As you all know that this is a very current topic and i feel proud to say for it. We see in todays world that the word politics just a bloody word. It has no use, but is only used to rule the people. In today's world numerous people are jobless. They are in a hope that the government will give them jobs. But its not like that, government is busy in feeding themselves. So I request that before someone challenges my debate, he or she should think hundred times. Thank you.
Pro has obnoxiously set the character limit to 500 so sorry about the brevity.
Just take a look at Aust. Govt. spending plan for 2016/17[1]. In a nutshell, you owe everything to the government. Facilitation of industry and commerce that creates jobs that pay for housing and goods is up to government. Protection from hostile countries and people. Infrastructure. Education. Healthcare, often free. We aren't individually autonomous and are lost without higher authority. Government is your friend.
Con. has given the example of that part of the world whose population is not even 23.2 million but there is a corner of the world where the people's count is more than 1.25 billion and is suffering from numerous problems. The biggest example is that of the Prime Minister. He has killed hundreds of muslims. Being an illitrate person, What the hell can he know about handling a nation. Taking another example of Kashmir issue, above hundred people have been killed by indian foces (following the orders of higher athorities) in kashmir region and above 15,000 have lost their eyes because of pellets and many of them are badly injured. So, how can anybody even think of these people as their friends. Now I request con. to go back to WIKIPEDIA and search a better arguement for the next round.
Government is not inherently self-serving. Pro has irrelevantly asserted one govt. has behaved poorly (which I cede), but hasn't said anything about government exclusively acting in its own member's interests. I've given proof a government has acted not just in it's own interests, but in those of the people. Thus, governments can and do act in good faith and this one example makes the statement "Political Parties only spoil the life of the nation" false.
So far as the topic is concerned we are talking about goverment and in today's world almost all countries possess democratic government and democracy means 'the government for the people, of the people, by the people but nowadays it's not like that it's 'far the people, off the people, buy the people' the only reason is that today's government has become corrupt. There is nothing like justice, right, good, etc. These words have vanished from this era. I gave an example of the PM of India Mr. Narendra Modi, He has killed hundreds of innocent lives. Is this what we call justice. Con has added a point about Aust. but it's population is not even 0.4 percent of the world and I have provided the example of the country whose population is equalent to about 20 percent of the whole world. So this simply proves that government is useless.
Honestly, there's nothing left for me to say. Pro hasn't understood what I've written making this debate useless, instead wanting to talk about a different topic. To be clear, the Indian government doesn't define government, and as a concept Government doesn't 'spoil the life of the nation'.
It would seem my opponent has been shaken by his own experiences of government and wants change, and if that is the case I wish him luck.
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Mharman// Mod action: Removed<
3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Arguments points was tied, until con made no argument in the second round. Although con talked about jobs and other such things, his argument was not as strong as when pro listed specific examples of leaders doing evil things.
[*Reason for removal*] This RFD is confusing. It"s not clear how the lack of argumentation by Con in R2 affected the outcome, nor does the voter adequately compare arguments made by both debaters. Merely stating what each side said and saying that one was stronger for unknown reasons is not sufficient to award argument points.
************************************************************************
Do you understand what a statistic is? This isn't an ideological debate, this is a debate on the nature of government. I can't just invent facts. If you want to show the world how smart you are come up with a smarter topic. I should really stop debating 15 year olds
Yeah bro!!! I know that these sites provide us information about the particular topics but god has given us brain to think and nod not always but u should use it sometimes. Copy paste isn't everything
Citing sources isn't a weakness, it provides factual evidence which debating is all about. And this debate is about the concept of government in general, not the Indian government. The world doesn't revolve around India, or any other country. If you want to talk about India start a debate on that topic. And please stop calling me baby.
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.
>Reported vote: Mharman// Mod action: Removed<
3 points to Pro (Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Arguments points was tied, until con made no argument in the second round. Although con talked about jobs and other such things, his argument was not as strong as when pro listed specific examples of leaders doing evil things.
[*Reason for removal*] This RFD is confusing. It"s not clear how the lack of argumentation by Con in R2 affected the outcome, nor does the voter adequately compare arguments made by both debaters. Merely stating what each side said and saying that one was stronger for unknown reasons is not sufficient to award argument points.
************************************************************************