatorship, the ruler decides what is WRONG, so he/she can decide that wearing pink is WRONG, for example. They do not need to listen to the people about their opinions.
Also, values have nothing to do with "mores". It does have things to do with morals.

"A only steals half a billion because this is enough for him, well mere abundant perhaps. While, officials B from M steals 100 million each, obviously the governments needs to produce more funds as the given money to the officials wasnt enough"

You just assume that ALL government officials will be corrupted and just GUESSED how many each will take without giving evidence. You just think that the official will take 1/2 billion and that the officials will take 1 million each, which has no evidence as the numbers are pulled out of nowhere.

"GETS? "

Who gets what?

"its like talking to a brick wall here"

So you mean that I did not get all of your statements.

Let's see your statements.

"Remember, not all ruler think alike."

A ruler cannot think. You draw lines and measure distance/width/height/etc. with it.

"You wouldnt have to worry about the amount of embezzled money if you only have one leader, instead of having so many sharks in the bay."

You did not give any actual number of embezzled money other than imagined numbers.

"We are talking about values and mores here."

Customers want to get "more" high "value" stuff for less.

"A only steals half a billion because this is enough for him, well mere abundant perhaps. While, officials B from M steals 100 million each, obviously the governments needs to produce more funds as the given money to the officials wasnt enough"

How do you know that the ruler will take half a billion?

"Hitler proposes to conquer other countries, hence, creating superhumans, hence, killing millions of people (eliminating weak people). ... Please do read your history, Adolf hitler didnt intend to hate the races that you have mentioned, hate is an emotion, and as such cannot be completely explained and doesn"t follow the rules of logic."

My argument: "... and other victims of ethnic and racial HATRED in these camps." [1]

Plus, remember to use [ ' ] and CAPITALIZE names.

Conclusion

Pro dropped many of my arguments.
pro didnt usee ciorrect gramer and speeling! Dat not goodd! He not get speeling and gammer point. i getit.
Pro ignored many of my arguments or maybe did not even read my whole argument.
Pro's statement was filled with illogical refutations, e.g. [Hitler proposes to conquer other countries, hence, creating superhumans, hence, killing millions of people (eliminating weak people).], wrong grammar and spelling, and criticism for my inability to read it.

[1]http://www.ushmm.org...
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by drafterman 4 years ago
drafterman
killingmysoupjh1234lTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: In addition to the forfeit, Pro really didn't make/defend any arguments.