The Instigator
TheBlueTurtle
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
hilton16
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

The Need For a Presient/ Prime Minister

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/1/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 678 times Debate No: 30862
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

TheBlueTurtle

Con

I simply do not see why we should have main person in power.
hilton16

Pro

I accept my opponent debate! I hope we will have a good debate.

Now, my opponent state "i simply do not see why we should have main person in power"?

What is the definiton of a President

A president is a leader of an organization, company, club, trade union, university, country, a division or part of any of these, or, more generally, anything else.

Etymologically, a president is one who presides, (from Latin prae- "before" + sedere "to sit"; giving the term praeses). Originally, the term referred to the presiding officer of a ceremony or meeting (i.e., chairman), but today it most commonly refers to an official. Among other things, "President" today is a common title for the heads of state of most republics, whether popularly elected, chosen by the legislature or by a special electoral college.


-Well if we do not have main person in power who runs the affair of the Country? or the affair of a organization, company, club, trade union, university. The reason we have main person in power is to act on behalf of the people. Though that is not what is always happening.

The powers vested in such (presidents) vary considerably. Some presidencies, such as that of Ireland, are largely ceremonial, whereas other systems vest the President with substantive powers such as the appointment and dismissal of prime ministers or cabinets, the power to declare war, and powers of veto on legislation. In many nations the President is also the Commander-in-Chief of the nation's armed forces, though once again this can range from a ceremonial role to one with considerable authority.
-If there is no President or a head of state who declare war? Not everyone. Because if we have everyone decide if we should go to war it will be a constant debate. And before we ever make a decision we'll probably get attack again. If there is no president who vetos on legislation? With a President of sort of laws may be passed the alot of people may not like. If there is no President than how will a bill be passed because some legislature may not want it while others may! If there is no President who is the Commander-in-Chief of the nation's armed forces. Not everyone will be commander-in-cheif of the Amred Forces.



The President of the United States of America is the head of state and head of government of the United States. The president is at the head of the executive branch of the federal government, whose role is to enforce national law as given in the Constitution and written by Congress. Article Two of the Constitution establishes the president as commander-in-chief of the armed forces and enumerates powers specifically granted to the president, including the power to sign into law or veto bills passed by both houses of Congress. The president also has the power to create a cabinet of advisers and to grant pardons or reprieves. Finally, with the "advice and consent" of the Senate, the president is empowered to make treaties and appoint federal officers ambassadors, and federal judges, including Justices of the Supreme Court. As with officials in the other branches of the United States government, the Constitution restrains the president with a set of checks and balances designed to prevent any individual or group from taking absolute power.

" Why do we need a President Anyway?"

Only after a fizzled attempt to run the country through disparate committees in individual states did the creators of the United States Constitution decide at a historic convention in 1787 that there needed to be a strong national government with a leader on top.

"Things were not really efficient without an executive that has a certain amount of power," said James Pfiffner, a political scientist at George Mason University in Arlington, Virginia. Psychologically, he added, people like to have leaders to look up to."

Final: Because self governing with this many people probally wouldn't go over very well.

http://news.discovery.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...;
http://answers.yahoo.com...;

Debate Round No. 1
TheBlueTurtle

Con

TheBlueTurtle forfeited this round.
hilton16

Pro

ok...? vote pro. i guess my opponent doesn't seem to have an rebuttal
Debate Round No. 2
TheBlueTurtle

Con

Soooooo sosorry, I was writing my response and then I clicked review, but not submit *facepalm*

Your argument doesn't really address my opinion. I am not for self-government. Also, you discussed things like "Who would declare war?"

That does not address the question. Such duties would be given to someone else in the government.

"People like to have leaders to look up to." does not justify anything. We should not make politics exiting simply because we feel like it. And the argument that some people wouldn't vote doesnt work because, to be honest, its not fair that someone who simply votes because it is exiting to vote for president has as much weight politically than someone who studies up on their politics.
hilton16

Pro

well you made the assertion "the need for a president/Prime Minister" so i adress your question. And you state "i simply do not see why we should have main person in power"

-if there is no main person in power who makes critical decisions that is affecting our nation as a whole? If it was everyone who going to make the decisions than that means everyone is the government. And than there is not citizen. but government.


"Your argument doesn't really address my opinion. I am not for self-government. Also, you discussed things like "Who would declare war?"

-i don't see how my argument doesn't really adress your opinion. i made the statement who would declare war because without someone as a main person in power than we makes such decision than? The need for "i simply do not see why we should have main person in power" is because the main person in power is suppose to make decisions on behalf of the people. Because not everyone is the government or in the government.

you skip the part to read The need for a main person in power is becase ""Things will not really be efficient without an executive that has a certain amount of power," (edited that part) " but went on to "people like to have leaders to look up to." well if this statement "people like to have leaders to look up to is the need for a main person in power than."


Now, this whole argument is a "burden of proof" on you why we shouldn't have a main person in power. After you answer this question i will debate further.
Debate Round No. 3
TheBlueTurtle

Con

TheBlueTurtle forfeited this round.
hilton16

Pro

ha this debate is over
Debate Round No. 4
TheBlueTurtle

Con

TheBlueTurtle forfeited this round.
hilton16

Pro

eh it's over. vote
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by TheBlueTurtle 3 years ago
TheBlueTurtle
My stance is that there should not be a political position with the most power, meaning he highest rank has multiple slots available.
Posted by AlbinoBunny 3 years ago
AlbinoBunny
So what are you arguing, we shouldn't have a single person in power?
No votes have been placed for this debate.