The Instigator
Schopenhauer
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
RepublicanMan
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Weak Governments Should Be Overthrown

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...
Schopenhauer
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/14/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 959 times Debate No: 43965
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

Schopenhauer

Pro

As the title says, no trolling, evidence will be needed for historical examples (unless it is common knowledge) first round is for acceptance only, so there will be no arguments at all first round.
RepublicanMan

Con

Thank for the debate and I will be taking the challenge.
Debate Round No. 1
Schopenhauer

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate,
As the title says I believe that weak governments should be overthrown.
First for the start of the debate I will more thoroughly define weak governments, essentially I am arguing that governments that are weak in any way, (through economic weakness, corruption, war etc.) should be overthrown. Keep in mind however that things like plague, which cannot be necessarily the fault of the government, I will not be arguing about.
Reasons why a weak government should be overthrown...
1. It makes the people weak-If one takes any government system through the history of mankind, one can find that in times of weakness the people become weak. For example, take the Chinese during the warring states period in time. Because they had no centralized, strong government the people became weak, and death was common. When the emperor ascended to the throne, he had united most of china and the people once again became strong.
source:http://www.sjsu.edu...
2. Weak governments prevent advancement: Of one takes the weak governments, throughout history, they can find that during these times of weakness there is little advancement, and little advancement prevents discoveries and in general the progression of the human race in fields of science, medicine, etc. The reason for this? Often times a weak government has a poor or destroyed economy, causing little to no funding for fields of progress.
3. Weak governments tend to take the world with them: If a government becomes weak, and there own means of production and economy greatly decays, then a government loses not only its own economy, but also decays the economy of other nations. This is caused by their own product that they may uniquely provide becoming more expensive or suffering a decrease in quality in order to maintain stable prices.
Now I will provide the benefits of overthrowing a weak government...
1. It purifies corruption: When a government is overthrown, the corrupt leaders of that government go with it. Of course there needs to be a way of ensuring that the new leaders are not as corrupt, so a system of stable government must be imposed but more to that later...
2. It enhances the means of production: When a weak government is overthrown, and a superior government takes control, the economy is greatly increased and innovation produces new products making more money.
3. It gives people hope: Hope is a weapon. If the people are armed with it then they can supersede fear and take control of the government by overthrowing governments that are currently weak, violating their rights, or destroying the economy.
4. Sometimes, it can bring lasting peace: When a government is overthrown their might be a struggle for power, but in the end many wars could be halted and brought to a closure to prevent more death and blood shed.
Example: During World War 1, tsarist Russia was throwing the lives of soldiers into WW1. The Bolshevik revolution not only brought a government that some what valued the working class more, it drew Russia out of World War 1 so that it could have peace and begin the road to recovery.
sourceshttps://www.boundless.com...
Now I will present the means of revolution that should be employed
1. The people are armed and are given the revolutionary spirit.
2. The revolution begins at a time of ultimate weakness for the government.
3. (after the revolution succeeds, if it succeeds) Quickly the leaders of the revolution take control and eliminate or pacify other groups vying for power if needed.
4. A system of government is put in place that will empower the nation and its people.
Finally I will provide examples of countries that succeeded in usurping "weak" nation and put systems in place that empowered their nation.
Nazi Germany: TO A DEGREE, obviously I disagree with the genocide of millions of people, but overall the average German was given a better standard of life and the economy vastly improved.
Soviet Union- Once more I remind people that though I do not necessarily agree with the Soviet Unions form of government or the killings of millions, this nation became a global superpower.
United States- One of the finest examples (at least in my mind) of revolution, the American Revolution, with the support of France, gave power to the people and made another, actually current day, super power. Also it inspired the French Revolution and South American Revolutions.
That is all for now, once more I thank you for accepting this debate.
RepublicanMan

Con

Yes it is true that Weak Governments affect the people they are ruling over. But a Weak Government is better than no government at all. We cannot overthrow a government that is too weak mainly because it is not politically moral, what good could possibly come out of forcibly depriving an official of government of their power? If we overthrow a government, we might risk poverty and invasion of the country, seeing that there is at the time no government to defend the people.

And it is even worse to overthrow and replace a government with another type. An example being Germany Post-WWI, when Germany was run by the Weimer Republic. Everyone hated the government and then an attempted revolution resulted in Adolf Hitler's arrest, and the writing of Mein Kampf. But even besides the point, overthrowing a government can lead to war, higher crime rate, poverty, invasion, Dictatorship, Tyranny and enslavement. I'm not going to state the likelihood of each of these scenarios because I do not find it necessary, but even still, it is true that with no government or a government so weak the people can revolt and win, all of these things can happen post-successful revolt. When Russia faced revolution, many thousands of people died in BOTH revolutions, one being the 1917 revolution, and the other being the 1905 revolution.

Revolting against the government is a scary thing that here in America you can be killed for. It is not a bright idea, it causes too much death. The death toll of both Russian Revolutions in the early 1900s were extremely high and rather sickening.

1. Your example of China was somewhat irrelevant. "For example, take the Chinese during the warring states period in time..." You're right, there was no centralized or strong government at the time. But the Emperor taking the throne was not a demonstration of revolting or overthrowing. It was an example of a new leader taking power fairly. China has always been a Market Economy, meaning China makes most of its money from trading. Valuables are traded between China and other countries, which are then used to produce marketing goods that will help produce profit for the country. China works itself half to death to make tons of profit. Working little kids into sweatshops that make shoes and other leather products for the Americans and other foreigners.

2. Nazi Germany? Really? Yes, it is true that the Weimer Republic was a terrible Democracy and possibly the worst Government in Germany so far, but to say that Nazi Germany 'overthrew' the Government is ridiculous! Adolf Hitler, after being arrested and writing Mein Kampf, decided to run for office. President Von Hidenburg won and Hitler lost--but the President granted Hitler the position of Chancellor. After the Reichstag burnt down, Hitler blamed the Communist Party. He was also granted Emergency Service Permissions and instantaneously passed laws allowing him to become the Dictator of Germany. He took full power and locked his political opponents in Camps. Hitler may have raised the economy, power, military and navy, but trust me, there was plenty of revolt, chaos and fear emitting from within the people. No one like Hitler's tyranny except for the Nazis, The Italians and Japanese.

To say that Weak Governments should be overthrown is to say we should endanger thousands of lives for no good reason. What would we have to gain out of getting thousands killed? Some people who aren't involved in battle are still caught in the middle of the crossfire and killed. This sort of stuff only ruins a country further.
Debate Round No. 2
Schopenhauer

Pro

Thank you for your replies, now lets jump straight into rebuttals.
"Weak Government is better than no government at all."
This is not true in the slightest. While a weak government clings to the reigns of power like a disease they will use old tactics to improve themselves, if they try to improve themselves at all. While if their is no government at all, then the forge of conflict will produce someone who can actually improve a situation and be able to have change.
"what good could possibly come out of forcibly depriving an official of government of their power?"
Every leader who is not a tyrant and is voted in has a certain amount of years as their term. In the U.S. every four years we deprive an official in government of their power. I cannot comprehend why you think of this as bad, it prevents tyrants from dominating a government for life and prevents the same tactics used until they no longer have any meaning or simply do not work.
"If we overthrow a government, we might risk poverty and invasion of the country, seeing that there is at the time no government to defend the people."
If the people have been clinging on to a weak government for that long then they deserve to be conquered. If they fend off invaders then they deserve government. This is a simple practice found in nature, survival of the fittest. I am simply applying it in societal terms in times of war.
"But even besides the point, overthrowing a government can lead to war, higher crime rate, poverty, invasion, Dictatorship, Tyranny and enslavement."
If a government is weak then most likely all of this will have already come to pass. What do you think causes a revolution? What you have cited is not a product of the revolution, it is the drive that spurs on the revolution.
"When Russia faced revolution, many thousands of people died in BOTH revolutions, one being the 1917 revolution, and the other being the 1905 revolution."
Yes, and because of this Russia a while later became a global super power as I have already stated previously. Whether it was worth the price I will leave up to you.
"Revolting against the government is a scary thing that here in America you can be killed for."
Of course revolting against a government is scary, ironically enough about what you posted is that the United States itself was born through revolution and revolting against the government.
"But the Emperor taking the throne was not a demonstration of revolting or overthrowing. It was an example of a new leader taking power fairly. "
You mean taking power fairly by conquering other peoples and kingdoms? I don't understand how this is so much different than overthrowing a government. Both have conflict and loss of life, and even the by product of revolutions that you listed above can also be by products of war, it is irrelevant whether your fighting a revolution or conquering other kingdoms, the only difference is that with revolutions you actually have a valid reason rather than simple greed ad you must create a new government.
"but to say that Nazi Germany 'overthrew' the Government is ridiculous!"
I concede this point, you are right of course Hitler was elected. But Hitler was arrested for revolutionary activities, and in prison he wrote Mein Kampf, therefore a revolution is what actually put Hitler in the position to win election! If he had not published a book centralizing his ideas he would have never won.
"there was plenty of revolt, chaos and fear emitting from within the people. No one like Hitler's tyranny except for the Nazis, The Italians and Japanese."
No there wasn't. The German people, aside from a select few actually completely followed Hitler, and even if they did not my point actually has just been proved. If the people revolted against Hitler, then my point would be proved that weak governments should be overthrown as they would have launched a revolution to overthrow the "weak" German government. About the chaos and fear, if there was so many of this then why did the German people so gleefully support Hitler, fervently follow him, and do nothing when he called himself a dictator? You could argue that they were brain washed, but then they would have been brain washed to love Hitler, therefore they would not fear him because their fanaticism would be so strong.
"To say that Weak Governments should be overthrown is to say we should endanger thousands of lives for no good reason. What would we have to gain out of getting thousands killed? "
What do we get out of getting thousands killed in war I might ask? In revolution we should endanger peoples lives for a very good reason. This reason is for the social, economical, and personal improvement of the people, so that future generations will not have to decay under a weak regime.
"China has always been a Market Economy, meaning China makes most of its money from trading. Valuables are traded between China and other countries, which are then used to produce marketing goods that will help produce profit for the country. China works itself half to death to make tons of profit. Working little kids into sweatshops that make shoes and other leather products for the Americans and other foreigners."
How is this relevant at all? It does not mean that they still don't use violence, it simply shows the machinations of their government and has little to do with this debate.
my point still stands.
RepublicanMan

Con

One thing that really stood out from your response was this: "Every leader who is not a tyrant and is voted in has a certain number of years as their term. In the U.S. every four years we deprive an official government of their power. I cannot comprehend why you think of this as bad, it prevents tyrants from dominating a government for life..." Yes, while it is true that the US uses a government election system where the person voted into power (the president) is given four years per term, that does not have anything to do with tyranny, it is a moderation of how long someone has to rule the country in fairness to other politicians wishing to run it. Overthrowing a government is terrible because it can cause more than necessary chaos.

And as I had mentioned countless times, if you overthrow a government through resistance and revolution, this will cause a massive amount of chaos and can cause high death toll. It can cause the country collapse, poverty and fear. No one will feel safe, and so the government will lose control of their people and what is going on in their country. People will die out. No one should be killed because they were caught in the battlegrounds of revolution. And in response to your remark about Hitler's tyranny, yes there were revolts and people killed for Treason. Why do you think the first people locked up in Concentration Camps were Hitler's political opponents? Not only were they opposing politicians, they were also Soviets and other Nazi Revolt groups. That's why Stalin made a pact with Hitler; so many soldiers were being arrested and put into camps. Soon Stalin had his military officers executed fearing they would turn their backs--Hitler went through a similar situation, when he first came to power he feared revolt. But his disciplinary ideals grew to hurt the masses of Germany.

And on top of that, Hitler did not win the election through revolution. Hitler won the election through propaganda posters put up around Germany. Adolf Hitler won through convincing the people. And yes it is true, he was arrested for Treason after trying to overthrow the Weimer Republic. But it was not the revolution that sparked an election. Even still, Hitler lost the election...the person who won was German President Von Hindenburg.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by gdogthekoopa 3 years ago
gdogthekoopa
What is defined as a "weak" country and what about the events that affected them.

Do countries that suffered from war and violence deserve to be overthrown?
Do countries that suffered from plague and disease basically something they can't really prevent.
Do countries that have suffered economic decline and/or collapse either from the inside or out.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
SchopenhauerRepublicanManTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had better arguments. He demonstrated why weak governments need to be revolted against. Con only argued its unfair to the people in power. While pro pointed out its unfair to allow weak governments to remain to the citizens and to the world. Pro was also the only one to use sources. Spelling and conduct was good by both sides.