The Instigator
Darth_Grievous_42
Pro (for)
Winning
24 Points
The Contender
DucoNihilum
Con (against)
Losing
23 Points

Serial Killers are more Dangerous than Military Dictators

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: 9/1/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,850 times Debate No: 5220
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (8)

 

Darth_Grievous_42

Pro

Definitions provided by dictionary.com and Wikipedia:
Serial Killer - A person who attacks and kills victims one by one in a series of incidents
Military Dictators - a form of government wherein the political power resides with the military; it is similar but not identical to a stratocracy, a state ruled directly by the military.
Dangerous - able or likely to cause physical injury

As Pro, I will be defending that Serial killers are more dangerous than military dictators; thus the polar opposite of my stance that my opponent will have to defend is that Military dictators are more dangerous than serial killers.

When one says 'evil person', more often that not (or at least within my personal experiences) the first names that come up are usually along the lines of Hitler, Stalin, and/or Saddam. Secondly, if at all, one will think of someone like Charles Mason or Ted Bundy. However, which one is really more dangerous? I propose that serial killers are. Why? Because they actually get their hands dirty. A dictator, for all their self awarded medals and the pistol they carry around, how often do they actually go out and kill? When one thinks who was at fault for the 5.7 millions deaths, people usually point the finger at Hitler, but he certainly didn't personally pull the gas chamber levers or fire the machine guns that caused the deaths. Rather, that job was left to the members of the SS and Nazi army. Hitler's words caused others to act, but he himself didn't actually kill anyone. But serial killers do.

They physically face their victims and kill them, however they do choose. There is actually the personal touch. They intended to kill them, they wanted to. They went out of their way to find their next victim, capture, and commit the murder. A dictator doesn't kill anyone, its his cronies that do the deed. Its those people everyone fears because they're the ones who are going to come and get you. Kim Jong-il isn't going to come out of his palace to personally cause strife among his subjects. It's the grunts. The killers. They are the dangerous ones, the dictators only a figure head. A face to put with mass murder. But a face doesn't kill, the gun or knife does. The person who pulls the trigger or does the stabbing is the real holder of power. They are the dangerous ones. And that is what the serial killer does. So, for the reason that the killer really kills, and the dictator only dictates, the former is infinitely more dangerous than the latter.
DucoNihilum

Con

Darth_Grievous_42, Thank you for creating this debate. I find it very interesting. Before I begin, I would like to wish you the best of luck in your rounds.

The core issue I see here is the definition of Dangerous. I will define it here to avoid confusion.

dan�ger�ous Listen to the pronunciation of dangerous
Pronunciation:
\ˈdān-jə-rəs; ˈdān-jərs, -zhrəs\
Function:
adjective
Date:
15th century

1 : exposing to or involving danger 2 : able or likely to inflict injury or harm
— dan�ger�ous�ly adverb
— dan�ger�ous�ness noun

WHEN

DANGER IS

Main Entry:
1dan�ger Listen to the pronunciation of 1danger
Pronunciation:
\ˈdān-jər\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English daunger, from Anglo-French dangier, dongier, from Vulgar Latin *dominiarium, from Latin dominium ownership
Date:
13th century

1 aarchaic : jurisdiction bobsolete : reach, range2obsolete : harm, damage3: exposure or liability to injury, pain, harm, or loss 4: a case or cause of danger

SO, which group of people, Dictators or serial killers is most likely to "likely inflict harm" or "exposure or liability to injury, pain, harm, or loss"? The clear answer is dictators.

The direct actions of dictators have killed hundrends of millions of people, from those in rule of the USSR, to Mao, to the dictators in charge of North Korea, and Nazi Germany. They did not do this in a directly personal way, they did not personally kill every person, however, they did directly cause their deaths. Without these dictators ordering others to kill them, they would not have died.

While it may appear that serial killers are more dangerous because they are more personal, this is an illusion. There is absolutely no relation between how "personal" somebody is and how "dangerous" they are. They are dangerous if they simply cause more death, or are more likely to cause the death of another. Are you more likely to die under a tyrannical dictatorship than in country which happens to house serial killers? Of course.

Since your chances of death, or harm (by definition, danger, or dangerous living) are much higher with dictators than serial killers, dictators are the most dangerous individuals.
Debate Round No. 1
Darth_Grievous_42

Pro

And thank you DucoNihilum for accepting. Now onto the debate. By your own definition, dictators are less likely to "inflict harm" than serial killers. Here are some kill-count statistics:

BTK Killer - 6
Charles Mason - 9
Ted Bundy - 36
Jack the Ripper - 5 confirmed, possibly up to 18
Albert DeSalvo (the Boston Strangler) - 13
Cho Seung-Hui - 32
Dexter Morgan - 46<*
Hitler - 2 (one of which was himself, the other his wife)

As you can see, Hitler was more a danger to himself than to others. What people really fear and die from is the army they control. The jews, when stuck inside attics and behind hidden walls, they didn't fear Hitler. He certainly wasn't going to come looking for them with a pistol. No, what they feared was the Nazi army. All of which are serial killers. Dictators don't kill anyone. Except themselves, when they're about to be caught. So by your logic, it seems serial killers are the more dangerous. Hitlers about as dangerous as my shoe. Its the ones who wield the weapons, the real killers, that are more likely to inflict pain on another. Your chances of dying when in a room with Ed Gein are staggeringly higher than if your in a room with Hitler. So, logic dictates that dictators are more docile than a dangerous, deranged... killer.

Sources: [http://www.allserialkillers.com...]
*Just a joke
DucoNihilum

Con

Dictators are far more likely to cause the infliction of harm as compared to serial killers. Please explain how being more personal is somehow inflicting more harm. Hitler CAUSED the death of millions, the USSR directly caused the death of millions, and the serial killers you listed killed just over a few hundred.

If you can not prove that serial killers are more DANGEROUS than dictators, rather than just more personal, then you have failed to meet the standards of your own proposition.
Debate Round No. 2
Darth_Grievous_42

Pro

Ahh, but your mistaken. See, it's not the dictatorSHIP's we are arguing about, but the dictators themselves. This has been a personal argument all along. You'll notice that the title doesn't say "Serial Killers are more Dangerous than a Military Dictators Regime", but states simply "Military Dictators". My first argument specifically stated that it was your job to defend the dictator. It is their army that is dangerous, not themselves. Hitler's ARMY caused the deaths of millions, not Hitler himself. You have failed to meet the standards of the proposition as a whole. If you cannot prove that a dictator himself is more dangerous than a serial killer within this last round, then I have won this debate. Darth_Grievous_42 out.
DucoNihilum

Con

DucoNihilum forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by scissorhands7 8 years ago
scissorhands7
*Says the person who spammed debate.org with links to his poor debate*

Grevious by all means challenge me to a debate, and you will lose.
Posted by Darth_Grievous_42 8 years ago
Darth_Grievous_42
1) Kleptin, I'm honestly surprised at you. Do you really think I'd stoop that low? It was not intended to be a semantics debate, DucoNihilum turned it into one by misinterpreting Military Dictator to mean A Military Dictators Regime. Instances he could have used to strengthen the argument he was SUPPOSED to be making were Genghis Khan, Vlad the Impaler, many old English Kings, and some contemporary African dictators. All of these examples were ones he could have used and ones I did use when debating the subject in college. Its no ones fault but his for this mistake, and one I'm surprised an esteemed debater like yourself couldn't see.
2) Guns do kill people. I don't see bullets flying out of a persons hands, do you?
3) With his examples, namely only Hitler, you would most likely die at the hands of a maniac like Ted Bundy before a relatively sane Hitler. Sure Hitler had crazy ideas, but Bundy was just plain crazy.
4) Con had no sources, just a dictionary definition which applies more to serial killers than Dictators, or at least the ones Duco thought to use. A site that did say Hitler killed 6 million people would be wrong, because Hitler in reality did not, rather his troops did. Thus Hitlers REGIME killed 6 million. Common mistake, and whether you consider it semantics is irrelevant as it is completely true.

Scissorhands7, you make me sick. Your sheer existence on this site is spam enough.
Posted by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
This is one of the very, VERY rare instances in which a forfeit (although not intentional) actually gave strength to the argument.

Although PRO's argument started off well, CON's rebuttal with the two definitions quickly turned this debate into what PRO wanted it to be: A debate on semantics. I only support semantic debates when CON is up against a seemingly unbeatable point. Thus, I would have to say that this planning was just sleazy.

That having been said, I also need to point out that CON's rebuttal, pointing out the issue of how LIKELY dangerous each would be, was more than enough to throw PRO's argument away. Essentially, PRO insists that guns kill people, while CON said that people with guns kill people.

PRO had a weak come-back. If you were in a room with a serial killer, you would more likely die than if you were in a room with a military dictator.

Question is, how likely would it be for the military dictator to be powerless?

I gave the conduct points to PRO for not forfeiting, and the sources/convincing arguments to CON, because CON's sources helped his argument, while PRO's only cited source was detected to have malware, seemed like a sleazy site, and did not list the kill rate for Hitler. My bet was that every site to have listed Hitler's kill rate would have listed the number of people killed under his dictatorship.
Posted by scissorhands7 8 years ago
scissorhands7
Grievious, I'm voting against you not because I read your debate, but because you spammed it about debate.org and became a nuisance.

Thats what you get for spamming ;)
Posted by DucoNihilum 8 years ago
DucoNihilum
Sorry, just got back from a power outage. Power came back just in time to be late :-/
Posted by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
Duco's power is out, that's why he forfeited.
Posted by Darth_Grievous_42 8 years ago
Darth_Grievous_42
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that.
Posted by Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
Just like this:
The person pulling the trigger killed billy, not the bullet!
Right pro?
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
Darth_Grievous_42DucoNihilumTied
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:40 
Vote Placed by Elisabeth 8 years ago
Elisabeth
Darth_Grievous_42DucoNihilumTied
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:50 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
Darth_Grievous_42DucoNihilumTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Vote Placed by MitchPaglia 8 years ago
MitchPaglia
Darth_Grievous_42DucoNihilumTied
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:04 
Vote Placed by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
Darth_Grievous_42DucoNihilumTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
Darth_Grievous_42DucoNihilumTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by DucoNihilum 8 years ago
DucoNihilum
Darth_Grievous_42DucoNihilumTied
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 s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
Darth_Grievous_42DucoNihilumTied
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