The problem with the world is the absence of leadership.
Debate Rounds (3)
pol pot he destroyed his country and he killed millions of people.
he did so without remorse.
leadership needs to have morals and ethics without it no humanity will remain, humanity needs to be the center of all leadership, or else we will have another Adolf Hitler, who was a good speaker and good and convincing but had bad morals.
does the world need good leadership before it runs its self into the ground
with out leadership humanity will have nothing left but to destroy what we have left.
Now, I'd like to start off by addressing your claim about how mass murder equals bad leadership. When Pearl Harbor was attacked by Japan in World War II, we responded by dropping nuclear bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in revenge. According to CNN, over 260,000 Japanese citizens were killed including innocent men, women, and children. Yet today, President Harry Truman (the man who agreed to drop the atomic bombs on Japan) is praised for his decision. Why? Because his other option would have been to invade Japan, which would have extended the war and caused more death. So yes, the use of the atomic bombs was horrific, but it was necessary. It does not make Truman a 'bad' individual and using lethal strategies is not always a negative action to take.
You then say leadership must have morals and ethics. I agree, however, not all morality is the same. In Nazi Germany, common morality did not oppose Hitler's actions. Yes, Hitler was a horrible person based on OUR standard of morality, but according to the morality of his time where he was from, the people there accepted Hitler because their sense of morality was different from ours. Hitler hated the Jews because Jewish-owned banks lead to the fall of Germany in World War I. He took out his anger on every Jewish individual. You may see that as wrong, however, the morality in Germany at the time generally did not condemn this. Ethics and morality may not be enough to stop or prevent what you consider bad leadership.
Goof leadership may sound like a positive thing, but give a good person power or authority and watch it corrupt them. If they do not fall into corruption, someone who succeeds them will. Take the US government for example. George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson were generally honest, not corrupt leaders. But look at American politics today. You can't deny that our government is corrupt and that our politicians lie whether for votes or to stay in power. So good leadership and inspiring new leaders does sound like a positive thing, corruption is always one step behind.
What I mean to say is we don't need new leaders. The first argument about killing is null and void, considering Truman's decision to bomb Japan involved killing Japanese citizens. By your definition, Truman was a bad leader, although if you consider that this was the best path he could have taken, you realize that he wasn't so bad after all. There are some exceptions, like the Nazis in World War II, however, ethics and moral vary from place to place. We can't expect everyone to adopt our morality and looking at the actions of others while blinded by our own ethical values is not the best way to observe leadership. Leadership only leads to corruption anyway; there can never be true freedom unless everyone is viewed as completely equal and nobody is viewed as a high leader. So no, the problem with the world is not the absence of leadership. The problem today is the abundance of it.
and constant to your belief i do think Truman is a good leader he had to make a choice about what was right, and i'm sure it wasn't an easy choice to make but he made it with the thoughts about what would be best for your country.
but their is a line you cant cross, leadership need a good leader not a poser at the helm, waiting for something bad to happen and then not doing anything.
Let me ask you this, though. Is EVERY senator, representative, Supreme Court justice, or President that came after Truman good? And the answer to that question is clearly no. Corruption follows good leaders everywhere. Having what is considered a good leader is only a temporary solution, and what I mean by this is that when you give someone power, it will corrupt them. If it does not corrupt them, then it will corrupt whoever succeeds them. I'm sure we can both agree on that. I mean, whether or not you support Hillary Clinton for president, you have to agree that her email scandal makes her seem very corrupt and untrustworthy.
Let's say that in some alternate history - some alternate universe - Pol Pot is a good leader according to your standards. But you can't deny that either he or someone who reigns after him will become corrupt. Just as I said before, corruption always follows good leaders. You can have a thousand good leaders one day and the next, they are all replaced with corrupt individuals who care only for themselves. If you need an example, look at the Founding Fathers of the United States and compare them to the people 'leading' the United States today.
Ianadams37 forfeited this round.
Before this debate ends, I would like to say this. We should keep an eye on the leaders we currently have and the leaders who follow them before we create new leaders. As I stated before, the problem with the world is not the absence of leadership; it is the abundance of it.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.