The Instigator
LudwigEmanuel
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Atheist-Independent
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Ruthlessness is a positive thing in politics.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Atheist-Independent
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/12/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 848 times Debate No: 60368
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (4)

 

LudwigEmanuel

Pro

This debate will be about if ruthlessness is a positive or a negative attribute in politics.

This debate is in the philosphy category which means that the arguments will mostly be based on own ideas, of course is it allowed to use factual arguments but the debate is mean to be a more ideal debate and both sides should stick to that principle.

Pro/For: Consider that ruthlessness is a positive thing in politics.

Con/Against: Consider that ruthlessness is a negative thing in politics (the argument that it's either way is not accepted).

The debate structure will be that:
round 1 for acceptance,
round 2 for arguments,
round 3 for rebuttals
and round 4 for conclusion and rebuttals.

Ruthlessness: Being able to do what it takes to reach your goals and interests, by every possible (legal) way.
Atheist-Independent

Con

I accept this debate.

I will be arguing that ruthlessness is not the best approach in politics.
Debate Round No. 1
LudwigEmanuel

Pro


Introduction
I'll be debating for that ruthlessness is a positive thing in politics. I won't debate for that it's the "best" thing in politics, but that it's a positive thing either than a bad thing. I'll show that: a good politician prioritize effectiveness as the most important result, and also that a good politician is willing to get the best results to every possible LEGAL way for his country.

Ruthless prominent people

Genghis Khan: This guy might a bit farfetched to have with in this list, but he did conquer and did create the biggest empire of all time except the British Empire but they wasn't very big if they wouldn't colonize. However, that Genghis Khan was ruthless can show that for achieving good things for your country, for being bigger and better, you have to ruthless sometimes because that will gain the best result for your country and people. The quote below confirms that claim that he was very ruthless.

“The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy and drive him before you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him shrouded in tears, and to gather to your bosom his wives and daughters.”
-Genghis Khan

Charlie Chaplin: Well he wasn't a conqueror or a politician, but he was a good entrepreneur. He came from nothing and became a legend. That he was ruthless shows that it's good for the entrepreneur, if you want to go from nothing to everything. Ruthlessness is a very positive thing. I've no true evidence that he was often very ruthless, more that he thought you had to be able to be it.

"This is a ruthless world and one must be ruthless to cope with it." -Charlie Chaplin

The men who built america: By this I mean people like, John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carneige, Cornelius Vanderbilt, J.P Morgan and so on. John D. Rockefeller created the biggest business empire of all time, and he was notorius for being very ruthless. I know that all these guys did things that's illegal in todays society, but they laid the foundation of todays corporate America. Even here it shows that for anyone that is ambitious, the opportunity is being able to be ruthless, being able to do what it takes to reach your goal. I don't thing it's necessary to confirm those claims that they were ruthless, becuase they are widely known for being able to be ruthless.

Why it important to being able to be ruthless when you want do go from something to everything: Above I've shown that ruthlessness is a positive thing for the entreprenurial guy, this explains why: "This is a ruthless world and one must be ruthless to cope with it." -Charlie Chaplin
The world we live in today will always contain ruthlessness, and also create ruthlessness. So if you want to get to the top of the food chain, you'll often receive ruthlessness, and then you have to be ruthless yourself. If not, you wont succed and that becuase he will have more options and will in the end make you go under.

Ruthlessness is very positive becuase it gives you more options to choose from to get the best results, think of the world as chess: in a game of chess a non ruthless guy will choose from the normal options, but the ruthless guy has more options to choose from cause he his ruthless, and will do everything to win and reach his goals.

Problems with a government not being ruthless: I'm a Swedish teenager, I'm active in a youth wing, and Sweden is a great example of what can happen if a governemnt isn't able to be ruthless, and I see it every day. Here we have what I would say is a socialist thinking, instead of do what's the most effective, you'll first look what people is having a bit of a tough time, then you'll focus on them and find them helpless and think that you have to help them. We have the most generous immigration policies in the world, and they really decrease our welfare system. First of all so do I think that good labor could be found in allowing exchange students to come to our country, and I'm not against any kind of ethnic group or so on. I have many friends that is from other countries, and I'm very impressed of good people coming from very hard social conditions who do find themself maybe a education or a job then supplies themself or their family. But not being ruthless in your immigration policies do more hurt them than it doesn't. Even if we take in a lot of immigrants. Plus that if we would do what is best, we would take in less immigrants, like decrease the accepting of immigrants by 50% and then increase the spending by 50%. We should help them, but we shouldn't cry for them.

Israel: is a ruthless state. I'm backing Israel in the war of Gaza. Not becuase it's a ruthless state, but becuase I believe that the creation of the State of Israel is one of the best things ever happend. But the jewish people have always been subjects of anti-semitism, and the best way for them not to be is for the State of Israel to exist. Their biggest enemy and threat, the terrorist organisation Hamas is a terrorist organisation. They'll do anything do hurt a jew whatever they've done. But Israel is a subject to the whole middle east becuase they are always a target of the arabs their. But they can even becuase of that huge threat, protect their citizens and create a functional welfare system that is one of the best in the world. But to protect their citizens they have to be ruthless.


Atheist-Independent

Con

Argument

I will attempt to show how being ruthless in politics is not a good strategy as it often ends up proving to be an unsuccessful approach in the long term.

Examples

Adolf Hitler:
Hitler is a prime example of a person who went too far in order to achieve their own personal goals. In the prelude to WWII, Hitler went to any means necessary to make both himself and Germany the most dominant in the world. This included lying to Neville Chamberlain at the Munich Accord when he pledged that he would not wage war on another nation only to invade Prague a year later and breaking the non-aggression pact that he had signed with the Soviet Union in 1941 by invading with 3.8 million Axis troops. Despite this ruthless approach, Hitler and Nazi Germany failed in their attempts at dominance and shows how political ruthlessness often fails in the long term [1].

Napoleon Bonaparte: Napoleon was very ruthless, both militarily and politically. Militarily because he single handedly revolutionized warfare in Europe and politically because he led a famous Cou D'etat and crowned himself Emperor of France. This however proved to be a fatal mistake as eventually the entire of Europe formed a Coalition against him and eventually defeated him at Waterloo and exiled him to St. Helena in 1815 [2].

Richard Nixon: Nixon's ruthlessness came from his paranoia and his need to have secret information. The ever infamous Watergate Scandal is a perfect example of how this ruthlessness eventually will prove to be unsuccessful. While the secret tapes that Nixon kept in the Oval Office may have proved to be useful on some occasion, they also were certainly the biggest mistake of Nixon's career as it led to his imeachment and resignation as president [3].

Conclusion
Political ruthlessness appears to be a positive strategy in the short term and will produce results. However, given the many historical examples it has been shown that it is generally unwise to be completely ruthless in a politics as often times it does not work out in the long term.

Sources
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
LudwigEmanuel

Pro

This round will be rebuttals.

Adolf Hitler
The reason Hitler failed wasn't becuase he was ruthless, he failed because of salughter of innocent jews. He didn't rule his own people with an iron fist, I mean. If you obeyed you were treated very good of the Nazis. The reason Adolf Hitler failed was becuase the world couldn't just look at how Nazi Germany killed innocent jews. Hitler was ruthless, yes. But if he wouldn't have been ruthless, he would have lost so much earlier than he acctually did. There was people far more ruthless than Hitler himself in the Nazi Party. People like Reinhard Heydrich who led the invasion of Prague. He lost becuase the world started a war against him.

Napoleon Bonaparte
Napoleon was a ambitious, talented and very intelligent person. The is considered by many to be one of the greatest rulers of all time. Under his ruling, France had it's golden period. He came from a normal family on Corsica, and then became the ruler of France. He wasn't accepted by many people of his rank becuase he wasn't of noble birth. He was a very succesful general. Many people said that he was never gonna succed but did it anyway. He was ruthless, yes. But the reason why Europe started a coalition against him was becuase they felt threatened of him. But any great ruler at that time in the world was ruthless or could be very ruthless.

Richard Nixon
Nixon might have been ruthless sometimes. But that he wired-tap the Oval office was just stupid. He wasn't ruthless becuase of his paranoia, that he wired up the oval office was just really dumb.

Conclusion
Being ruthless is a positive thing in politics and in society, it's a very good thing in the short term. If it's good in the long term depends on the individual being ruthless, it depends if he is generally long term of short term. Of course is it not very good to be extreamly ruthless in politics becuase a person has to be good with people. Everything has it's limits.
Atheist-Independent

Con

1st Round Rebuttals

For the sake of clarity, I will define a few terms:

Political: Of or relating to politics or the government.

Ruthlessness:
Having or showing no pity or compassion towards others.

Now for the rebuttals...

Genghis Khan: I debated whether or not to include Genghis Khan in my argument as well, because he is a prime example of how ruthlessness will eventually fail. It is true that Genghis managed to establish one of the largest empires in human history in the span o a single persons lifetime. However, as the trend of history has shown, this ruthless behavior led to the eventual demise of his great empire. While the demise of the Mongolian Empire did not occur during Ghengis's life time, the point still stands that it was Genghis's ruthlessness that caused the fall of the Mongols. For example, in China the once prestigious Ming dynasty had suffered greatly due to Genghis and his successors ruthlessness in China. Due to this, they rebelled in 1368 and retook almost the entire of China.

Also, the argument that what Genghis did was "good for his country" is completely irrational as Genghis's conquests had nothing to do with the Mongolian people but solely to expand his own power and influence.

Charlie Chaplin: This argument confused me, to be honest. Given the definition of political that I stated above, Chaplin has literally nothing to do with this debate. As my opponent also stated that he had no real evidence for Chaplin being ruthless, I have nothing to really rebut.

The men who built America: Once again, this argument seems to have very little relation with the debate about how ruthlessness is a good thing in politics. The only man who has any relation to politics would be J.P. Morgan who gave a loan to the US government during the Panic of 1907, however my opponent has no reference to this. I do agree with my opponent that it is sometimes required to be ruthless to reach personal goals, however the debate is about if it is a good thing to be ruthless in politics (which I obviously disagree with).

Israel: Israel is an example of how ruthlessness does not work in any regard, contrary to my opponents arguments. Israel's ruthlessness towards the Palestinians originates out of their need for revenge. This is legitimate, however it has prevented Israel from reaching any sort of a peace with any country within the Middle East. I agree that currently they must be ruthless in order to protect their citizens, however if Israel wishes to have any sort of peace, they must be willing to compromise.

Conclusion: My opponent has not provided any solid examples of how ruthlessness is a positive thing in politics, for both short and long term. My argument stands that it is generally unwise to be ruthless in politics due to the fact that it rarely works in the long term.
Debate Round No. 3
LudwigEmanuel

Pro

LudwigEmanuel forfeited this round.
Atheist-Independent

Con

3rd Round Rebuttals

Adolf Hitler: My argument is that Hitler was attempting to be ruthless by slaughtering the Jews. Hitler was attempting to create his ideal society that was absent of Jews, and therefore he was ruthless in his approach of reaching this goal. Also, the argument that Hitler would have lost earlier than he did had he not been ruthless is untrue because the reason why the Allies went to war with Hitler was because he had continually lied to them about not invading Czechoslovakia, Poland, Austria, etc. Had Hitler not been ruthless, in other words had he not lied and invaded various nations then he would have not been forced to commit suicide at the age of 56 due to invading British and American forces.

Napoleon Bonaparte: Yes it is true that Napoleon created a great empire via his ruthlessness but this does not refute the point that he was imprisoned and sent off to St. Helena to spend out the rest of his days. My argument remains intact that ruthlessness never works out in the end, even if you have some or even a lot of success in the short term.

Richard Nixon: Based off of my arguments, ruthlessness and stupidity are one and the same. My claim is that Nixon was ruthless in his approach to have complete knowledge about other people and their intentions. As the Watergate Scandal shows, this ruthlessness was obviously a mistake as it forced him to resign as president.

Conclusion: My argument stands that ruthlessness may prove to bring results in the short term however proves to fail in the long term.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by LudwigEmanuel 3 years ago
LudwigEmanuel
However, are you interesting in accepting the debate? :)
Posted by LudwigEmanuel 3 years ago
LudwigEmanuel
Some might consider it machiavellianism, cause some define it as a psychological case.
Posted by Atheist-Independent 3 years ago
Atheist-Independent
Here is the definition of machiavellianism:

The view that politics is amoral and that any means however unscrupulous can justifiably be used in achieving political power.

It is a bit extreem, but essentially it is the same thing as ruthlessness.
Posted by LudwigEmanuel 3 years ago
LudwigEmanuel
I'm not debating for machiavellianism.
Posted by LudwigEmanuel 3 years ago
LudwigEmanuel
If the definition of machiavellianism is like my definition of ruthlessness: yes.
Posted by Atheist-Independent 3 years ago
Atheist-Independent
So essentially you are arguing for Machiavellianism?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by TrasguTravieso 3 years ago
TrasguTravieso
LudwigEmanuelAtheist-IndependentTied
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 - Forfeit Spelling and grammar - I understand Pro is not a native speaker, but even so, Con's arguments were more clearly expressed. Arguments: I remain unconvinced either way, but Con effectively countered Pro's examples while defending his own. Sources - Con is the only to source. This is not a vote bomb, with a forfeit, poor grammar and weak arguments and lack of sourcing, I consider it a fair result.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 3 years ago
9spaceking
LudwigEmanuelAtheist-IndependentTied
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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by DarthKirones 3 years ago
DarthKirones
LudwigEmanuelAtheist-IndependentTied
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 dynamicduodebaters 3 years ago
dynamicduodebaters
LudwigEmanuelAtheist-IndependentTied
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: FF