The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
10 Points

Is it better to rule through fear than through love

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/11/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,452 times Debate No: 54445
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)




I tnink that love is a better tool than fear


Challenge accepted,
The resolution is unclear, it seems that Nadine1997 should have taken the Con side of the argument based on what she said.

But either way, I think it is better to rule through fear than through love as Machiavelli said
"Since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved"

I ask that Pro present her arguments for why she thinks Love is better than fear.
Debate Round No. 1


Because If you try to rule with fear, fear will turn on you.


"Because If you try to rule with fear, fear will turn on you."

Please elaborate on this. Give examples and/or scenarios etc.. Better explain the statement

Anyways, let me explain why I think fear is better than love.

You can never ever get everyone to like you. Paticularly rulers of large or diverse countries who cannot possibly satisfy the needs of all the population, and yes this has to include extremists.

Let's say a leader makes a decision or has an ideology strongly hated by a group of people. Even if the majority of people loved the leader, the group that hates him/her is still very much significant. They may do everything they can to remove the leader from power. Assassination in the extreme case, which leads to conspiracies and instability and whatnot.

That's pretty much what happened to Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr (ok, they are not national leaders but they are good examples of what I want to prove) , their actions to bring equality (to Muslims and African Americans respectively) led to them being killed even though almost everybody loved them and their actions.
If such leaders were more fearsome, then perhaps the people who tried to kill them would not have done so because well.. they would be afraid to do it.
Now another possible problem:
There is a great chance that the people who killed a greatly loved leader will be feared and therefore, it is the feared assassins which will take the power by instilling fear in society and their agendas will be realized, not the loved leader.

I'll finish off with a closing thought
You can make everyone fear you, but you cannot make everyone love you.
Debate Round No. 2


with love people will follow you and more importantly want to follow you while ruling with fear is easier but ruling with love is much more effective and also it's better to rule with love, since it gives a reason for the people to be a part of a nation or community. Love can inspire much more fierce loyalty and confidence in the ruler.


"Love can inspire much more fierce loyalty and confidence in the ruler."
It can inspire loyalty to the ruler however not everybody can love that leader as I explained in round 2.

A lot of people loved John F Kennedy yet he was assassinated.
A lot of people fear Kim Jong un and his predecessors, they weren't assassinated.

Of course, too much fear would cause a nation to become a Totalitarian Dictatorship (North Korea) but some level of fear is definetely required and it is more beneficial than recieving love.

Pro's stance only makes sense in a utopian society where everbody loves the great leader.
If only it were so easy to make everyone love you. And I mean EVERYONE. Including extremists from both sides of any issue taking place.

Now let's talk about insurgents and terrorists whose sole purpose is to destabalize the country (for whatever reasons).

There is a reason the US says they do not negotiate with terrorsists (if only that were true, but that's a story for another time)
You cannot deal with extremists and terrorists using love and compassion (they do not care), you put a bullet to their heads.

Or alternatively, make yourself so feared that such terrorists are too scared to do anything harmful to the country or the citizens.

But you cannot make yourself so loved that such terrorists will worship you instead of fulfiling their agenda of destabilizing the nation, its realistically impossible. This is because, like I said they are always extremists and people who will inevitably hate the leader or his/her actions.

In a utopian society, it would be better obviously to be loved but with the status quo, it is better to be feared.
I rest my case
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by revic 7 years ago
The Machiavelli reference is kindof wrong, as Machiavelli stated that this was only in an ideal world, one he would hope to once exist.
He agreed that the actual world leaders were always trying to seek their own benefit, rather than that of their state. It simply did not work to have one person be the "Machiavellian Prince" who has all the power. This person was never wise enough to do the right things, as we can still see in the world, having one person in charge is impossible.

Nadine should argue that leaders as August, Hitler, George Washington etc. etc. whom were all loved by their people, in the end, held the greatest power. They could achieve amazing things, however I snuck Hitler in as he changed his rule to a rule of fear and then followed his own interests. That made him a far worse leader than he was before.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Lt.Harris 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Amazing argument and the instigator made basic statements with nothing to back her up.
Vote Placed by Wylted 7 years ago
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: Pro put no effort into her arguments and her arguments were sufficiently shot down.

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