The Instigator
Athias
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
WrickItRalph
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

Democracy

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 1 vote the winner is...
WrickItRalph
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/21/2019 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 923 times Debate No: 120429
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (26)
Votes (1)

 

Athias

Con

1. First Round: Acceptance.
2. Second Round: Opening Arguments.
3. Third Round: Rebuttals.
4. Fourth Round: Rejoinders.
5. Fifth Round: Closing Arguments.
WrickItRalph

Pro

I'm going to work hard to adhere to your format. If I mess up, Just let me know and I'll strike it from the record.
Debate Round No. 1
Athias

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent WrickitRalph for accepting this debate. Let's proceed to the opening arguments.

Opening Argument:

The subject of my criticism will focus on two premises:

1. Democracy is illogical (logically inconsistent. )
2. Democracy coerces dissenters; therefore, It's immoral.

First, It's important to know what we mean by "democracy. " A democracy according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary is:

a : government by the people especially : rule of the majority
b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.

Through this description of democracy we can immediately ascertain that the validity and exercise of authority is found in majoritarian consensus. And this is key.

Democracy is Illogical

Democracy determines public utility through majoritarian consensus--i. E. Whether politicians or policies are being voted on, It requires a majority; therefore, All policy arguments in a democracy suffer from the logical fallacy argumentum ad populum, A proposition which delineates the veracity or validity of its claim by the number of people who support it. It deems validity as a function of popularity. Now this alone is mere logic. One would wonder about the actual exercise of authority. Well, In Murry Rothbard's essay, "Man, Economy, And State, With Power and Market, " he points out a contradiction of democratic exercise:

"In the first place, Suppose that the majority overwhelmingly wishes to establish a popular dictator or the rule of a single party. The people wish to surrender all decision-making into his or its hands. Does the system of democracy permit itself to be voted democratically out of existence? Whichever way the democrat answers, He is caught in an inescapable contradiction. If the majority can vote into power a dictator who will end further elections, Then democracy is really ending its own existence. . . Democracy, In that case, Becomes a transition to a nondemocratic form of government. On the other hand, If, As it is now fashionable to maintain, The majority of voters in a democracy are prohibited from doing one thing--ending the democratic elective process itself--then this is no longer democracy, Because the majority of voters can no longer rule. The election process may be preserved, But how can it express that majority rule essential to democracy if the majority cannot end this process should it so desire? "

Let's also consider that the ends produced by majoritarian consensus aren't necessarily good. One such example would be the democratic Nazi Germany. The estimation of murdered German Jews, Blacks, Pols, And Gypsies, Would be justified if we are to accept that rule comes through the majority or elected representatives. In other words, Since democratic exercise of authority represents the "will of the people, " the murder of the aforementioned would have too been the "will of the people" including the very people who were murdered.

Democracy coerces dissenters; therefore, It's immoral.

What is the point of democracy? To pool resources in order to produce public goods which serve a collective utility? Is it to allow each citizen a voice in their political environment through proxy instead of allowing the authority of a despot? Or is it merely a means in which to settle disputes over resources? One would think that if democracy did represent the interest of each and every citizen that there'd be no need for a majority standard. All initiatives, Policies, Directives, Goals, Etc. Would be acted out unanimously. Of course, There would those who disagree (dissenters. ) If they disagree, Then clearly they do not believe that a particular policy, Directive, Goal, Or initiative suits their interests. So then, Why not allow them discretion to exit the arrangement? If the collective interests do not align with the interests of a particular individual, What stake does said individual bear in any of the aforestated goals, Initiatives, Policies, Or directives?

I posit that the purpose of democracy is not to represent the consent of the governed, But to circumvent an individual's discretion and obligate all would-be dissenters and their resources to arbitrary policies using a majority standard. Inclusion and obligations are coerced through non-compliance law and taxation. Since the threat of violence/force/aggression/harm is codified into these laws--i. E. Armed officers having the capacity to exercise the use of deadly force in the event of non-compliance--I conclude that democracy by extension is therefore immoral.

Now, I'll give my opponent a chance to respond.
WrickItRalph

Pro

Politics is not my strongest area, So I apologize if I use improper political terms.

For starters, I accept your definition of the topic at wholesale value. Glad that's settled.

I have to admit, Your argument is pretty good. But I think I have some wiggle room here.

I am here to demonstrate that democracy is a sound form of government. Here are my opening points.

1. Democracy has it's flaws, But so does every other system.

Democracies have a flaw in that we run the risk of being driven by the majority. But what's the alternative? A monarchy? No, Giving our power to one person is flawed. Maybe a dictatorship? No, Giving our power to one regime is flawed. Maybe Anarchy? Nope! Now we have a flawed power vacuum that could be filled by any government? Maybe a Tribunal? Well wouldn't that just be a group of people with our power instead of just one? Still seems flawed. So what's the bottom line here? It seems like no matter what system we assume, We're still just handing our power over to someone. Oh wait, Except in democracy, We're not. We're all voting! Tell me this I have a country with 100 units of power and I give all the power to the dictator? What's the power per holder. 100! What if I give it to a tribunal of 10 people? That's 10 power per holder. What if I give it to 1 million people? That's 0. 0001. Seems to me that democracy even holds up in math as well. The biggest take away from this is that for all it's flaws, It's the most fair system. You can't fight math.

2. Democracy does not address the issue of morality at all.

Democracy is only really designed for the electoral end of a system. The moral implications of what happens afterwards are entirely on the shoulders of the representatives or the people that vote for anything. I'm not sure I can say much more on that point.

3. Democracy comes in many forms.

Since democracy is simplistic in nature, There is a lot of room for practical additions. We can mix democracy with other political systems that denote what happens after the voting process. We can form constitutions to support them on. We can make restrictive rules to stop itself from being voted out of itself. Etc.

Your rebuttal
Debate Round No. 2
Athias

Con

Rebuttal #1

"Democracy has it's flaws, But so does every other system. "

This is tautological. If by stating that each system of government is flawed you're describing a natural imperfection, Then this does not in any way advance your point.

"Democracies have a flaw in that we run the risk of being driven by the majority. "

We don't "run the risk"; democracy necessitates the drive of a majority.

"But what's the alternative? A monarchy? No, Giving our power to one person is flawed. Maybe a dictatorship? No, Giving our power to one regime is flawed. Maybe Anarchy? Nope! Now we have a flawed power vacuum that could be filled by any government? Maybe a Tribunal? Well wouldn't that just be a group of people with our power instead of just one? Still seems flawed. "

The subject of this debate isn't whether or not other systems are flawed. The subject of this debate is Democracy. If you're attempting to argue that Democracy is "not as flawed" as other systems; therefore it's sound, Then said argument would be operating on fallacious logic, Which is the fallacy of relative privation, An argument that dismisses its own invalidity by making comparisons to worse.

"So what's the bottom line here? It seems like no matter what system we assume, We're still just handing our power over to someone. "

This is not true, And you've yet to substantiate this assertion. Please do so.

Rebuttal #2

" Oh wait, Except in democracy, We're not. We're all voting! Tell me this I have a country with 100 units of power and I give all the power to the dictator? What's the power per holder. 100! What if I give it to a tribunal of 10 people? That's 10 power per holder. What if I give it to 1 million people? That's 0. 0001. Seems to me that democracy even holds up in math as well. The biggest take away from this is that for all it's flaws, It's the most fair system. You can't fight math. "

Fighting your math isn't necessary. Debunking it will suffice. Let' say that we grant each individual in the United States, For example, Is granted "one unit" of power. That's 327. 16 million units of power with the capacity to be exercised. About 300 million of them are adults who have the capacity to vote. These votes serve to delegate proxies to represent these units of power. There are currently 559 members of government who exercise this power--(535 congress, 15 in the Executive office, And 9 in the Judicial Office. ) So let's divide 327. 16 million by 559, And we get 585, 259 units of power per individual. In systems where government itself is absent, Let's try the math: 327. 16 million divided by 327. 16 million. That's one unit of power per individual. Each individual started with one unit and ended up with one unit of power.

Second, You haven't explained why dividing power matters?

"Democracy does not address the issue of morality at all.

Democracy is only really designed for the electoral end of a system. The moral implications of what happens afterwards are entirely on the shoulders of the representatives or the people that vote for anything. I'm not sure I can say much more on that point. "


If so, Then why is dividing power of any significance? If democracy in fact serves no moral economy, Then why are Dictatorships, Anarchies, And/or Tribunals flawed?

Rebuttal #3

"Since democracy is simplistic in nature, There is a lot of room for practical additions. We can mix democracy with other political systems that denote what happens after the voting process. . We can form constitutions to support them on. We can make restrictive rules to stop itself from being voted out of itself. "

As the citation of Murray Rothbard's essay pointed out, If you subvert "the will of the people" by ratifying a constitution or imposing "restrictive rules", Then it is no longer a democracy; it's no longer "majority rule. " Thus my point is informed: Democracy is illogical.

Rejoinders next.
WrickItRalph

Pro

"Democracy is Illogical, Debunked"

My math from earlier refuted this. Unless you can propose a system that divides the power better, Then this argument falls. You say that division of power doesn't matter, But that is the whole point of the system, So if you want to die on that hill then we'll have to change the name of this topic to "blah blah blah"

"Democracy coerces dissenters, Debunked"

There are ways to give voices to minorities and America is a great example of this. There is nothing about majority rule that is immoral, Only the actions taken by representatives are immoral. You're making this sound like more of a problem than it actually is. Once again, Unless you can name on system that is better, Then you can't prove that this isn't the best system. If your argument is that democracy is not good enough, But you don't have an alternative, Then you're being vacuous and arguing for anarchy which just leads to fascism which is worse than democracy. So what's the alternative?
Debate Round No. 3
Athias

Con

Rejoinder #1

"My math from earlier refuted this. "

No, It did not. Not only were your numbers arbitrary but also those numbers failed to delineate the significance of your premise, Which was the division of power. And even when I entertained your abstract arithmetic, Your rationale was subverted by the fact that democratic power is centralized to few representatives, Not the people who engage a political ceremony once every 4-6 years.

"Unless you can propose a system that divides the power better, Then this argument falls. "

No, Not in the slightest. The subject of this debate isn't "There are better systems than democracy" or "Which systems divide power better than democracy? " The subject of this debate is "Democracy. " It is your onus is to make a case for democracy and it is my onus to make a case against democracy. I've already indicated the premises on which I base my criticisms. I need only substantiate them to make my point (and I've done so. ) I'm in no way, Shape, Or form obligated to your false dilemmas, Your fallacies of relative privation, And your arguments from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantium. )

"You say that division of power doesn't matter, But that is the whole point of the system, "

I've never stated that the division of power does not matter. I questioned you on its significance since you brought it up, And you offered no substance to the argument; only a mere statement and arbitrary arithmetic. If in fact democracy serves no moral economy, Then what is the significance in dividing power? Theories of democracy whether it be from Pericles to Aristotle to Schumpeter would argue a fundamental moral basis to the formation of democracies whether consistently sustained or not. You argue otherwise. And you've provided no substantial reason.

"So if you want to die on that hill then we'll have to change the name of this topic to 'blah blah blah'"

Stay on topic. This isn't about me or the proverbial hills on which I "wish to die. "

Rejoinder #2

"There are ways to give voices to minorities and America is a great example of this. "

My criticism does not mention "minorities. " It mentions specifically, "dissenters. "

"There is nothing about majority rule that is immoral, Only the actions taken by representatives are immoral. "

You stated above that there are ways to give voice to a demographic I did not mention and you don't go on to explain. And is it your argument that only the representatives have the capacity for immorality? Wouldn't this by extension mean that the "will of the people" can be immoral? And if this immorality is an aberration, Wouldn't that then indicate that representatives do not necessarily represent the "will of the people? "

Majority rule, As I described above, Necessitates the coercion of minorities into service of its policies because it requires their resources. If majority rule gave discretion to dissenters to determine the ends in which their labor, Property, Other assets and resources serve, There'd be no such thing as non-compliance laws which indicate tort or crime; all decisions on policy would be unanimous; there'd be no taxation, The refusal of which can result in one's death--non compliance can be met with the discretion of armed officers to exercise deadly force. The use of intimidation, And threats of agression/violence/force/harm to compel behavior or place someone under duress is immoral. And duress codifies all policy arguments in democracy.

Furthermore, Democracy is illogical because Murray Rothbard pointed out, Democracy as of consequence of its logical extension could allow for the election of dictators who'd end all election, Or solicit the emergence of restrictions on majority rule, Subverting the very basis of democracy. Not to mention, Since democracy is based on majority rule, All policy arguments by extension suffer form argumentum ad populum, A logical fallacy which denotes the veracity or validity of a claim to be a function of its popularity.

WrickItWrap, you've debunked nothing. On to closing arguments.
WrickItRalph

Pro

You made the debate topic broad, So you don't get to qualify it after the fact. It logically follows that we, As a people, Are forced by necessity to use the best system of government that we have available. So if you can't propose an alternative, This debate is over because democracy wins by default, Plain and simple. If you want to dodge that and say no government system at all, Then your statement is vacuous and impractical. We can't have no government because it would cause anarchy which would be filled by some authoritarian power. This has been demonstrated historically so I'm not saying anything new here.

I don't care what Murray Rothbard says, That's an argument from authority. A good argument should be logical and stand or fall on it's own merits. Such arguments don't require an authority. You seem to be against the idea of representatives as well. I don't see why because you're handing the same amount of power over in the end anyways.

My math is accurate because the representative are elected, There in choosing who to give their power to. This is fair because communities that agree on things can elect like minded representatives and this work great for their town. Their city, Or their nation.

You talk about the will of the people being immoral. That's irrelevant, Any system has a chance of producing an immoral power holder or holders. That just brings you right back to anarchy again. That's the problem with not suggesting an alternative, Every criticism you make just bring us back to anarchy. If all you want is anarchy, Then I win this debate by reductio ad absurdum because anarchy can be shown to be absurd.
Debate Round No. 4
Athias

Con

Double Rejoinder #1

"You made the debate topic broad, So you don't get to qualify it after the fact. "

I have not attempted to qualify the argument post facto. You are the one attempting to pigeonhole the argument to some responsibility of providing an alternative. That is YOUR argument; NOT mine. I'm under no obligation to help you make your argument. Alternatives matter? Then you should have made and substantiated your point rather than having argued from ignorance, A fallacious argument which proposes the truth of a claim (e. G. Democracy is a sound form of government) by reason of lack of evidence to the contrary (e. G. "So if you can't propose an alternative, This debate is over because democracy wins by default, ") I reject your attempts to shift your burden of proof.

Double Rejoinder #2

"I don't care what Murray Rothbard says, That's an argument from authority. A good argument should be logical and stand or fall on it's own merits. Such arguments don't require an authority. "

My mistake. I can see where it appears I made an appeal to authority. That should have read, ". . . Because as Murrary Rothbard pointed out, not "Because Murray Rothbard pointed out". I did not leave out the "as" intentionally. I was referencing his particular statement on the logical inconsistency of democracy because those statements aren't my own. His "authority" doesn't matter at all. Only the assessment of the logic does as described in my reference in Round 2.

"You seem to be against the idea of representatives as well. I don't see why because you're handing the same amount of power over in the end anyways. "

"Seem" is not an argument; "seem" is your impression. If you can't point out which statement I made that informs your assessment, Then it's irrelevant.

"My math is accurate"

Your arithmetic is arbitrary (given that you made up the scale. ) My entertaining it was a thought experiment meant to demonstrate (and did, By the way) the inconsistency of this division argument, The significance upon which you have yet to expand.

". . . Because the representative are elected, There in choosing who to give their power to. This is fair because communities that agree on things can elect like minded representatives and this work great for their town. Their city, Or their nation. "

You have contradicted your own argument. Why are you invoking the concept of "fairness"? You stated, And I quote, "Democracy does not address the issue of morality at all. Democracy is only really designed for the electoral end of a system. The moral implications of what happens afterwards are entirely on the shoulders of the representatives or the people that vote for anything. "

"You talk about the will of the people being immoral. That's irrelevant, Any system has a chance of producing an immoral power holder or holders. "

I didn't assert that the will of the people is immoral. I extended your argument, "Only the actions taken by representatives are immoral" to its logical conclusions: either the immorality is an aberration and the representative does not represent the will of its people (making it undemocratic) or the representative is a proxy of the people's will and thereby said will is immoral. It's simple logic.

"That just brings you right back to anarchy again. That's the problem with not suggesting an alternative, Every criticism you make just bring us back to anarchy. "

This is a false dilemma, A logically fallacious argument which proposes two opposing views as the only possibilities. It could very well be the case that in my rejection of democracy, I'm endorsing "anarchy, " or "autocracy. " So it isn't "either" Democracy "or" Anarchy. Furthermore, The suggestion of an alternative or the lack thereof, is, Once again, Your responsibility, Not mine given that I'm not the one who proposed it. If you want me to address your argument, You'd first have to substantiate it, Not just state tautologies. The subject of this debate, Once again, Is Democracy.

If all you want is anarchy, Then I win this debate by reductio ad absurdum because anarchy can be shown to be absurd. "

That is not reductio ad absurdum. Reductio ad Absurdum is a rhetorical device used to demonstrate the absurdity of a proposition when its premise or argument is extended to its logical conclusion (e. G. Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal. ) Not only have you failed to demonstrate the absurdity, But by your very description "Democracy has it's flaws, But so does every other system, " my premises couldn't possibly extend to anarchy given per you that anarchy has the capacity for flaw and immorality. (For the record I haven't once proposed anarchy. ) Furthermore, Your false dilemma indicated your flaw in logic when arguing either Democracy or Anarchy. This false dilemma lead you to present a strawman argument a logically fallacious argument which misrepresents the opponent's argument with a distortion and claims to have refuted it. "

Closing Arguments:

1. I presented two premises upon which I would base my argument: (a) Democracy is illogical, And (b) Democracy coerces dissenters; therefore, It's immoral. I provided substance to these arguments through rationalization including that my own and my reference to Murray Rothbard's assessment in Man, Economy, And State, With Power and Market. " That is, Democracy by extension of policy arguments suffers from argumentum ad populum a logically fallacious proposition which denotes the truth or validity of a claim to be a function of its popularity. In Murray Rothbard's essay, It's pointed out that the contradiction in democracy is in its very nature--majoritarian consensus. Majoritarian consensus allows for the despots to assume power and end further elections less there be restriction which disallow this capacity, Thereby undermining and invalidating majority rule. Furthermore, Democracy is immoral because it coerces their submission of their labor and resources through non-compliance law and taxation, Which are codified with the threat of harm, Violence, Force, Or aggression (i. E. The extension of an armed officer's discretion to exercise deadly force. ) If it were otherwise, And dissenters could exit the arrangement, Then it wouldn't be majority rule. Decisions would be made unanimously.

2. My opponent proposed a tautology that all systems have their flaws. He then continued to operate on a premise he'd neither expand nor justify, I. E. There's no alternative to Democracy. He merely stated that the other systems were flawed despite conceding that democracy was flawed as well.

3. He then used arbitrary arithmetic, Which I indulged and debunked, To make an estimation of the division of power, The significance upon which he would not expand. In his failure to do so, He attempted to shift his onus onto me: in his incapacity to demonstrate the reasons behind his assertion that there are no alternatives to democracy, He then suggested that the logic of my arguments were dependent of my proposing a contrary argument rather than his supporting his own argument. It should be noted that I did not once propose or insinuate an alternative. That was his argument not mine leading to my rejection of his attempts to shift his onus. He continued to focus on the validity of "his math" while failing to support the validity of the claim which was meant to support, The division of power.

4. My opponent then continued to argue fallacy after fallacy (argument from ignorance, false dilemma, relative privation, strawman argument, Etc. ) He also incorrectly cited and invoked the Reductio ad Absurdum.


Thanks to my opponent; Thank you, Audience. Vote well.
WrickItRalph

Pro

Well, You provided no alternative to democracy, So I can just throw out everything you said wholesale. I'll just establish why you can't win without an alternative and then maybe tie a couple of things down for completeness sake.

My argument that you need an alternative is not moving the goalpost nor is it a shifting of the burden of proof.
I didn't shift the burden of proof. I presented a proof in the form of a valid and sound logical argument that there must be a system of government in place. This is my proof because without a government in place, We have anarchy which leads to a power vacuum which leads to authoritarian regimes. All of these points have logical entailment and can be demonstrated in objective reality, So how did I shift the burden? You must understand in a debate, That if I provide a sound and valid justification for my claim, It becomes your burden to rebuke the claim do to the fact that your side of the argument has been disproven by the impossibility of the contrary. If you don't believe what I'm saying, Then research and will you understand the nature of rebuking arguments. So your job was to show the absurdity of my claim, Which you can't do. If you remove democracy you get a vacuum. That NECESSARILY follows that you have to then provide an alternative. It's not just a claim you have to provide it. The logic dictates that you must. I gave you several chances to do this and you wanted to try to simply dismiss my proof, So that is your fault. I made no arguments from ignorance that I'm aware of. I compared democracy to other forms of government because that is the only way to quantify and qualify it. Without other systems, The whole debate becomes moot because you're arguing that we should throw out something that is our only solution. That would be like saying that we don't need oxygen and then going on to say that you don't have an alternative to oxygen. You see the absurdity of that. It's not my fault that you didn't want to stand on a logical point. That's the problem with passively neigh saying. That's why presupp apologists sound crazy when they talk. You're just trying to tear down the best form of government and then walk away without building a new foundation. Next time you debate a topic of this nature, I would suggest you be ready to refute people's proofs.

I could re-refuting the details in here, But it's honestly not necessary because you didn't provide an alternative. So democracy wins by default on these two premises 1. We must have a form of government. 2. There is not a clear alternative to democracy C. We must accept and utilize democracy until we find a better system.

It sucks too because if you posited an alternative, You probably would have refuted me easily.

Good debate.
Debate Round No. 5
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
indeed
Posted by Speedrace 3 years ago
Speedrace
I love how my dude @EverlastingMoment pastes his responses in backward and makes them easy to read.

Genius. Someone make this guy the President.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
duly noted
Posted by EverlastingMoment 3 years ago
EverlastingMoment
If there are any further inquiries about the criteria in which I scored this or any questions you may have about the debate, Feel free to message me.
Posted by EverlastingMoment 3 years ago
EverlastingMoment
RFD Part 1 -

This is by far one of the strangest debates I've read. Not because of the substance and argumentation presented in the debate but rather the premise on what the debate is supposed to be about. I will explain this as thoroughly as possible.

The great tragedy is that all of Con's points are brilliant in that there is okay levels of analysis and there is exceptional amounts of substance. However there is a complete lack in what the focus is. The debate is titled 'Democracy' which was strange at first because it doesn't explain at all what the contention is supposed to be because that usually is what is required in a debating title. But I chose to read on with the case that Con brought forward to make it clearer. So what I clearly got was that Con was denouncing democracy on the basis that it was illogical, Impractical and immoral. But the entire premise of these points come off as really broad so a lot of questions come into a voter's head. Such as illogical based on what? As a whole? Illogical in comparison to a difference system of governance? Illogical on the basis that is simply not pragmatic? Upon reading further into Con's case it came off clear that democracy was not pragmatic because of how the system leaves it open to misrepresentation and corruption. However, If the debate is simply titled 'Democracy' without any added premise and Con's case is simply to showcase how democracy is bad then he put himself in a pretty tough position. Because as a voter if I am supposed to judge democracy being bad as a whole then I need more case-by-case comparisons comparing democracy to a more sound system of governance. Because simply saying democracy is not pragmatic because individuals can hypothetically mess up the system makes Pro's case extremely easy. Like unbelievably easy. Then all Pro's burden is that he needs to simply show a counter-point of a hypothetical scenario where it does work. And that's exactly what he did.
Posted by EverlastingMoment 3 years ago
EverlastingMoment
RFD Part 2 (Cont) -

This is why I mainly believe that Con could've made his job easier at the start of the debate had he simply clarified the premise in greater detail. Such as using preambulatory clauses such as "On the whole" or "Compared to so and so, Democracy is illogical and immoral". This would make the goal of Con's arguments much more clearer and because there's a lack of these preambs at the start of the debate Con's BoP suddenly becomes much wider than he thought it was going to be.

Because Pro showed that democracy as a concept is sound and that pragmatically it can be applied and that compared to other systems of governance democracy is preferable, It makes it hard to side with what exactly Con's getting at because he refused to show alternatives to democracy. And while there were brilliant hypothetical examples about the practical application of democracy and why it can fail in society, It falls on its own because hypothetical examples alone cannot win you a debate. You need a more wide variety of examples to showcase this and this is partially the fault of Con because he designed this topic himself as well.

Like I said. Con's line of argumentation is brilliant when looking at what was said. It was thorough and full of enriching language. However, He built his burden too greatly at the start of the debate by failing to show a clear focus and as such Pro easily capitalized off this and fulfilled his required burden.

So the debate didn't fall to Pro mainly because he had better argumentation, But by a technical standpoint his burden was far smaller and easier to prove because of the scope of the debate that Con set. And hence the motion fails.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
Well I used a valid tautology. So I think that counts as me having logic. I don't want to keep repeating myself so I'm just stopping here.
Posted by Athias 3 years ago
Athias
@WrickItRalph: " If you want to sit here and pretend what I said doesn't make sense then so be it. "

It's not necessary to "pretend. "

"But I have showed why it has to be that way. "

No, You haven't. In fact, You've shown nothing.

"You kept saying that I "interpret" Anarchy. That is false, I had no intention of arriving at anarchy, "

I'm not concerned so much with that which you "intended" to do. It's that which you did do that warrants focus.

"But your vacuous comments kept leading us there. "

You either have a grasp for logic, Or you don't. Since your arguments have provided no information to the former, There's no use in continuing this back and forth. Have a nice day, Sir.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
Okay, You're obviously just being obtuse. If you want to sit here and pretend what I said doesn't make sense then so be it. But I have showed why it has to be that way. You kept saying that I "interpret" Anarchy. That is false, I had no intention of arriving at anarchy, But your vacuous comments kept leading us there.
Posted by Athias 3 years ago
Athias
@WrickItRalph: "So your whole argument is vacuous then, Because you're basically saying anarchy"

You interpret anarchy; I didn't "basically say" anarchy.

"How about you stop dodging and actually refute the point. "

Why don't you actually cite that which I've stated, And assume your responsibility in substantiating your own point? Once again, I do not have to refute you. I took contention against democracy using the premises I laid out: illogical and immoral. It was my responsibility to substantiate my conclusions using logically consistent arguments. You took the position in support of democracy using in part the premise that "there's no alternative. " Therefore, It is your responsibility to substantiate your conclusions using logically consistent arguments. It is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to establish that there's no alternative because it's YOUR ARGUMENT. And when asked to expand upon your points, YOU DID NOT. YOU JUST KEPT STATING THEM.

"Then the logical answer is 'Democracy' because democracy has the best system compared to all known forms of government. "

Nice try, But that's not logic. The false dilemma does not account for your subjective estimation of that which is "best. "
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by EverlastingMoment 3 years ago
EverlastingMoment
AthiasWrickItRalphTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.