People in countries that do not have democracy are suffering a lot. Democracy should be promoted by democratic countries as equality and democracy are two things that every country should have for its citizens to be happy.
Suffering and pain are fundamentally good. They purify, and motivate people to better themselves. Pro is trying to imagine a better world, one without suffering, but is misguided. The reduction of suffering in third world countries can only be detrimental to the human being, which needs suffering to reach a higher plane of existance. Poor people in third world countries are looked apon with pity, but they should not be, since the greater suffering has caused them to understand more about the meaning and the fundamentals of life and of humanity.
If democracy is advocated, it would reduce suffering, or at least seeks to reduce suffering. Thus, it is bad and the resolution is negated.
I totally agree with the point that suffering and pain are fundamentally good but you don't know how it feels until you face such things.In my opinion promoting democracy is OK as far as it is not done by force and as far as it does not harm the people and frees them from their sufferings.
My opponent says that democracy is bad (round 1) to which most people do not agree(including me).Democracy is a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. Most people would want to elect their own leaders and not to be ruled by someone cruel and unjust.Therefore i would like to end my argument saying that forcing democracy on other countries is OK as far as there is no harm but only good done to the people.
The problem is that Pro has not defined what is "good," or what values we should strive for. I have shown that suffering is good, and that was uncontested. Since my opponent has shown why people would suffer less with democracy, I think it is clear that the resolution is negated, and that Pro in no way has been affirming it. Vote Con.