The Instigator
nephilim
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
mattrodstrom
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

political opinions voted for against totalitarianism

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  
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: 11/8/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,344 times Debate No: 9995
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)

 

nephilim

Pro

First of all I'd like to present a suggestion that monarchy after parliamentarism provided something amongst totalitarians known as "variety" - a form of theater.
The belief still stands amongst monarchists that definition of opinion isn't really it's root of definition. Look for reference into my attempt to define truth in a debate as a constant paradox in my earlier arguments.

Let us now sit down before our computers and think a little. What happens when truth is debated is progress really not diversion from one opinion being better than a reached agreement.

The distinction however between an order and progressive debate isn't really in opposition to parliamentarism as it in effect does not drain monarchy of it's strength yet provides it with communication to it's fundament known as the people (folk I prefer as a term). However parliamentarism here in Norway after the war with Sweden led to a diminished monarchy by constitution not allowed to have political power. This might have been looked upon as beneficial for the general public yet did not happen in the United Kingdom. What the Napoleon wars had to do with this I am not educated enough in history to explain.

Well then enough about history. A vote about a case or issue is the modern democratic way of solution. However we need stability in law and that stability is provided by an appointed selection of embodiment capable of making just decision. Law changes as well and isn't immune to human failure. What is elementary in this matter is a proper education in law not necessarily merely for the privileged? Birthright is indeed not a new idea. Can law be inherited? Yes, and I believe it should be as natural selection very much serves public good. The contrary would be an insult to monarchy. As we see a European Union come forth with great strength even trying to rationalise Europe as one nation with a universal constitution my opinion is that this threatens monarchy in all respectful nations who practise such a form of government. We have seen several destructive revolutions throughout time. The French revolution for one most possibly an incident caused by tendencies of loosing a war and hunger, tyranny so forth resulting in an angry and incontrollable population. Did the outcome of this revolution result in a proletarian state with no ties to monarchy? Is a body of rulement totalitarian whomever concerns about ruling a state? Is a state an illusion? I suggest you read "The Concept of Nations" which I haven't successfully found anywhere on the internet though I am quite certain it is a book written by an English author. The idea of someone chosen by a general public to be better fit to rule politically is of course debateable. Though if you ask the man in the streets he wouldn't know the difference. Maybe the basics of communication is to understand one another's opinions does not interfere with each individuals will to carry these out. A debate should go on forever is my opinion and I believe there might be such a debate somewhere. There would of course be instances of progress. I am most certain it takes time to understand one another.

Further upon the fundament of this distinction between law and politics understandably quite supreme at it's origin a demand for constitution appeared in many European nations. I am aware there was an attempt of that in England as well during Cromwell. If any of you know anything about this; good links and so on please post in comments. These constitutions in some nations had roots of a revolutionary consideration. And it seems these questions proposed in modern Europe might be a threat to monarchy. The question is does the public want Europe to be one nation with a dormant monarchy ie a mere symbol of state rather than it's rule of body. As some of these constitutions were nearly terms for loss of wars there must be relevancy ie thus and therefore these wars have ended. I am aware of the term used about the great world war; "A war to end all wars" probably by ambition a concern to keep Europe out of conflict between it's monarchies. Which unfortunately did not happen. Will today's Europe transform into some sort of unionised totalitarian fascist state? Is it republican in it's root? Is the vision of a gathered allied Europe really beneficial for remaining monarchies? The rational point of view has for a long time been yes. We prefer small independent states before a vast bureaucracy impossible to rule. A bureaucracy as vast as the European Union is in itself totalitarian ie the touch between a population and it's government disappears. This seen in earlier attempts of large unions such as the Soviet Union and unfortunately sometimes the United States. My definition of a totalitarian state is in fact a government no longer listening to it's public. The proletarians of France probably had good intentions as most folk do but sufficiently enough lacked experience of ruling. We have all heard about handing cats to mice. I must however confess a strong belief in individual rights and liberty not necessarily a threat to any form of government as individuals are educated to respect it's nation by progressive truth through debates. Certainly the democratic way of rule. A democracy may however be as totalitarian as any other form of rule if it looses fundament in it's folk. That is why delegated representatives of state most definitely aren't less disposed of performing their tasks than elected ones. This however only applies to a task that is of a quest for truth rather than making it a definition.

Conclusion: A state without respect for truth develops into a totalitarian state making it a definition and upholds law by defining truth. Then my adversary whomever it may be is welcome to answer for the opposite and may do so respectfully.
mattrodstrom

Con

Nephilism, Thank you for proposing this debate.

I take it that your resolution is that monarchy (hereditary rule by one), either in its pure form or when restrained to some extent by a constitution, and perhaps other sources of power like a legislature, is a better form of government than a government whose power is derived from popular representation, of which you offer the U.S. as an example.

If I am mistaken, I apologize, and would ask that you re-state it.

I understand that one of the main reasons you would support such a resolution is that you believe a hereditary monarch is better able to run a society because he, being the offspring of monarchs, is thus likely to be best able to direct government:
"Birthright is indeed not a new idea. Can law be inherited? Yes, and I believe it should be as natural selection very much serves public good."
And I think that you try to draw validity for this idea from the idea of evolution, suggesting that a monarch is more fit to rule because he is somehow physically bred for it, or more "evolved", and that having such a person in a place of power would be a good thing for society.

I think that this idea is not plausible being that physical "evolution" is a process that takes an extremely long time, relative to the lifespans of states, and that even if the monarch is from a line of kings which goes back dozens of generations, the likelihood of their offspring being somehow more fit because of evolution is absurd. Evolution is due to beneficial random mutations which occur very infrequently, and the chance of such things happening regularly in the line of monarchs, over a relatively short period of time is basically non existant.

If I am wrong about your stance, and by "natural selection" you instead meant selection naturally made by people, then I think that you support democratically derived authority, not monarchy.

You also claim that you support individual rights, and that democracies, like the US occasionally don't necessarily respect such rights. I would agree that democracies can be terrible places to live and that they don't always respect what I think of as individual rights. However, this does not mean that a monarchy would be any better, but in fact can be worse being that those individuals don't necessarily have any powerful representation to fight for them. Furthermore, though in both types of government there may be some constitution to protect those rights, it would be much easier for a monarch to be able to ignore such protections being that he has so much more power than any given representative in a democracy.

You seem not to like the idea of a centralized Europe, in which the individual countries have less say over their own affairs, and use this too as a justification for your resolution. I fully understand your apprehension to signing up to such a system, for I don't like the level of centralization in the US democracy in which I live. However this does not mean that a monarchy would by any means be better, and is not at all a condemnation of democracy generally, because democracy can also be a lot less centralized, as the US was initially set up.

I look forward to your explaining why a monarchical system, of any stripe, would be better than a government with power derived from the free choice of the people.
Debate Round No. 1
nephilim

Pro

nephilim forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
nephilim

Pro

nephilim forfeited this round.
mattrodstrom

Con

round forfeit.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 7 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
I am sorry Nephlim, I was rude and ignorant.

You clearly have an excellent vocabulary, but if I could be constructive I'd suggest you try to focus on shorter, simpler sentences. It's almost as if you are trying too hard.

Sorry.
Posted by nephilim 7 years ago
nephilim
My argument is of thus: A monarchy serves a smaller society better than a large society and thereby a natural synthesis to uphold and protect resources.
Posted by nephilim 7 years ago
nephilim
Well it's how they teach English here in Norway. I am quite fond of the Oxford Advanced Dictionary. However it may be genuine or not it certainly is well preserved and distinctly not in development as it isn't used for daily spoke. LOL What would language spoken daily be in English?
Posted by Chrysippus 7 years ago
Chrysippus
Hey, cut Nephilim a bit of slack; Norwegian to English is not the easiest way to write a debate...
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 7 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
This is so poorly written... what the heck are you trying to argue!
Posted by Rezzealaux 7 years ago
Rezzealaux
Ditto to Puck.
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
Lol. I saw the rss feed and knew exactly who posted this.
Posted by Registered_Trademark 7 years ago
Registered_Trademark
What?
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
I don't exactly understand what the resolution is supposed to mean. Your wording is a bit awkward.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by dogparktom 7 years ago
dogparktom
nephilimmattrodstromTied
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 
Vote Placed by JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
nephilimmattrodstromTied
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