Instigator / Pro

Norway is the most progressive nation on earth and is the lefts model NOT VENEZUELA!!


The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

After 2 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...

Publication date
Last updated date
Number of rounds
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Contender / Con

The Left isn't trying to emulate Venezuela or even "Socialism" most concede a mixed economic system is always best ,And nORWAY's mixed economic system and progressive values are the ideal we seek to emulate it is also the most democratic nation on earth

Round 1
I feel rather silly stating the obvious, but Venezuela is a straw man used so often to discredit the left, and in a way I understand. Anyone who would be so foolish as to point to Venezuela as a model of how to create a progressive or socialist society deserves to be mocked, I am so sick of leftists making excuses for failed states, and Venezuela is a failed State mostly due to corruption and incompetence, and it is an authoritarian nightmare a dictatorship .If you do want a "Socialist " state, or Socialism with Chinese characteristics" that works that would be china one party authoritarian mixed with aspects of a state run economy mixed with a market economy but it dos work and if you study it is patterned after Singapore which started out moderately Socialist and then switched to a much more pro market model, with curtailed civil liberties, but hey they are both healthy economies, no one denies that, just not very "progressive" 

Norway isn't socialist I don't think any society could ever meet the crazy requirements to fit that definition, totally equal no private property no money no state some say ,
Norway does however meet many progressive values the state is in charge of natural resources for the benifit of all, the oil wealth is run by the state for the benefit of the society as a whole, as are many other state run industries many workers in Norway work for the state for the good of all Around 1 in 3 workers in Denmark and Norway are employed by the government.
Norway has a huge Sovereign wealth fund held fo the good of all NOrwegians   The governments of Norway and Finland own financial assets equal to 330 percent and 130 percent of each country’s respective GDP. In the US, the same figure is just 26 percent.

Much of this money is tied up in diversified wealth funds, which some would object to as not counting as real state ownership. I disagree with the claim that wealth funds are not really state ownership, but the observation that Nordic countries feature high levels of state ownership does not turn upon this quibble.

Norway had a very high standard of living, it is equitably distributed, it population is healthy and happy and well cared for, its economy and society are considered the most prosperous and successful on earth , women hold and equal status children are cared for and right s are respect, it is also considered the most democratic nation on earth

thanks, billbatard, for instigating this debate.



The KINGDOM of NORWAY is "a constitutional monarchy in Northwestern Europe whose territory comprises the western and northernmost portion of the Scandinavian Peninsula.[1]

MOST is the "superlative degree of much; more than any other" [2]

PROGRESSIVE is "liberal (politically)." [3]


Wikipedia suggests:

"When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.  This is also stated in Hitchens's razor.". [4]

In this case, PRO as instigator and claimant bears the entire responsibility of proof.

CON interprets the resolution to mean that PRO intends to prove that Norway is unquestionably more liberal than any other nation.


PRO relies exclusively on the Economist's Democracy Index for establishing Norway's progressive credentials and to make PRO's case in the absence of personal consideration.


The Economist fails to properly weight Norway’s government, which is a constitutional monarchy.  No government or constitution that acknowledges the inherent superiority of some humans over others by right of birth should be mistaken for authentically liberal  or progressive.

The apotheosis of the Age of Reason is found in the American Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.”
Norway's King and constitution  implicitly deny that first commandment of all liberal democracies. 

"Executive power is vested in the King, but the government is conducted in his name by a Council of State, and all of his decisions must be counter-signed by an official. The Council consists of at least eight members chosen by the King, including the Prime Minister."  That is, of the nine most powerful people in the Kingdom, only one is elected by the people, one is selected by the fortunes of birth, and seven rely on the good judgement of a wealthy man isolated and insulated from the worst vagaries of the human condition. [5]

The King of Norway is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.  He has the power to pardon properly convicted criminals.  The King appoints all civil and military officers in Norway.  The King has the power of granting knighthoods.

The Constitution of Norway makes Norway an explicitly Christian state and forces taxpayers to support and maintain the Church of Norway.  The constitution requires that the King may only profess Evangelical Lutheranism.

Since the Norwegian Constitution forbids any amendment that contradicts the principles therein, Norway has no constitutional remedy to monarchy.

Socrates said that a benevolent monarch is best form of government and he may have been right but we are not discussing good government here- we are determining MOST PROGRESSIVE.

CON argues that Norway cannot definitionally belong the top ranks of liberal democracies so long as Norway preserves its monarchy, denies the inherent equality of all human beings, denies the Norwegian people the right to vote for its chief executives, denies the separation of church and state.

Any democracy that refuses monarchs and kingdoms and god-given rights stands as superior in the ranks of progressivism to nations that still cling to ancient,constitutionally enforced class divisions constructed in violence and mass theft.

CON looks forward to PRO's P2 response.

Round 2
It is indeed a monarchy.. however "In politics, a figurehead is a person who de jure (in name or by law) appears to hold an important and often supremely powerful title or office, yet de facto (in reality) exercises little to no actual power. This usually means that they are head of state, but not head of government. The metaphor derives from the carved figurehead at the prow of a sailing ship." okay?

also Norway was recently ranked number one in the following indices: democracy, freedom, economic freedom and gender equality. The United States was downgraded to a “flawed democracy” in a recent index that examined 167 countries.

PRO argues:

  • It is indeed a monarchy. 
    • PRO concedes the debate.  A hereditary monarchy definitionally rejects the first principle of all liberal democracies: that all people are equal.  Norway cannot rationally claim that all people are equal but also some very special royal people are born to rule and life a life of luxury at taxpayer expense.
  • PRO defines figurehead.
    • If PRO is trying to argue that the King of Norway is only a figurehead, PRO must state that in the text of this debate.
  • The ranks Norway over US in several respects.
    • Irrelevant to topic
OBJECTION: The is likely to less objective than many other sources when comparing Scandinavian nations with non-Scandinavian nations.

A progressive kingdom is an oxymoron.  Kingdoms can imitate progressive nations, even adopt the hallmarks and trappings of progressive nations, but the constitutional enforcement of a select family of superior humans within a select class is profoundly anti-progressive.  Constitutional enforcement of Christian and Lutheran religious tenants is anti-progressive.  Constitutionally enforced allocation of taxpayer money toward the comforts of certain super families and the proselytization of certain superior religious establishments runs directly counter to everything for which liberal ideology stands.

If Norway wishes to qualify as the "most progressive" nation on Earth, Norway must modernize its constitution, separate church from state and constitutionally depose from rulership its families of decidedly "better than equal" people.  Until that time, we can argue that Norway is more progressive than other monarchies or that it might be very progressive if it only gave up its autocratic and repressive nostalgic establishments but we can't call Norway "progressive" and also preserve the meaning of that word.

CON looks forward to PRO's P3 reply.
Round 3
oaky how about the un rankings? puts norway it the top the legantumm prosperity in dex? ranks norway number 1#  if you can a reputable index Norway tops it

and the most important one for my rebuttable of your silly manoarchy objectin is the democracy index, Norway is considered the most democratic nation on earth by the most reputable index on earth the usa? is somewhere down the list with estonia and cape verde  dude we suck

Norway is democratic the most democratic and the best quality of life and presoperyty by reputable sources the most reputable sources
Thanks, billbatard.


Let's recall that CON argued that PRO, as instigator and claimant entirely bears the responsibility for proving that the Kingdom of Norway is the most progressive nation on Earth. 


PRO never defined Progressivism but seems to conflate 3 concepts into a hazy mush that PRO seems to be thinking of as progressive without ever actually setting terms:

  • Democracy, a theory of governing in which citizens have the authority to choose their government and legislatiion
  • Socialism, an economic theory in which citizens have the authority to control the means of production, and 
  • Wealth (CON can't say why PRO folds wealth into progressivism).
Since PRO never defined progressive, PRO never established a standard by which Norway could be shown as the foremost example.  Instead, PRO just went looking for lists which Norway recently topped and left the actual application of a standard to CON. 

So PRO offers a 2017 democracy ranking, a list of government run Norwegian businesses and a list of wealthy countries and calls that proof of "MOST progressive"


In the absence of any definition offered by the instigator, CON offered a simple wikitonary definition of progressivism as liberalism which is "a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed, and equality before the law." Wikipedia goes on to explain that "Liberalism sought to replace the norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, the divine right of kings and traditional conservatism with representative democracy and the rule of law."  [6]  

That is, using one commonplace definition of progressive, PRO must demonstrate the Kingdom of Norway has (to a greater degree than any other nation) done away with and replaced 

  • hereditary privilege
  • state religion, and
  • the god given right of kings to rule 
PRO had no hope of making such demonstration because the Kingdom of Norway has preserved these anachronisms of autocracy in its constitution and by that same constitution forbidden the removal or replacement of kings, evangelical Lutheranism, and the principle of hereditary superiority.

In R2, PRO concedes the debate by admitting that the Kingdom of Norway is a monarchy.  By definition, no monarchy can be the MOST liberal, the MOST progressive because qualification is contingent on the removal of state-enforced superhumans and state-enforced gods.

In R3, PRO irrelevantly posts rankings of Norway as democratic and wealthy.

PRO never understood that it was up to PRO to set the terms of this debate and having left that work to CON, permitted CON to define Norway out of the running for MOST Progressive.

VOTERS should evaluate whether progressivism is some vague melange of  democracy + socialism + wealth  or progressivism is first and foremost the assertion of human equality.  If the latter, VOTERS should note that the Kingdom of Norway constitutionally rejects the equality of all humans and VOTERS should find that the Kingdom of Norway is therefore disqualified from the rank of MOST progressive.

Thanks in advance to all VOTERS for their kind consideration.  Please VOTE CON!