The Instigator
Wengerocracy
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
THsea
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Will civilocity ever catch on?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
THsea
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/13/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 381 times Debate No: 82449
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

Wengerocracy

Pro

Yes, civilocity will catch on. Anything that empowers the people will eventually become implemented. Power to the people.
THsea

Con

I accept, good sir! This will be my first debate and look forward to a civil discussion on civilocity!

So we do not waste each others time, I will ask two questions first. If you feel the answers shouldn't be posted in your argument post, feel free to respond to them in the comments section.

First! By "catch on", do you mean globally? Do you mean in Afghanistan, China, England, the US? This needs greater clarification for me to debate this with you.

Second! Are you going to make this a very literal interpretation of Nathanial Wenger's definition? I will provide what I have found from Nathanial Wenger's own website.
What is civilocity?A279;

Civilocity is a form of government where the people watch the ruler entirely amongst their reign. So, what does that mean? Civilocity allows you to watch the leader of your country the entire time anybody ever leads your country.
Source: http://nathanielwenger.weebly.com...

I'm not an experienced debater. As I've said, this is my first debate. I hope you will bear with me, as this is a learning experience for me!

All the best,
THsea
Debate Round No. 1
Wengerocracy

Pro

Round Two:

Yes, civilocity will catch on globally just like democracy.

Civilocity is a neologism which I coined, classified, and copyrighted in 2007 to deal with the political corruption. I acknowledge the fact that this is your first debate and welcome you to share any thoughts or opinions here. Civilocity can be defined by you anyway you wish. I define it as a form of government where the people get to watch their leader for the entire time that person is leading their country. Civilocity is copyrighted as a pragmatic philosophy which allows the people to watch and listen to the leader of their country 24/7, 365 days a year, including the extra day once every leap year, broadcast live on public television to the entire world. We will have an entire database of everything the leader of the country did right on our internet. Anything that empowers the people has the potential of one day catching on. Power to the people
THsea

Con

Round 2 indeed! I suppose it"s time to hit the ground running.

I don"t think you want to allow me to define the word you coined anyway I wish" We will stick to yours, or we will be on shaky ground which isn"t conducive to meaningful discussion! Though I appreciate the gesture.
As it is defined, I do not agree that this will catch on. I will present my reasons on the following grounds, then will explain. First, issues of implementation. Second, the ethical issue of its parameters. Third, governments themselves and Fourth, the people. I can think of a few more, but let"s start here since arguments haven"t been stated yet.

First, issues of implementation. How would this be accomplished? A series of cameras, microphones, biometric tracking, imprisonment? It"s easy to talk about possibilities, but actually making this work? Making it full proof? Could a leader not get a double if its cameras? The same for his voice. Digital hacking to create doubles. There would have to be pretty sophisticated means to track our leader(s), then those means would have to be fully transparent, and it becomes a pretty complex issue quickly! Not to mention people do cheat systems. Would we really be watching all the time? Them in the bathroom? While they are getting intimate? This leads to the next point.

Secondly, ethics. We are in a democracy, people do have rights. Are you asserting that leaders will forfeit their rights? Being spied on in their own homes? Privacy is important, being on the spot 24/7 is unthinkably cruel in a sense. I suppose if they would give up their rights, but that would be asking a lot and wouldn"t make it right. This essentially is saying our leaders would be our prisoners.

Third, governments. I would more trust governments to use this as a fa"ade of a sort, pretending to do this and reassuring the masses that no shenanigans are taking place. That"s if they would implement, but why would they? Revolution? Out of the kindness of government"s hearts? Is this to replace democracy? Be utilized in conjunction? We cannot even get the entire world to accept the idea that the people deserve say in governments! In our own government that does we have issues like gerrymandering, ineffective elected officials, lobbyists, and the list goes on. If you look at our system, politicians blatantly lie and get away with it! Would showing an invasive, nearly abusive, amount of transparency like you propose change this? Which leads to my last point.

Fourth, the people. People watching their leaders all the time? Who would do this? How many people would need to watch to make this system effective? With American Idol still on the air? I doubt it would get the same ratings! Getting people interested enough to vote has been difficult in our country. Letting it be known when our leaders mislead us has and is being done also. I think people just feel like if it"s benign enough that it doesn"t interfere with them, their goals, and their loved ones" They are apathetic to the system. So complicating a system and putting more burden on people to actually be more socially responsible than democracy even demands (which has a high demand to be a responsible citizen). Seems unreasonable and unlikely. I think you see this as more burden on the leaders, and it is! But it also extends further burden to the people, to have to care. For this to even have a shot of working, it would need to fix a lot of things with society and people that if where fixed would negate the need of the system entirely!

I would like to add, I think you invented this with altruism. Thinking it would genuinely be a way to help the world. So I appreciate that your mind set is such, but I disagree with the concept.

*Also! Sorry for so many questions in my points, but I am very unclear on the particulars. I understand the concept as you presented it, but it leaves a lot of questions for me.
Debate Round No. 2
Wengerocracy

Pro

Hello, today is a new day. A republic for the people of the 21st century. Over 100 million people died in the 20th century alone because numerous leaders of countries covering up unlawful behavior.

A new political party maybe, a new government, who knows whats ahead for the civil rights movement. Now, anybody of any race and of any gender can take part in the democratic process. Who would have thought that democracy would one day be for all people? Let's give a round of applause for democracy. It took democracy over 2500 years before it was finally implemented in most of the world.

Civilocity could just be the future of politics. A republic for the people of the 21st century. The people utilizing the technology of the day will form a more perfect union. Clearly civilocity requires a leader of a countries consent but who is to say that someone doesn't run on this political philosophy or start a political party around this idea before its instated in government.

One candidate running on civilocity who clearly consents to being watched would be a tough candidate not to vote for. All that civilocity requires is the right man or woman.

We hear what the leader of the country hears, we see what the leader of the country sees. We will have an entire database on the Internet of every single thing that happened.

Consent is the governing force behind civilocity.
THsea

Con

... Good sir, if you wanted to advertise for your "baby" you could have done it in another way. I was looking forward to my first debate.

Pro only partially addressed one point on the morality of this concept. He agrees that the leader would have to consent to being stripped of their rights. The rest of Pro's third round post is just a sales pitch of the concept Pro invented. He even contradicts himself in the process.

"Who would have thought that democracy would one day be for all people? Let's give a round of applause for democracy. It took democracy over 2500 years before it was finally implemented in most of the world." (Pro).

For "all" people? Then to "most". So it is for all people, but then for most people. All =/= most.

Pro doesn't address how it would be implemented. Pro simply asserts,

"We hear what the leader of the country hears, we see what the leader of the country sees. We will have an entire database on the Internet of every single thing that happened." (Pro).

While it is true he states it will be with technology of the 21'st century, he doesn't give any information beyond that. So camera's with microphones? Someone carrying the camera perpetually monitoring them or on their person? Implanted to their bodies? Mounted in an area they are confined to? Pro acts as if there is no BoP to be had.

So, Pro fails to address my points in any meaningful ways, and shamelessly uses this platform to push his agenda.

Vote Con, good people of DDO!

And to Pro, I do appreciate and thank you for the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kid 1 year ago
diarrhea_of_a_wimpy_kid
Sounds so Orwellian where out Great Leader becomes a sock puppet, broadcast in staged meetings and diplomacy, while secret agencies use the Trumpian "reality" show to dupe gullible masses that believe in professional wrestling and the Easter bunny and flat taxes.
Posted by NikolaGustav 1 year ago
NikolaGustav
It is hard to envision that a communist nation, such as China (the world"s most populous country), would ever implement laws that condone civilocity.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 1 year ago
U.n
WengerocracyTHseaTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Only Con cited a source.
Vote Placed by wipefeetnmat 1 year ago
wipefeetnmat
WengerocracyTHseaTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made a convincing argument which Pro failed to rebut but a small portion of.
Vote Placed by ZacGraphics 1 year ago
ZacGraphics
WengerocracyTHseaTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: The first few rounds were foggy to understand, however, Con came out on top towards the end, debunking Pro's strange arguments. Civilocity is an interesting topic, however in my eyes, Con shows better conduct by actually responding correctly to Pro's remarks, while Pro cannot follow suit. Sources to Con, as Pro used no sourcing.