The Instigator
WilliamsP
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
CJKAllstar
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Term Limits

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 1 vote the winner is...
CJKAllstar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/12/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 573 times Debate No: 56484
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)

 

WilliamsP

Pro

I, unlike CJKAllstar, support term limits. I would like to challenge him to a debate about this topic. I hope he accepts my challenge and acknowledges the rules I have put in place.

Forfeiture will result in the loss of conduct points. Spelling and grammar will be accurate. All sources will be cited.

In the first round, my opponent will accept the debate and acknowledge the rules. In the second round, we will provide our arguments. In the third round, we will offer direct rebuttals and expand on our arguments if necessary. In the fourth round, we will offer counter-rebuttals and conclusions.

I look forward to this debate.
CJKAllstar

Con

I accept the debate.
Debate Round No. 1
WilliamsP

Pro

Introduction
On January 20, 1941, Franklin D. Roosevelt delivered his third inaugural address, marking the first - and last - time in United States history that a President shall have had more than the traditional two terms. Later, he would assume a fourth term, only to die shortly after. Then on March 21, 1947, the twenty-second amendment was passed, setting a limit of how many terms a President can serve (two terms). It was finally ratified on February 27, 1951.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was one of our greatest presidents. This may sound biased, but it is supported by facts. He saved us from the Great Depression. He led us through a global war, in which millions and millions have died. His legacy is great and that is undeniable. FDR was one of the rare cases that did deserve more than two terms. The same cannot be said about the political leaders of today. Allow me to make my case.

Arguments
Two terms as President - 8 years - are enough. In 8 years, you can inspire recovery from an economic collapse, end wars, start wars, create alliances, destroy alliances, create hope, and create chaos. 8 years is nearly a decade. That is enough.

There are a few rare cases - like FDR - that indeed require a third term in order to finish the work they have started. However, you cannot repeal an entire amendment just because of these rare cases. In my personal view - please do not attack me on this - Barack Obama deserves a third term
. However, I do not believe that term limits should only be in the United States. I think it should be law in al developed, secure countries.

If a President, Prime Minister, Chancellor, or any other political leader, were allowed to have as many terms as they pleased - and they won all of them - that would resemble dictatorship and it definately would indicate that the person in question is desparate and hungry for power.

In times of crisis, like an economic depression or a global war, a political leader - if worthy of the office - may have a few more terms than others. However, these terms should not be unlimited. Even FDR would not have deserved a fifth or sixth term. He would be very desparate.

May I ask, how is running for unlimited terms not a sign of desparation?

My argument is short, I am aware. However, I have limited time. Please understand. Thank you.

Works Cited
1. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...;
CJKAllstar

Con

Rebuttal
Introduction
On January 20, 1941, Franklin D. Roosevelt delivered his third inaugural address, marking the first - and last - time in United States history that a President shall have had more than the traditional two terms. Later, he would assume a fourth term, only to die shortly after. Then onMarch 21, 1947, the twenty-second amendment was passed, setting a limit of how many terms a President can serve (two terms). It was finally ratified on February 27, 1951.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was one of our greatest presidents. This may sound biased, but it is supported by facts. He saved us from the Great Depression. He led us through a global war, in which millions and millions have died. His legacy is great and that is undeniable. FDR was one of the rare cases that did deserve more than two terms. The same cannot be said about the political leaders of today. Allow me to make my case.

Arguments
Two terms as President - 8 years - are enough. In 8 years, you can inspire recovery from an economic collapse, end wars, start wars, create alliances, destroy alliances, create hope, and create chaos. 8 years is nearly a decade. That is enough.

Irrelevant. Theoretically, you are able to do all of this in one day, therefore is one day enough? We aren't debating on the threshold of the the theoretical. Pragmatism is needed in order to prove why we need eight terms and not just adhere to rudimentary democracy.

There are a few rare cases - like FDR - that indeed require a third term in order to finish the work they have started. However, you cannot repeal an entire amendment just because of these rare cases. In my personal view - please do not attack me on this - Barack Obama deserves a third term. However, I do not believe that term limits should only be in the United States. I think it should be law in al developed, secure countries.

Still irrelevant. There have only ever been two cases when a nuclear missile has been fired upon another country, but it is fallacious to say that because quantitatively it has been horrible, we should not appeal any conventions to ban nuclear missiles. If it is worth doing on a qualitative scale, then it should be done, and you BOP consists of proving qualitatively the removal of term limits isn't worth doing.

If a President, Prime Minister, Chancellor, or any other political leader, were allowed to have as many terms as they pleased - and they won all of them - that would resemble dictatorship and it definately would indicate that the person in question is desparate and hungry for power.

No, not at all. If they are elected, then it is not a dictatorship. The majority wanted them, therefore, as elementary democracy states, they get them. This is a ludicrous statement. We cannot assume with no evidence that they are doing it for power. What we can infer, is that they want to be leader, and so do the general consensus. Is this not in accordance with general democracy? Term limits, restricting the democratic power that the people have is more dictatorial than a system which advocates the most core understanding of democracy.

In times of crisis, like an economic depression or a global war, a political leader - if worthy of the office - may have a few more terms than others. However, these terms should not be unlimited. Even FDR would not have deserved a fifth or sixth term. He would be very desparate.

There is not a single argument here. You have stated that the terms should not be unlimited. You have asserted the motion, and the only hint of an argument I detect here is that unlimited terms means they are desperate. This is not only a slippery slope, but a hasty generalisation and a non sequitur.

May I ask, how is running for unlimited terms not a sign of desparation?

You cannot assert without any evidence. There is a possibility he just loves running the country, or feels indebted to the country, or just adheres to democracy? After all, if a leader is voted over and over again, then they clearly think he is best for the country, so that leader might just be doing what is best for the people.

This argument has been a host of logical fallacies, assertions and assumptions. I will now state my cases for why term limits, are an abismal idea.


I. The Idea of Basic Democracy

Democracy, where the people choose their own leader. Logically, it makes sense. Different countries have different needs, and different leaders have different needs. Therefore their needs should be the similar to benefit the country and its people as a whole, as both parties want to do, but together. For this to happen, the population therefore chooses who fits in with their need the most.

That is the basis of democracy. If a country wanted a leader, who they think would benefit them, they elect the leader. If after the first term, they feel like said leader failed, then the leader is out and the next person they feel who is the most beneficial, they elect. If the leader did very well, or the country still feels as he is the best, he is elected, and has another term, and the cycle continues ad nauseum.

Term limits, after the first two terms, infringes upon democracy. The voter now, cannot vote for who he truly thinks will benefit the country. The people as a whole, are now forced to pick someone who is their second choice, someone who doesn't necessarily have the same ideas and opinions as him. The leader's are second rate unless they want to switch. Term limits would only cause harm, in times of prosperity, if there was a very good leader.

II. Case Study - Margaret Thatcher

Margaret Thatcher, is my case study here. Remember, seeing as you are not debating specifically the American term limit, and your resolution is based around the idea of term limits, it isn't I suppose, too ludicrous to set a term limit of 1 term in the U.K? This points out why term limits are so ludicrous.


So, 1979 the year of the famous Winter of Discontent. Inflation at 27%, 5% pay rise limit, workers demanding 25% increase in wages, strikes everywhere, starvation, riots, deaths, the people of Britain have had enough. Since 1955, they've had to suffer under the brutal socialist ways of labour. They need a saviour, a liberator, and change.

May 1979, Margaret Thatcher is the said liberator. She was elected, the general consensus was happy, and what they wanted she was. Time for the test. So, for the first five years saw successes. Saw triumphs against the IRA, she had set herself as a strong leader, and not to mention triumphs in the Falklands. Oh, and there was the bit about privatising a lot, completely reviving the country, stopping strikers from ruining the country and doing what no Prime Minister in British history had done. This is why I believed hypothetically saying 1 term was enough. She did a ton of work.

So the people wanted her again, clearly, but imagine if there was a term limit? At this point, she would simply have to be replaced. That's it. Her legacy, halved. Because what she did do was further her privatisation, look even more powerful, oh, and there was that thing in 1986 referred to as the Big Bang, which only made the U.K. 3rd most successful country in Europe. Clearly, term limits prevents this from happening. But this isn't the end...

Because from 1989 onwards, with the introduction of poll tax, and as she was becoming mre stubborn, people did not like her as much. She had done great for the country, but unemployment, inequality and seeming lack of care for people made it that people had realised, they had had enough. Enough had been done, and they wanted to go back to being stable. It was too much. So what they do? She was voted out in 1991.

The point is that democracy is already self-regulating, self-fulfilling and self-correcting. The idea of democracy in itself is expunged by not allowing people to vote for who they want to. There is no problem with people really enjoying a leader, and the moment they don't, they have the power to get rid of the leader. Term limits are anti-democratic, and do not serve any practical use.

Sources:
http://www.independent.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 2
WilliamsP

Pro

Introduction
I am appalled. In the first round, I specifically said that round two was only for arguments. This round (the third one) was for rebuttals. My opponent simply went ahead and tried to refute my argument. As my opponent has ruined the entire structure of this debate and also misinterpreted me, I believe he has lost the conduct points. His rebuttals are noted, but they will be ignored for now. He can restate them if he pleases. Right now, I will refute his arguments.

Rebuttals
Democracy, where the people choose their own leader. Logically, it makes sense. Different countries have different needs, and different leaders have different needs. Therefore their needs should be the similar to benefit the country and its people as a whole, as both parties want to do, but together. For this to happen, the population therefore chooses who fits in with their need the most. That is the basis of democracy. If a country wanted a leader, who they think would benefit them, they elect the leader. If after the first term, they feel like said leader failed, then the leader is out and the next person they feel who is the most beneficial, they elect. If the leader did very well, or the country still feels as he is the best, he is elected, and has another term, and the cycle continues ad nauseum." This argument is valid. In fact, I never specified the term limit would have to be two terms. I am simply arguing that unlimited terms are simply undemocratic.

"Term limits, after the first two terms, infringes upon democracy. The voter now, cannot vote for who he truly thinks will benefit the country. The people as a whole, are now forced to pick someone who is their second choice, someone who doesn't necessarily have the same ideas and opinions as him. The leader's are second rate unless they want to switch. Term limits would only cause harm, in times of prosperity, if there was a very good leader." All leaders, no matter how great, have alternatives. In the United States, a President's alternative would be a member of his cabinet or colleages from the same party.

"The point is that democracy is already self-regulating, self-fulfilling and self-correcting. The idea of democracy in itself is expunged by not allowing people to vote for who they want to. There is no problem with people really enjoying a leader, and the moment they don't, they have the power to get rid of the leader. Term limits are anti-democratic, and do not serve any practical use." Term-limits are not anti-democratic in any way. In fact, they prevent behavior resembling dicatorship. All great leaders have alternatives. Also, it is not the majority that is most important: the minority has a voice as well and that voice must be heard. If the minority's voice cannot be heard, that is anti-democratic, my friend.

I do not quite understand my opponent's arguments. First of all, all leaders have alternatives. Secondly, term limits do not automatically mean two terms. Thirdly, term limits are no anti-democratic at all.

Forgive me if my rebuttals are short and not fleshed out well. I am very busy.
CJKAllstar

Con

I take responsibility for my actions in not following your rules, and will lose conduct points. It, in ll honesty, is not going to change the result.

Rebuttal

This argument is valid. In fact, I never specified the term limit would have to be two terms. I am simply arguing that unlimited terms are simply undemocratic.

I'm guessing you may not have actually read this. Whether it is two terms or a hundred, fundamental democracy dictates a cyclical, self-correcting system where only the leaders who are the best for democracy are picked. The amount of terms, does not matter.

All leaders, no matter how great, have alternatives. In the United States, a President's alternative would be a member of his cabinet or colleages from the same party.

Futile assertion. It does not change the fact that they are alternatives, the number two, not the most effective leader for the country. Secondly, let us not forget the fact that this is a futile assertion. Margaret Thatcher's actions for example shocked and split her cabinet. She was the only person it would seem, who even dreamt of taking such radical actions. As I have found one example, your claim is disproven unless you can prove someone in her cabinet would have. But what she did, meant that if for example a one single term limit was place, she could not have continued it.


Once again, a futile assertion. A dictatorship was based upon the idea that a leader is not elected. In no way is a leader being 'elected' a futile assertion. Frankly it is a horrible argument. The people of a nation want a leader who they believe will be best, but they cannot do so in the long run because it looks dictatorial? If it is not a dictatorship, however dictatorial it looks is absolutely useless. It is still democracy, therefore not a dictatorship and for the people.

And the issue with pleasing the minority is the biggest load of rubbish I have seen for a while now. It is absolutely impossible to please everyone. As someone who apparently has intelligence, "well beyond that of the average human", I would think you should no this. You will never be able to please both the keynesians and the monetarists fully. You will never be able to please the regulationist and the laissez-faire economist. Never the radical left, and the radical right. Never the militant atheist, and the pious theist. Never the progressivist, and the conservative. Never the socialist, never the capitalist. Never the liberal conservative, and never the conservative liberal.

The whole point of voting is to see which of the above the people are more. What most of the people want. If you cannot please all, you must please the most. You must maximise on happiness, stability and steadiness. It is impossible to please all, so democracy on a rudimentary level dictates that whatever the most people vote for is what is done. Happiness doesn't stack over time. If you impose a term limit, so what 60% want is gone to please 20%, during the term of the latter leader, only 20% will be pleased. Is this democratic? Is it truly democratic to let the 20% be favoured over the 80%? Not according to basic, core, fundamental democracy.

Unless we have a different understanding of democracy, then in no way can you refute what is simple logic. Term limits stop the majority from choosing who they want. They only please the minority who wanted the latter leader. Democracy is about pleasing the most people and finding what the general consensus dictates. Therefore it is ridiculous to state that pleasing the minority is more democratic, stopping what the people want is more democratic, and that allowing people to vote whoever they want, as many times as possible is undemocratic. How one can call themselves a democrat with that notion mesmerizes me.

I do not quite understand my opponent's arguments. First of all, all leaders have alternatives. Refuted. Secondly, term limits do not automatically mean two terms. Refuted. Thirdly, term limits are no anti-democratic at all. Refuted.

There is no need for expansion of my arguments. An interesting point for the floor to note is that term limits mean those in the cabinet also suffer the same fate as the public, as they have to vote for a new leader, even if they think one leader will do the best for the party, and the best shot at winning. Term limits ruin a party's chance at winning, and ruin the democracy within the cabinet, which is a micro-chosm of the real world. So in both cases, they do not promote democracy.

I urge the floor, to vote for the side which isn't arguing based on assertions, generalisations, fallacies, opinion and ignorance. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
WilliamsP

Pro

Counter-Rebuttals
"I'm guessing you may not have actually read this. Whether it is two terms or a hundred, fundamental democracy dictates a cyclical, self-correcting system where only the leaders who are the best for democracy are picked. The amount of terms, does not matter."

I did in fact read it. Democracy is indeed a self-correcting system, but the leader is not self-correcting. As you age and go through the stress of leading the country, you ability to lead will decrease. Each term will be more successful than the next one. It is a process.

"Once again, a futile assertion. A dictatorship was based upon the idea that a leader is not elected. In no way is a leader being 'elected' a futile assertion. Frankly it is a horrible argument. The people of a nation want a leader who they believe will be best, but they cannot do so in the long run because it looks dictatorial? If it is not a dictatorship, however dictatorial it looks is absolutely useless. It is still democracy, therefore not a dictatorship and for the people."

Okay, I acknowledge that the term "dictatorship" was a little extreme. My point is, however, that term limits will limit the power and control of the leader. Too much power and control could transform into a dictatorship.

"And the issue with pleasing the minority is the biggest load of rubbish I have seen for a while now. It is absolutely impossible to please everyone."

One of the first steps to pleasing everyone is electing a new leader. With each leader, there will be support and opposition. The opposition has a voice too, so they will be pleased when a new leader arrives. Debate and opposition, in the political world, is healthy. It puts very important issues into the spotlight and helps raise important questions.

"You will never be able to please both the keynesians and the monetarists fully. You will never be able to please the regulationist and the laissez-faire economist. Never the radical left, and the radical right. Never the militant atheist, and the pious theist. Never the progressivist, and the conservative. Never the socialist, never the capitalist. Never the liberal conservative, and never the conservative liberal."

You must simply compromise, give up some of what you want, and in return get some of what you do in fact want. Find the common ground. That is how you please everyone. It is simple politics. It is how the government is meant to work. You cannot have an eternal leader with one set of views and ignore the voices of the minority. You must bring new ideas to the table. You must contribute in new ways. Term limits ensure that. They allow new leaders to be brought to the system, who will bring new ideas and values to the government. That is how it is supposed to be.

"If you impose a term limit, so what 60% want is gone to please 20%, during the term of the latter leader, only 20% will be pleased. Is this democratic? Is it truly democratic to let the 20% be favoured over the 80%? Not according to basic, core, fundamental democracy."

My opponent, who is clearly arguing about democracy, is forgetting one key point: Democracy is not only about the majority. It is also about the minority. In a true democracy, everyone's voice is heard. If a majority votes for a leader, will you simply ignore the minority? In a true democracy, you will not.

"Unless we have a different understanding of democracy, then in no way can you refute what is simple logic. Term limits stop the majority from choosing who they want. They only please the minority who wanted the latter leader. Democracy is about pleasing the most people and finding what the general consensus dictates."

Indeed, we have a somewhat different understanding of democracy. My opponent believes that the majority automatically rules and that the minority should be ignored. I believe that in a true democracy, everyone is heard. Everyone can exercise their rights in a democracy. If you have the same leader over and over again, the minority will be absolutely furious. You cannot ignore that. The minority may revolt against the government, and a civil war could commence. This, my friend, is simple logic.

I urge the voters to review this debate carefully. Do not read it only once and vote quickly thereafter. Actually think about both arguments. I concede the "reliable sources" points, but my opponent has conceded the "conduct" points. The rest are to be decided by the voters, who, I hope, will make the right choice. The right choice will be for the side that argues logically, not with many facts and statistics. Fancy numbers and equations are not comparable to plain, simple logic, which I believe I used.
CJKAllstar

Con

Rebuttal

I did in fact read it. Democracy is indeed a self-correcting system, but the leader is not self-correcting. As you age and go through the stress of leading the country, you ability to lead will decrease. Each term will be more successful than the next one. It is a process.

Yes. The leader isn't self correcting. And at the point where the leader's ability proves someone else better, they don't vote for them. It is that simple, a term limit is not needed. Unless you are assuming the people are not capable of thought or that ignorant, if they feel a leader is worsening, they do not vote for him. Term limits provide no usefulness here. Democracy does.


Okay, I acknowledge that the term "dictatorship" was a little extreme. My point is, however, that term limits will limit the power and control of the leader. Too much power and control could transform into a dictatorship.

It couldn't transform into a dictatorship. They are voted in, and could be just as easily voted out. I fail to see how a leader serving a term more than eight years is in any way dictatorial. Too much power? What do you mean by this? All president's/prime ministers have the same authority and roles, and in a matter of years, someone else can take role. It is ludicrous to say that people cannot have who they want because in a democracy it might possibly somehow turn it into a dictatorship. Unless they are going to pass an enabling act, as Hitler did in 1933, then it isn't going to be a dictatorship.


One of the first steps to pleasing everyone is electing a new leader. With each leader, there will be support and opposition. The opposition has a voice too, so they will be pleased when a new leader arrives. Debate and opposition, in the political world, is healthy. It puts very important issues into the spotlight and helps raise important questions.

And term limits does this how? I mean, if there are important issues, the public do not care at all about healthy debate. When there is a problem, they really don't care if there is 'variety', 'change', 'democracy'. They want solutions, and will choose the person they believe is best fit for those solutions, and term limits stop them from doing this. As for important issues, it does not take a change in leader for people to realise if inflation is high.


You must simply compromise, give up some of what you want, and in return get some of what you do in fact want. Find the common ground. That is how you please everyone. It is simple politics. It is how the government is meant to work. You cannot have an eternal leader with one set of views and ignore the voices of the minority. You must bring new ideas to the table. You must contribute in new ways. Term limits ensure that. They allow new leaders to be brought to the system, who will bring new ideas and values to the government. That is how it is supposed to be.

Proof? That is how it is supposed to be? Where is your proof? It is a very big statement to define how politics is. We simply cannot please everyone, but compromise pleases no one. Imagine if Margaret Thatcher had compromised with the trade unionists. Rather than them almost ruin the country, they would partly ruin the country. Compromise simply cannot be done effectively. No matter your policies, people will be hurt. You don't need an eternal leader. You need a leader who most people are happy with. Who the general public as one body are pleased with.


And don't give the "bringing new ideas to the table", rubbish. That happens anyway. It happens with manifestos. New ideas are being brought out all the time without a need for a whole new leader to change it. Unless of course, you mean the leader does things differently. In which case, he surely would have made sure the public knew what he was going to do? If not, that is undemocratic. If so, you do not need term limits. The people, if the ideas are good, would have picked him. People want stability, and safety. They do not want new, fresh politics at their doorstep, unless it provides said stability. And safety is being able to choose the best leader, not hoping this second will do well.

My opponent, who is clearly arguing about democracy, is forgetting one key point: Democracy is not only about the majority. It is also about the minority. In a true democracy, everyone's voice is heard. If a majority votes for a leader, will you simply ignore the minority? In a true democracy, you will not.

No true Scotsman fallacy. Sorry, but there are many opinions which there simply cannot be compromised. My previous argument had a whole list. If the country in general is monetarist, how are you supposed to appease the keynesian economists? These are black-and-white systems which must be either fiscal or monetary. All the others I listed were good examples, which you have just left to make this horrible assumption. If the majority votes for the leader, he will do what he intended to do, and what he promised. Because the majority voted him in for that. If that is to ignore the minority, so be it. If not, then it is not. That is democracy, where the people decide in general what to do.

Indeed, we have a somewhat different understanding of democracy. My opponent believes that the majority automatically rules and that the minority should be ignored. I believe that in a true democracy, everyone is heard. Everyone can exercise their rights in a democracy. If you have the same leader over and over again, the minority will be absolutely furious. You cannot ignore that. The minority may revolt against the government, and a civil war could commence. This, my friend, is simple logic.

No...I believe in where the people get to vote for their leader and policies. However, obviously not everyone will be pelased. Compromise will please nobody and we must find a system which maximises benefit, which is a system where the majority is focused on. Sorry, but life is tough. Voting is a mirror of this. If A wins 20% of the votes, B wins 80%. B wins. Should we appease A? Should we really stop what will make the lives better of 80% of people, so that 20% can be happy? Democracy dictates that whoever wins more votes, wins, and for a reason. So that more people's lives can be made better. In brutal honesty, not everyone will ever be happy. There will always be radical nazis, radical communist, regulationists and laissez-faire capitalists. So we please the one's where most of the people lie, because it is their country.


The minority may revolt against the government, and a civil war could commence. This, my friend, is simple logic.

-_-


The fact that Con had to say he didn't have a lot of time is evidence enough to the voters. I could have been extremely pedantic, and demand sources, because a lot of what he said was balderdash, and expected it to be true. His arguments were packed full with the fallacy of begging the question. He had no proof and almost every one of his arguments were assertions, not arguments. There was no further discussion of issues which would arise, other than a civil war, which is frankly absurd, and his claims about a true democracy including the pleasing of the minority were balderdash. From the country turning into a dictatorship, to trying to say that people's freedoms should be infringed in the sake of "fresh politics", his arguments held no place in logical debate.


There are some strong arguments for term limits. As much as I oppose them, the best argument for term limits is that they ensure a president doesn't have too a strong foothold in the country, and doesn't make it impossible for the opposition to do anything, because he has changed so much. The claim about fresh ideas could have been a good argument, if he could actually give an example on one. I don't even have BOP, but right now, all my Margaret Thatcher points are standing, my examples of opposing parties which cannot be compromised are still there, but none of this actually needs to. The only thing I need to take this debate is the existence of rudimentary, fundamental, simple, basic, core democracy. I urge the voters, to vote for this.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by WilliamsP 2 years ago
WilliamsP
@Themba, I completely understand. Thank you for voting.
Posted by Themba 2 years ago
Themba
I have been asked for a clarification, which I will be glad to give.

Conduct Vote Justification =Read from top to bottom=

Con invaded the rules by posting the rebuttals in R2. The matter is self explanatory, in such that if rules were broken, a conduct deduction is required to those that are guilty of such violation. In addition to this violation, there have been informal remarks made by Con towards Pro's character but since He apologized as it was unintentional, I suppose that reason is nullified. However, the invasion of rules still stands as Con clearly did so.
Posted by Themba 2 years ago
Themba
Argument Vote Justification =Read from top to bottom=
Clear Victory to Con

I have re-read the debate over and over again and I have no doubt that Con wins this part as contentions were dropped all over the place. One such concession is Margaret Thatcher which is a clear and a strong contention against the resolution. Con made a direct athenian-alike type democracy argument while Pro dismissed it without proper elaboration. The problem with Pro is that Pro failed to elaborate reasons why he thinks so.

A Sign of desperation? How?
The ability to lead will decrease? How? There are numerous psychological studies concerning being in the same time shift and place but Pro did not provide any evidence whatsoever
Transforms into a dictatorship? How? Pro did not give examples how one would turn into a dictatorship, I am forced to consider theories only.

In comparison to Con, Con made examples, which by the end nullifies any such theory made by Pro. Con expounded the case for democracy, about how the cycle should go in a democratic society and how one extreme's inability to reconcile with the other by using supported examples of ideological comparison

Con wins argument without a shadow of doubt. The resolution is negated.
Posted by Themba 2 years ago
Themba
S & G consideration =Read from top to bottom=

There are no specific guidelines to S & G. I usually scores this if the debator failed to express his contention properly, often requring readers to reread a couple of times to understand. There were a few mistakes such as substituting no in place of know and a few grammatical errors which however did not cloud Con's way of expressing his contention. Granted, I'd agree that Pro had better usage but the only consideration worthy here is whether it damages the debate. Clearly It did not, as such I will not, give any points to either side based on this category.

Thanks if you need more, I'd be more than happy to clarify it. And btw, Sorry for the late reply, I had to look for this all across the website and only now do I found it.
Posted by Themba 2 years ago
Themba
Give me time to reevaluate. Your opponent doesn't use connectors I agree but I was able to distinguish most of his points and his evaluation.
Posted by WilliamsP 2 years ago
WilliamsP
I believe I should be awarded spelling and grammar. Just look through the debate carefully.
Posted by CJKAllstar 2 years ago
CJKAllstar
Sorry WilliamsP, I did in this debate come across as condescending. I get annoyed quite easily as I have very strong opinions about a lot of these things. I get carried away quite easily. I fully concede all conduct marks.
Posted by Fanath 2 years ago
Fanath
Wooooo! Go CJ!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Themba 2 years ago
Themba
WilliamsPCJKAllstarTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Comments.