The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Does Authoritarianism work?

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Zerobase has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/22/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 406 times Debate No: 104564
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




So mostly I am just interested in how people will respond to this and I am new to this platform so, please, don't berate me for inexperience or, perhaps, bad grammar.

So I will just make up an argument although I am relatively undecided on the topic. Thus, I think a debate would help enlighten me.

So, historically, if we look at empires such as the Roman and Greek empires, these areas were, though enlightened culturally, often subject to bad rulers. Socrates famously talked about his distaste for democracy as a result of the bad leaders it had inspired. He (and forgive me for a limited understanding on Socrates here) believed that much of the population were too ignorant to make an informed decision about their own leaders. Rather, they needed a determined leader to guide them towards the future. Attitudes of laissez-faire and libertarianism amounted to little in history, and the success of the United States as a world power could arguably be attributed to FDR"s authoritarian policies, wherein he (of superior intelligence to the public) made a number of executive orders to put the country on track.
Often, our greatest leaders are propelled by arrogance; a belief that they know better how to run a country, nation or empire better than others, their ability to get to the stage of doing so a testament to this. You could argue that leaders like Trump are arrogant, but Trump's rise to power was not out of intelligent strategy or wisdom, but popularism and media attention. Those who have ascended to power by their own means have often acheived their goals and created powerful empires, even at the expense of others: Mao Zedong, Stalin, Julius Caesar, et cetera. It could be said that order is better than chaos, unequivocally.


Thank you for putting this interesting topic up, I am happy to debate you on this topic. However I do believe that 3 rounds is a wee bit short for such a broad and in depth topic, so, if needed, I hope that you would not mind doing a continuation of this debate? So, without further ado, may the best debater win :)

So I noticed that you did not provide any definitions for notable words, so I will take the liberty of doing it myself :) If you do not agree with any of these, feel free to suggest and alternate definition.

Leader: A person who has power over other people in exchange for giving them guidance, protection, ect.

Authoritarianism: A form of government characterized by strong central power and limited political freedoms.

Democracy: A form of government where elected officials are elected by the majority, or by people who are elected by the masses.

I too have a very limited knowledge of Socrates and other historical philosophers from the classical era, however one must understand that these famous philosophers are not a golden source, that almost anything that came out of their mouths is truth. They are respected for how they have shaped our society, but not to the point where every word is golden. One must also consider, that back then the majority of the population was uneducated and the flow of information and new ideas couldn't have been spread as rapidly as it can now, allowing for more truth to be spread.

First, FDR was democratically elected, ultimately defeating your point. However, if one disregards that we must look at two points; a. Why was FDR so good? b. Can he really be attributed to the U.S.'s success?

a. Why was FDR so good?
FDR is often regarded as one of our best presidents, but why? It is surely true that he was extremely intelligent and helped the country, however this can be attributed to the fact that, at the time, because of the great depression, the U.S. hit rock bottom and there was not much to improve upon.

b. Can he really be attributed to the U.S.'s success?
Well, the first real successful time period of the United States was the roaring twenties - before FDR - and after, it was the soldiers coming back with a lot of money. FDR did not really make the United States great, however he did save it from the great depression.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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