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

More non-politicians should be running for political positions.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/3/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 715 times Debate No: 101647
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)




Donald Trump's presidential run proves that you don't need to be a politician to run for a government position. There should be more encouragement for philosophers, educators, economists, doctors, etc. to reform society so that our country may become more ethical, safe, and free than it is now under the control of profit-motivated corporate puppets.


No, non-politicians should not be running for political positions.
The reason politicians run is because they have experience and know what they are doing. If too many people without political experience run, there will be an influx of people who simply do not know what to do! Imagine if people without medical experience tried to become doctors. At least if a doctor makes a big mistake, they will harm just one person and get sued and therefore lose their license. Politicians have global power to incite wars.

I am a Canadian, so here is an interesting source for a different point of view:
Debate Round No. 1


So you would rather be led by people who have experience in taking away our freedom? What exactly do you mean when you say that they know what they are doing? Assuming most politicians are completely aware of what they are doing, then they are aware that they are perpetuating war for oil and personal profit instead of investing in what really matters, like education or health.

All doctors, or any other professional type, at some point in their lives did not have the medical knowledge and experience to be a doctor; this is why education is so important. Obviously you wouldn't put someone in a position that was not able to perform that position well or at all.

Politics is universal; if you can give good arguments and back them up with facts, while also demonstrating ethical rhetoric to get people to support you, then you can run for government. Politicians are trained to lie and do whatever supports their ego and personal finances.

Wouldn't you rather have people in charge that were not solely motivated by cash and would actually do everything in their power to solve the many sufferings of the human population?


You bring up some interesting points.
Having people without experience in important political positions can be very disastrous as they will not know the finer points of politics. Anyone can win an election, but it takes a special kind of person to do a good job when they get the position. This is why the average person doesn't run for political roles. Just because you could beat someone in an election doesn't mean you would be a better politician then them.
Debate Round No. 2


I agree that the average person would not succeed in politics, but this is because the average person is hardly aware of how to resolve his or her own problems, let alone the problems humanity faces as a whole.

However, we all have the potential to turn our thoughts into actions, so anyone who is willing to educate themselves to attain an awareness above the average person (i.e. philosophers, economists) could pursue and succeed in politics; but it depends on the specific individual and what virtues and vices constitute his being and becoming.

What are the "finer points" you speak of? If we were to replace all the greedy, money hoarding individuals in government with beings with ethical knowledge of how to distribute finances and treat people like people, then we would no doubt be living in better times. Unless, however, the money worshipping psychopaths started a civil war against having more competition that threatened their personal hierarchal positions; which would be plausible since we are already at war with ourselves, as individuals and as a country, and with much of the world.

So I ask you, is the type of experience you want running a country the experience that deceives and destroys, or would you rather have more people who want to help everyone build and prosper?


While I do agree that we need less corrupt politicians, you do need actual politicians to be able to have a successful country. Not only that, but populists tend to act as if the views they hold are the only "legitimate" views. After all, they do see themselves as the Voice of the People.

This also lead to difficulties with working with the other politicians in your government. If you wave them off as Society's Corrupt Elite, nothing will get done as both sides might just obstruct each other.

I do see your point, but in practice, populism rarely works.
Debate Round No. 3


None of my arguments were pushing populism; government should be concerned with everyone; not just the ordinary person, not just the elite with the most money, EVERYONE.

What do you mean by "actual politicians"? because whatever you mean by this, we do not have many of them since we are not a successful country; unless you think success means being in trillions of dollars in debt and slowly taking away the freedom of your people.

"This also leads to difficulties with working with the other politicians in your government." You mean like most of the people who are in government right now? We need more reasonable people! That is precisely what Ive been arguing. Many politicians are unable to reason ethically because their motives consist of increasing their personal financial profit and the profit of those who they are paid by. This has been obvious with the health bill that republicans tried getting passed.

The people that I want in government are not those who see themselves as the voice of the people. What we desperately need is people who will be voices of THE TRUTH. The reasonable people that I want in charge of our country are people who will listen to all sides of an argument; so if most of the people in government were voices of truth, then there would be no gridlock and more would get done that actually matters, like improving education and health, not increasing hate and fear.

So far you haven't answered any of my questions; you've merely stated that people who have experience as politicians should be politicians. But what is so special about this experience that a philosopher or economist could not do? Politicians are people who can debate ideas and are good public speakers with good rhetoric. Please tell me why people who are reasonable, professional, respected, and aware, of themselves and their fellow beings, could not debate ideas and be voices of truth?


They could! However, they would definitely have to dedicate themselves enough to the point of becoming politicians. If they didn't, then they wouldn't do much. (Sorry that this is so short. I can't think of anything else and I am going to run out of time soon. I was busy the last two days. My fault.)
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
You're welcome to your opinion regarding what vote moderation should and should not do, Wylted.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Now that is a correct removal and if they were all like that , then we wouldn't be at risk of losing vote modding as a benefit to the site.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
>Reported vote: byaka2013// Mod action: Removed<

2 points to Con (Conduct, S&G). Reasons for voting decision: Why not"?"

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD.
Posted by Ginger_Slytherin 3 years ago
I think it does break the mold of the stuffy old routine of electing a president. I like that we can actually elect people who aren't classified as politicians. I live in the South and I can tell you, the perception from my neck of the woods is that politicians are all the same: Fat cats who don't care about the working man. That's why many people here voted for Trump, they figured that because he's not a career politician, that means he must be good. I personally despise Donald Trump, but I think his winning the election could inspire someone out there to run. As long as he/she is competent and well intentioned, I'm good. (I joked about running myself, I am a long ways off from 35 though.)
Posted by Anonymous_Jim 3 years ago
@WAKAWAKA The argument of abolishing the state should perhaps be saved for a later argument, as that could mean a few different things depending on what you intend to change it to.
Posted by Anonymous_Jim 3 years ago
I also think Trump is a terrible person. However, many people got behind him because of the bad perception of politicians today; it's too bad we elected a guy who lies more than the politicians! We need more ethically aware beings who care about humanity and social order.
Posted by Capitalistslave 3 years ago
Anonymous_Jim: I agree with you, but not for the same reason. I think Donald Trump is terrible, and he will likely make more people think we need politicians in office.

However, despite that Trump is terrible in my opinion, I do think it would be a good idea to have more non-politicians.

I'm actually considering running for an office after I've had 15-20 years of psychiatry done. I don't know how successful I would be, but I would want to do it at least to bring more awareness to the cooperative movement. I would run on a campaign promoting worker cooperatives. My goal is just to get more people educated on that, and if I get free media coverage for that, that would be great.
Posted by WAKAWAKA 3 years ago
Can I run an abolish the state counterplan? Or do you only want pro "political class" opponents?
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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