The Instigator
viki-scholar
Pro (for)
Losing
21 Points
The Contender
Thejackal
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points

military rule is better than civilian rule

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 9 votes the winner is...
Thejackal
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 12/11/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 75,036 times Debate No: 66779
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (9)

 

viki-scholar

Pro

There have been many system of government.Military and Civilian government have existed.In this debate, I will tell you that military government is better than civilian government
Thejackal

Con

Military rule is not better than Civilian rule. I accept this debate and lets keep it clean. Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1
viki-scholar

Pro

There have been many system of government.Military and Civilian government have existed.In this debate, I will tell you that military government is better than civilian government.
One reason I say this is because in the military,discipline is observed than in the civilian government.Food eaten cannot be thrown anywhere this is because you will definitely be beaten by a soldier.People are not expected to keep up late at night and the military will ensure this.The civilian government gives freedom to do things at there own peril.
Another reason I support the motion is that decisions are taken faster in the military system.The civilian government delays decision making and this can affect the country.Laws are made through decree.
Yet another reason is that defense,protection of lives and property is ensure in the military than civilian government.Nobody will threaten the territorial integrity of its state.Unlike the civilian government,they are weak without the military.So,the strong should be allowed to rule instead of the weak.
Thejackal

Con

I do agree on the fact that Military governments would get things done faster, but in the Military there is the chain of command, If one of the higher ranking officials where to become he would be able to order people around, and low ranking people that don't have clearance would be doing things without knowing the side effects. That's the other problem is a Military Government would be too compartmentalized. Only certain people would know certain things. And, if for some reason the government should become corrupt, there would be no way for a civilian to do anything without basically declaring war on the government. And, in my personal opinion, I would want to be subject to Living by military rules my whole entire life. I am a huge fan of staying up late and watching movies and stuff like that. I wouldn't want to have to live my whole entire life for the military's agenda. There is a point to which I would obey a work for the military, but a some point I would want to do my own thing in life and be my own person instead of being subject to military rule.
Debate Round No. 2
viki-scholar

Pro

In the civilian rule,opposition and criticism are tolerated.In the military these are not tolerated because in the bible,people in authority are not to be criticized because God placed them there.People in the civilian government tend to misuse the rigths
With these points of mine,I know beyond all reasonable doubt that I have been able to convince my learned colleague,the doubting Thomases that indeed,military rule is better than civilian rule.Thanks.
Thejackal

Con

Ok, look at how long the nation of Israel went before It's kings became corrupt, there are very few men that can lead a country without doing thing for themselves. I have pasted a URL below. It will take you to a website that says whether that king of Israel/Judah did evil or not. And 1 more thing, Originally, the Nation of Israel was lead by a Judge, who made sure the people stayed moral, he did not control them. Then the people of Israel wanted a man to lead them, A look what happened to them. They went in and out of sin.

http://www.vtaide.com...

Good luck and God bless.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Thejackal 2 years ago
Thejackal
Hey Viki-scholar--- I justed wanted to say thanks for making my first debate a good experience!!! And if anyone has any tips for me in the future please feel free to share.
Posted by YYW 2 years ago
YYW
I enjoy how my vote is consistent with the average of all other votes.
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Leo.Messi 2 years ago
Leo.Messi
viki-scholarThejackal
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Better debate overall- Good points for both of you guys.
Vote Placed by Lee001 2 years ago
Lee001
viki-scholarThejackal
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: I'm not sure if pro got some reliable facts. Spelling and grammar tied. Pro didn't use any sources while con used 1
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
viki-scholarThejackal
Who won the debate:--
Reasons for voting decision: Nice idea for a debate, but without any examples given (not sure the bible in that last round counts, or even where it came from) it's pretty hard for me to say one side or the other side won. Without clear definitions on the dividing line between military civilizion or joint, it's even harder to weight. In essense, duel BoP shortage https://docs.google.com/document/d/1B2zJX6-A0NNwQguIoWrM9HDoB_nbGhi7NIhYZ2v68Q4/edit#heading=h.x8du3l5l9kog
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
Blade-of-Truth
viki-scholarThejackal
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: I'm going to have to vote for Pro on this debate. I wish this was under the old voting system because Con would be awarded spelling and grammar. Unfortunately, under this new voting system the arguments are what counts. In that regard, I must weigh in Con's concession that a military government would get things done faster. Con also never responds to Pro's argument about defense and how a military government would provide a better defense than a civilian one. The only argument going in Con's favor is the corruption aspect. Neither of them fully covered each argument raised by their opponent. What's more concerning is that Con's final round really had nothing to do with the resolution. In terms of arguments left standing unchallenged, I must award the win to Pro since Con failed to properly rebut alot of his arguments.
Vote Placed by Jingle_Bombs 2 years ago
Jingle_Bombs
viki-scholarThejackal
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Pro argues that military rule would be more efficient than civilian government. Con reluctantly agrees with him, but tries to argue that military rule would destroy individual liberties. Pro's arguments however, withstand this counterarguement from Con due to the cohesional advantages of strict military disciplne on a society.. Rather then agreeing with Pro then, Con should argued the beaucratic inefficienices and problem solving disadvantages of chain of command concepts.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
viki-scholarThejackal
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides made subpar arguments, but I believe that this debate goes to Con. He provided examples and sources to counter Pro's corruption point. I also had to check again to see who Pro was debating, because the beginning seemed like he was debating as Con. The current system of government is already complicated and it's a civilian government. So that point brought up by Con is mute and is really irrelevant in this debate.
Vote Placed by mishapqueen 2 years ago
mishapqueen
viki-scholarThejackal
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Neither side was particularly convincing to me. I'd appreciate a little more structure and more persuasive explanation. Pro did a good job in round 2, with bringing out some reasons. It would have been more persuasive if he had fleshed it out more. Also a little more organization and formatting would have made it easier to follow along. Con did a good job in Round 2 also, but organization and more explanation would also be welcome. I found his/her last sentence very persuasive about wanting to have the freedom to one's own thing. In round 3, pro didn't really address the arguments brought up by Con, and I would have loved to see more explanation about the obedience to authority from the Bible. In Con's round 3 argument, I didn't fully understand why he/she brought up Israel, when the verse Pro mentioned is in the New Testament. I'm voting Con because I found his freedom point very persuasive. If either of you have questions about my vote, feel free to PM me. Good luck to both of you!
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
viki-scholarThejackal
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: So I'm not sure why Pro got away with the argument that, basically, a civilian government is one that completely lacks any military to work with, but he did. He gets away with that, and away with pretending a civilian government can't have a police force. Con doesn't contest Pro's assertion to that effect, meaning that basic security is essentially absent in a civilian government. I couldn't disagree with that more, but Con doesn't do any of the work for me. Instead, he just says that it's disseminated rule, and that if people are upset, there will be violence. Con's last round is completely useless to him because it doesn't seem to have anything to do with this debate. Pro tells me that a military government makes faster choices (again, without warrants), and that there's some harms to freedom (though he doesn't state what they are). At least from Pro, I get something. It's weak, and it's all assumption, but it's something. So that's where I vote.
Vote Placed by YYW 2 years ago
YYW
viki-scholarThejackal
Who won the debate:--
Reasons for voting decision: Neither side was more persuasive than the other. Tie.