The Instigator
anoushkachakraborty2001
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
The-Voice-of-Truth
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

has democracy become a form of government in which you choose your own dictator?

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 2 votes the winner is...
The-Voice-of-Truth
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/15/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 727 times Debate No: 73511
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

anoushkachakraborty2001

Pro

yes, in today's date democracy has become a form of government in which you choose you own dictator because once you elected candidate sits on the throne they only do what they feel like. Suddenly all the promises made before the elections evaporate and what remains is what the leader wishes to do with the country for the next 5 years which I feel is not really very different from a dictatorship
The-Voice-of-Truth

Con

Acceptance:

I accept. I would like to point out that the BoP is on Pro, as he has to prove that democracy "has become a form of government in which you choose you own dictator." All I have to do is refute his claims.

Semantics:

Since my opponent has not provided definitions, I will do so:

Government: The system by which a nation, state, or community is governed. [2]

Democracy: A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. [3]

Dictator: A ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained power by force. [1]

Rules:

Round1: Acceptance (done and done)
Round 2: Arguments
Round 3: Conclusions


_____________________________________________________________________________
[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[3] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Debate Round No. 1
anoushkachakraborty2001

Pro

I as I said earlier am speaking about reality and in reality these definitions are just mere statements printed on a page of a paper. In the present what happens after getting elected is that the elected representative seems to have acquired, I quote "total power over a country", and does only what he/she feels like.
The-Voice-of-Truth

Con

Rebuttals:

"I as I said earlier am speaking about reality"
You never said anything about reailty in your previous arguments.

"and in reality these definitions are just mere statements printed on a page of a paper."
In reality, You failed to establish the semantics of this debate, so I did so as per the norm. These defenitions are not mere statements; they are key to establishing an even ground in a debate that both participants can base arguments on. And, just to refute your statement further, the definitions are not on a sheet of paper, they are a couple thousand lines of code on an online debating website.


"In the present what happens after getting elected is that the elected representative seems to have acquired, I quote "total power over a country", and does only what he/she feels like."
To back up this statement, you need to provide these neat little things called "sources." Without sources, your arguments are null and void. I would also like you to provide the name of the person you quoted (yourself does not count).

Pro has yet to fulfill his BoP. I will make no arguments, as I only have to refute his claims, which I have done.
Debate Round No. 2
anoushkachakraborty2001

Pro

In countries like India democracy has become a governing body in which we happen to be able to only chose a dictator like previously congress was elected it was supposed to represent its people and take decisions in favor of the general public but it did nothing to improve our condition even after repeated protests. Even in the US, George W. Bush after being elected took many decisions which were not in the favor of the public like his handling of the Iraq war and hurricane katrina which shows that after being elected the representative no longer remains a representative he/she acts like a dictator which again proves that democracy has become a ruling body in which the common people only have the freedom to choose their own dictator.
The-Voice-of-Truth

Con

Rebuttals:

"In countries like India democracy has become a governing body in which we happen to be able to only chose a dictator
like previously congress was elected it was supposed to represent its people and take decisions in favor of the general public but it did nothing to improve our condition even after repeated protests."

Not really. A dictator, according to the definition, is a person that has total power over a nation. You just contradicted yourself; you said that Congress was elected. Congress is not a single person, it is a body of elected officials (note the plurality of the word).


As well, elected officials are supposed to represent the people, but the people elect them based off of their values. The elected officials act based off of their values, so if the people do not agree with the representatives' actions, then it was their mistake for electing them.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Even in the US, George W. Bush after being elected took many decisions which were not in the favor of the public like his handling of the Iraq war and hurricane katrina which shows that after being elected the representative no longer remains a representative he/she acts like a dictator which again proves that democracy has become a ruling body in which the common people only have the freedom to choose their own dictator."

Actually, as an American citizen, I can tell you that the majority of the public either agreed with or were indifferent to the invasion of Iraq. A poll by Gallup in May of 2003 showed that 79% of American citizens thought the invasion of Iraq was justified [1].


Regarding Hurricane Katrina, Bush actually handled the situation very well. He deployed his FEMA task force teams, as well as the Louisiana National Guard, to perform Search-and-Rescue/Aid operations. The only reason the casualties were as high as they were is because of the citizens' refusal to evacuate the Threat Area. Yes, it did take a little bit for the government to effectively respond to the flooding, but no one in America thought that a hurricane could cause that much wide-spread damage; it took several days to acquire the required assets to respond to the disaster.

And may I add that there are very few countries left that are true democracies; and the U.S is a Presidential Republic, and India is a Parliamentary Republic. [2]


May I point out that my distinguished opponent has yet to provide any support for his/her arguments, and has yet to fulfill his/her BoP. Thus far, his/her claims are null and void, even though I took the time and effort to refute them. I will make no arguments, as I must simply refute claims.




_______________________________________________________________________________________
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
anoushkachakraborty2001

Pro

First of all I would like to apologise for my mistake, by congress I meant different leaders of the party. Each leader of the party failed to live up to the expectation of the general public like their handling of the Union budget 2013 proving again that once elected candidates start dictatorial rule and forget expectation of people.
http://www.slideshare.net...

"Actually, as an American citizen, I can tell you that the majority of the public either agreed with or were indifferent to the invasion of Iraq. A poll by Gallup in May of 2003 showed that 79% of American citizens thought the invasion of Iraq was justified [1]."

From June 2005- December 2008 there were many more polls conducted like the one in September of 2007 by ipsos public affairs which clearly shows that 33%people agreed with Bush while 65% people in the U.S. were not happy with the decision made by Bush regarding the "situation in Iraq". Hurricane Katrina was handled poorly and Bush had also refrained from having the federal government immediately take over the relief efforts and in a time of such jeopardy he was praising the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency proving once again that in a democracy all the general public can do is choose its own dictator because after acquiring the position the wishes of the general public are not considered by the chosen candidate.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
http://www.usnews.com...

Yes there are very few democracies left but there really is no point of having them if its essence is not maintained. Who wants democracy to become a temporary dictatorship of the person who wins the support of the people and then forgets their wishes?
The-Voice-of-Truth

Con

Thank you for your arguments, Pro.

Rebuttals:

1. "First of all I would like to apologise for my mistake, by congress I meant different leaders of the party. Each leader of the party failed to live up to the expectation of the general public like their handling of the Union budget 2013 proving again that once elected candidates start dictatorial rule and forget expectation of people."

Ok, I understand your mistake, but your use of the word "congress" still indicates a governing body, not an individual person. This contiues with your use of the words "each" and "party." And, may I point out, that the Party acted out of their interests, which are supposed to represent the People. If they don't represent the People, then it is the fault of the People. Elected officials don't just go and change their ideals and beliefs after they are elected.

2. "From June 2005- December 2008 there were many more polls conducted like the one in September of 2007 by ipsos public affairs which clearly shows that 33%people agreed with Bush while 65% people in the U.S. were not happy with the decision made by Bush regarding the 'situation in Iraq'."

Yes, but you have to remember: the only reason Bush invaded Iraq is because the Majority was urging him to; it was, at that moment, in the interest of the people. Bush acted as the people wanted, but the people ultimately regretted the action, so they blamed it on Bush (that is why we have politicians; to blame everything on). Bush acted on the interests of the people.


3. "Hurricane Katrina was handled poorly and Bush had also refrained from having the federal government immediately take over the relief efforts and in a time of such jeopardy he was praising the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency proving once again that in a democracy all the general public can do is choose its own dictator because after acquiring the position the wishes of the general public are not considered by the chosen candidate."

Regarding Katrina, the reason massive Federal relief was not immediately implemented is because the resources were not there; they needed a few days to acquire. Now FEMA was there on the ground in Louisiana when Katrina made landfall, so that is immediate Federal relief effort; that is why the FEMA Director was being "praised." I can't use sources, as there is no evidence proving so, just my personal experience, but the BoP is not on me.


4. Yes there are very few democracies left but there really is no point of having them if its essence is not maintained. Who wants democracy to become a temporary dictatorship of the person who wins the support of the people and then forgets their wishes?

You still have yet to prove that democracy has "become a form of government in which you choose your own dictator." You have merely provided examples of leaders of non-democratic nations that have acted as circumstances dictated. You used sources and you used rather accurate information, but you formulated a false conclusion based off of the information derived from your sources.

As of yet, the BoP is still unfulfilled.
Debate Round No. 4
anoushkachakraborty2001

Pro

anoushkachakraborty2001 forfeited this round.
The-Voice-of-Truth

Con

Rebuttals:
Nothing to refute, as no arguments were made and it is the Conclusion Round.

Arguments:
Extend all arguments.

Conclusion:
Pro, while bringing up some good points, failed to prove anything that was said, thus making all points bare assertions with exception to the last arguments, but those were refuted. The BoP has remained unfulfilled by Pro. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by anoushkachakraborty2001 2 years ago
anoushkachakraborty2001
I am sorry I forfeited the round and anyways it was my first time so I kind of knew I was going to loose maybe I will do better next time.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
anoushkachakraborty2001The-Voice-of-TruthTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't know why I read past pro disagreeing with words having certain meanings. That pro thinks congress is a single dictator, pretty much sums up their case. As con pointed out, pro never even tried to meet her BoP, even were the examples provided valid. Also forfeit.
Vote Placed by tejretics 2 years ago
tejretics
anoushkachakraborty2001The-Voice-of-TruthTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Pro forfeited the last round, which is rarely acceptable conduct in any debate setting whatsoever, whereas Con did not forfeit any round and addressed everything. Therefore, conduct to Con. | S&G: "I as I said earlier am speaking about reality and in reality these definitions are just mere statements printed on a page of a paper." - this is a typo, but has unnecessary addition of the letter "I". Pro also had no punctuation whatsoever. Con had less grammatical or spelling errors. S&G to Con. | Arguments: Pro set upon herself huge levels of BoP, which she was, regrettably, unable to fulfill. Con's arguments were also flawed (while Pro wasn't clear, Con interpreted "Congress" as a governing body, while Pro specified it was a *party*, which I assume is the Indian National Congress). Pro had to *prove* that leaders and politicians became "dictators", which Con demonstrated as false. Con's simple case negated the resolution [republics]. | Sources: Both sides used convincing sources.