The Instigator
I-am-a-panda
Pro (for)
Winning
28 Points
The Contender
paramore102
Con (against)
Losing
26 Points

Political parties that advocate Authoritarian leadership should be outlawed.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/12/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,567 times Debate No: 5951
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (10)

 

I-am-a-panda

Pro

I would like to thank Paramore 102 for accepting this debate.

Authoritarian leadership: A form of government where one party rules and there are no elections

Outlaw: To permanently ban

The basis of my argument is that parties that would have an Authoritarian leadership should be outlawed because:

1. They are un-democratic: The basis that republics & democracies live on is that a party can be elected into office, and removed from office in favour of another party, on the basis that it's the true will of all of it's citizens. If an authoritarian party came into power, this is completely destroying the system. They cannot be taken out without military means of a revolution or foreign intervention like we saw in the Iraq war.

2. They often don't work for the people: If the people don't want the democrats in government, they vote republican. and vica-versa. This puts pressure on parties to work on caring for the people and catering to their needs. But, if a party knows they can't be elected out or impeached, they will often turn away from the people to their own goals. This can leave the people in a bad way, and will oppose any point my opponent may have in saying Authoritarians were elected in on the will of the people.
Take Germany for example, when it became a dictatorship, the people voted in the Nazi's because they thought they would make Germany strong and great. However, this was thought to be achieved when the Jews, communists and other minorities became scapegoats. They led the German population to believe they had eradicated the problems, when all they did was kill and execute.

3. They are a danger to the international community:
Let's say a far-right capitalist dictator were to be elected into France. What would his/her first action be? Probably invade Germany. There's no one to oppose them and the people suffer ultimately, and the German people suffer too. A dictatorship can have a terrible effect on both the national and international community.

I look forward to Paramore's response.
paramore102

Con

To I-am-a-panda, your welcome I'm more the happy to be debating with you,...

Although my opponent has explains what an Authoritarian leader ship is he doesn't explain that there is multiple leader ships the definition of leader ship is the style in which the leader dictates policies and procedures, decides what goals are to be achieved, and directs and controls all activities without any meaningful participation by the subordinates.

The style has its advocates, but it is falling out of favor in many countries. Some people have argued that the style is popular with today's CEO's, who have much in common with feudal lords in Medieval Europe.

There are 3 steps to this type of leadership for example;
The characteristics of an autocratic style include:
Work methods that are dictated by the autocratic leader
Limited employee participation in most aspects of work
Unilateral decision making by the leader

In fact, we might not think there are a lot of good things to say about autocratic leaders. This style of leadership is often very stressful on fellow employees and makes the work environment itself not such a fun place to be. But like all leadership styles, there is a time and a situation where the style is appropriate.

As you all know or should know the communication style of an autocratic leader is usually described as one way. They tell you exactly what they want done. The feedback you would get from this type of leader would generally be unplanned. They would simply tell you when you've made a mistake. The decision making process is usually unilateral and they accomplish goals by directing people. Now that might not sound like the type of leader you'd follow, but there are actually situations when this style is effective.

Martha Stewart built her empire with personal attention to each and every detail. Whether you like her or not, she was meticulous and demanding. She was also very successful in her endeavors and in using her autocratic management style. The down side is that some studies suggest that organizations with lots of autocratic leaders have higher turnover and absenteeism than other organizations. With today's emphasis on joint decision making and empowerment, employees just entering the workforce will be highly resistant to this management style. So the autocratic leadership style should be not be used when you want to get your employees engaged in the decision making process. Autocratic leaders are also not very effective in situations where your employees might become resentful or fearful.
Debate Round No. 1
I-am-a-panda

Pro

I would like to thank paramore for responding.

My opponent has not given a valid argument. She has merely mentioned companies, which nearly all are run in an Autocratic way. She hasn't given one reference to Authoritarian governments in her main argument, and by this, she is implying a country should be run like a corporation. My opponent has only mentioned Martha Stewart's empire using an Autocratic style of running it. She has not mentioned what strategy she used, or exactly how it was done. As well, my opponent has more bad things to say about Authoritarian leadership styles mentioning high turnovers and absenteeism.

Unless my opponent can give an argument mentioning why Authoritarian parties SHOULDN'T BE BANNED, she has no argument.
paramore102

Con

paramore102 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
I-am-a-panda

Pro

In terms of fairness, I will forfeit this round as my opponent did not have the facilities or a way to post her 2nd argument.
I will just say that political parties that advocate Authoritarian leadership should be outlawed because they are a danger to the community, internationally and nationally, and also that they threaten democracy with their very existence.
paramore102

Con

paramore102 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
France invade GERMANY?!?!?!
Posted by paramore102 8 years ago
paramore102
I don't understand how im winning but thanks for the votes.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Forfeits aren't an automatic end-all be-all. If someone makes a valid point, and you don't rebut that point, it doesn't matter that they forfeit two rounds, you forfeit the point.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 8 years ago
I-am-a-panda
She forfeited two rounds, and barely debated!
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Because you didn't address her argument according to the resolution. The resolution does not require advocacy of authoritarian government, only authoritarian "leadership."
Posted by I-am-a-panda 8 years ago
I-am-a-panda
In all seriousness, how is my opponent beating me?
Posted by I-am-a-panda 8 years ago
I-am-a-panda
I give up with you Ragnar, you're just too good. Say, have you ever heard of the sun? Joke, we all love you ragnar!
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Further, any capitalist who took over France would AGREE that france prior to his reign should be considered a laughingstock.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"
Capitalists can be nationalistic. look at Hitler for example. he let big companies grow in Germany and was a nationalist as well."

Hitler was not a capitalist, he was a socialist. "letting big companies grow" is not sufficient proof of capitalism. A capitalist is one who initiates no force, no fraud, against persons or their property (and therefore, implicitly, respects an absolute private property).

Hitler's tolerance of big companies was exclusively for a National Socialist purpose, he wished them to continue producing things needed for his armies. Thus, he "let them grow," even subsidized them, but if any disobeyed his orders the company would be nationalized explicitly-- and because of the threat, it was already nationalized implicitly. The corporations under the Nazi reign were nothing more than extensions of the government.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 8 years ago
I-am-a-panda
Inww2 Germany invaded France and made them a laughing stock (all frenchies are good at doing are kissing and surrendering- classic British joke).
Capitalists can be nationalistic. look at Hitler for example. he let big companies grow in Germany and was a nationalist as well.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by wjmelements 6 years ago
wjmelements
I-am-a-pandaparamore102Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by I-am-a-panda 6 years ago
I-am-a-panda
I-am-a-pandaparamore102Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by paramore102 7 years ago
paramore102
I-am-a-pandaparamore102Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by The_Booner 8 years ago
The_Booner
I-am-a-pandaparamore102Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Zeratul 8 years ago
Zeratul
I-am-a-pandaparamore102Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by crackofdawn_Jr 8 years ago
crackofdawn_Jr
I-am-a-pandaparamore102Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by DiablosChaosBroker 8 years ago
DiablosChaosBroker
I-am-a-pandaparamore102Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Renzzy 8 years ago
Renzzy
I-am-a-pandaparamore102Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
I-am-a-pandaparamore102Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
I-am-a-pandaparamore102Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10