The Instigator
nayaksoorya
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Grandzam
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

should democratic countries promote democracy?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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...
Grandzam
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 6/23/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 257 times Debate No: 93024
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

nayaksoorya

Pro

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.
Grandzam

Con

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.
Debate Round No. 1
nayaksoorya

Pro

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.
Grandzam

Con

My opponent said that suffering is good, conceding the K. Because of this, his arguments that promoting democracy would reduce suffering shows exactly why the resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 2
nayaksoorya

Pro

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.
Grandzam

Con

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.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Grandzam 8 months ago
Grandzam
Of course it wasn't. You know what a kritik is?

And what were my fallacies?
Posted by BrandonHyde 8 months ago
BrandonHyde
This debate wasn't conducted very well. Full of fallacies - the points made weren't inherently related to the topic of democracy.
Posted by dsjpk5 8 months ago
dsjpk5
Did Pro concede the debate in round two? I'm not sure.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by KeyserSoze115 7 months ago
KeyserSoze115
nayaksooryaGrandzam
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 8 months ago
dsjpk5
nayaksooryaGrandzam
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark