The Instigator
debate.unique
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
Sweatingjojo
Con (against)
Winning
37 Points

Democracy is the best form of government

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/12/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 35,548 times Debate No: 5362
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (6)
Votes (8)

 

debate.unique

Pro

Democracy, in today's world, is the best form of government. Day by day, the number of democrecies in the world are increasing. Some of the reasons that support my posotion as pro are:
1. Democracy represents the views and notions of all the citizens of the country, whether majorities or minorities.
2. It helps in solving conflicts and quarrels in a better way.
3. It provides a dignity to the people.
4. It helps in realising one's mistakes and improving upon them.
5. There is no other form of government or an lternative better than a democracy.
Sweatingjojo

Con

First, my case, then refutations.

I have found that my opponent has in previous debates frequently not responded to more complex or extensive arguments, so, in the interest of fairness and a good debate, I will keep my case succinct and not overly complicated.

In direct democracies, where the people rule, they often make mistakes in their desicisons, because of fleeting passions and not having full knowledge which has severe consequences for everyone. There was strong sentiment directly after 9/11 that America should use nuclear weapons against Arab nations that were suspected of being involved in the attacks. If America was a direct democracy, we would long have been dead by now, as momentary passions would have led to worldwide nuclear war.

In representative democracies, corruption is rampant, where politicians vie for votes and money to get votes. This is a problem because it means that the people who are supposed to represent us don't really have our best interests at heart, which basically defeats the purpose of the democracy existing.

I propose an establishment of a nation led by a Philosopher king, as described by Plato. Someone who is wise, and wishes to always become more wise, would be best to lead a country, because he/she would be able to make even headed desisions without any outside pressures.

To refute: 1. The views of the people aren't always the ones that will lead to the greatest outcome, infact they often aren't.
2. A person who was recognized as wise and fairminded would be even better than majority rule, which can lead to unfair decisons.
3. I would feel better in knowing that someone who is extremely wise is leading me, other than the folks who live around me, who often times are, to be frank, dumb.
4. I'm not sure how this relates, to be honest.
5. I think a philosopher king would be a better alternative.

Back to you!
Debate Round No. 1
debate.unique

Pro

In direct democracies, where the people rule, they often make mistakes in their decisions, because of fleeting passions and not having full knowledge which has severe consequences for everyone."
democracy is based on consultation and discussion. A democratic decision always involves many persons, discussions and meetings. This reduces the chances of rash or irresponsible decisions. Having fleeting passions and not having full knowledge is not because the form of government is a democracy, the main reason is because it is not efficient. The debate over here is not about the efficiency of a democracy, it is to decide the best form of government.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In representative democracies, corruption is rampant."
This can again be proved by my previous argument. there is a difference between an efficient, good democracy and a true democracy. You propose an establishment of a nation led by a philosopher king, well, it cannot be guaranteed that corruption will not exist when a nation is led by only one individual. checking the record of dictators or individual rulers in real life, most of them are corrupt, selfish and brutal. and the worst part is hat one can't even get rid of them.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Once again, I'll prove my points,
1. views of the people is what a real democracy means, the efficiency of the democracy is a different issue.
2. the notions and views of a person can change, a wise person cannot always take right decision. moreover, approval of the decision by the majority if also important.
3. democracy is based on the principle of political equality, on providing the same status to the rich and educated as to the poorest and least educated. It definitely enhances the dignity of citizens.
4. In a democracy, even if a mistake is committed, it cannot be hidden for too long There is a space public discussion on these mistakes. There is room for correction.
5. a non-democratic government may and can respond to the people's needs, but it all depends on the wishes of the people who rule. if the rulers don't want to, they don't have to act according to the wishes of the people. A democracy requires that the rulers have to attend to the needs of the people.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This being my last round, I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate.
Sweatingjojo

Con

His/Her Case

"democracy is based on consultation and discussion. A democratic decision always involves many persons, discussions and meetings. This reduces the chances of rash or irresponsible decisions."
However, they are still made, as human nature will lead man to act in ways that are irrational when faced with a great stress, like right after a terrorist attack. If the United States was a direct democracy, the people would have a brief discussion, but it would be short, and lead to an irrational and bad decision.

"Having fleeting passions and not having full knowledge is not because the form of government is a democracy, the main reason is because it is not efficient. The debate over here is not about the efficiency of a democracy, it is to decide the best form of government."

I find that all direct democracies have this flaw of inefficiency, because of the simplicity and problems of the common man. The inefficiency of a direct democracy makes it less great of a form of government.

"This can again be proved by my previous argument. there is a difference between an efficient, good democracy and a true democracy."
Your previous argument was, I believe, that my points were only proofs of the inefficiencies of democracy, which is, as you claim, now what we are debating.

I again, disagree. The corruption found in representative democracies is inherent as well, because again, most people desire power, and so those with those desires are going to seek in through politics, and from there, they would only want more.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++
My Case

"You propose an establishment of a nation led by a philosopher king, well, it cannot be guaranteed that corruption will not exist when a nation is led by only one individual."

A philosopher king, inherently by name, seeks wisdom. By wisdom I don't necessarily mean the knowledge of math problems, or ability to recite historic events; but the knowledge and desire to learn about things such as 'not what are beautiful things, but what makes things beautiful?', 'what is justice?', or 'what form of government would be best for all?' Philosopher-kings would have an exponentially smaller chance of becoming corrupt because of their nature, being a philosopher, someone who seeks (loves) wisdom. If they become corrupt and dictatorial, then they're no longer a philosopher king, so really it must be the best form of government. Also, there have been men who have led with total control that have done so while keeping their subjects best interests at heart, such as Alexander the Great, of Macedon. I won't say more, as my opponent can't rebut.

++++++++++
Points rebuttal.

1. The views of the people, as I said before, makes a nation weak, because they aren't always the best views. This is an inherent flaw in all democracies.
2. I think that a person who was smart to begin with, and who always sought more intelligence, would be more trustworthy to lead. He or she would be strong enough in mental might to rectify any errors that may be made in the best possible manner.
3. I'm not sure how much people deserve the dignity to lead me and control how my life works, also, the philosopher-king's existence wouldn't reduce the dignity of anyone, and would likely promote it through other means.
4. I think the same could be said for a philosopher-king led government.
5. Again, by nature, philosopher kings seek what is best as a whole. This most of the time will include the citizens as a group that he or she would actively work to ensure their well-being. And again, the wishes of the people can easily be skewed by momentary passions, making them hard to rely on.

+++++++++++++++
Quick Explanation

In my refutations to my opponent's case, I use the real-world as implied examples to my rebuttals. My opponent responds saying that in theory, a democracy would be best. "The debate over here is not about the efficiency of a democracy, it is to decide the best form of government." (Since no government is 100% efficient, then I think this is an implication of democracy as a theory, not its real world applications.)
In my case, I speak of a theoretical form of government, one led by a philosopher king, which my opponent rebuts with the real-world and implied examples behind the problem with dictators. I say that with a philosopher king, corruption would occur much less, and probably never.

So basically, to my opponent's case, he/she uses theorectical government, and I reply with real-world, in my case, I use theoretical, and my opponent responds with real world.

If one who judges looks at this debate from "which form is better in the real world" , one should vote for me, because I've shown that the chance for corruption to exist would be much smaller and that the chance for dangerous errors to be made is much smaller as well.

If one who judges this debate looks at it from "which form is better in theory", one should also vote for me, because the rule of the many, by nature, won't always make the best possible decisions, whereas with rule by a philosopher king, the best possible decisions would be made, making my form of government more desirable.

I also extend thanks to my opponent, and I most certainly enjoyed this quick debate.
Debate Round No. 2
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by JBlake 6 years ago
JBlake
You still win the debate regardless.
Posted by Sweatingjojo 6 years ago
Sweatingjojo
Aye JBlake, I know its mostly inaccurate.
Posted by JBlake 6 years ago
JBlake
Then I suppose I'll let it slide. Wikipedia is hardly an efficient place to turn for historical references. It is far too simplified and biased.

Democracy is indeed the tyranny of the majority. Which is why we don't have one today, thankfully.
Posted by s0m31john 6 years ago
s0m31john
Democracy is tyranny of the majority.
Posted by Sweatingjojo 6 years ago
Sweatingjojo
I don't know.

Wikipedia, I was in a rush.
Posted by JBlake 6 years ago
JBlake
Alexander of Macedon had his people's best interest?
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Sweatingjojo 6 years ago
Sweatingjojo
debate.uniqueSweatingjojoTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Jamesothy 6 years ago
Jamesothy
debate.uniqueSweatingjojoTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by chevy10294 6 years ago
chevy10294
debate.uniqueSweatingjojoTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 6 years ago
TheSkeptic
debate.uniqueSweatingjojoTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by PoeJoe 6 years ago
PoeJoe
debate.uniqueSweatingjojoTied
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 
Vote Placed by LandonWalsh 6 years ago
LandonWalsh
debate.uniqueSweatingjojoTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by aaronr8684 6 years ago
aaronr8684
debate.uniqueSweatingjojoTied
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 
Vote Placed by JBlake 6 years ago
JBlake
debate.uniqueSweatingjojoTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:23