Political conflict is the largest threat to populations

Democracy = form of government in which power is held by the people, who rule either directly or through freely elected representatives.

Historical and present evidence has proven on several occasions that democracy is the most fair form of government, as evident according to the above.

Democracy equally disperses power between all citizens.

Practically every other main form of government - (Monarchy, Oligarchy, Theocracy, Communism), leads to unequal power which ultimately results in circumstances such as authoritarianism and fascism.

Monarchy - Often suppresses individual right to speech with threats along with limited accountability within rulers (House of Saud).

Oligarchy - Power being held across a small group of the elite results in heavy corruption and unequal wealth gaps.

Theocracy - Leaders often manipulate sacred texts for personal gain (sale of indulgences, nepotism, simony)

Communism - This practice results in a classless society whereby government holds all power. Often leads to heavy corruption. (Rule of Stalin)

Democracy holds individuals in power accountable for their actions and equally disperses power between populations in form of voting and rights.

Democracy allows representation of the civilians as a whole rather than opinions of groups in power. This significantly reduces abuse.

you are not addressing the topic. 

We're talking about political fights, not democracy 

Mb, doing multiple debates so I posted on the wrong one 

as me and Pro said, it'll be a two round debate so we're starting at round 3

I firstly extend my thanks to my opponent for continuing the debate despite my mistake in previous rounds.

Political conflict = disagreement or struggle between individuals, groups, or institutions over power, authority, resources, policies, or values within a political system. It often involves competing interests and can manifest through debates, protests, negotiations, or violence, affecting governance and social stability.

Political conflict is historically proven on several occasions to be the leading factors of death, poverty, inequality, torture, terrorism, economic collapse, etc.

This sort of conflict sparks international/civil wars, ethnic violence, revolutions, riots, etc.

The historical consequences of political conflict are extremely severe and horrific.

Holocaust - 6 million Jews killed 

This source provides estimates of approximately 8.5 million military deaths and up to 13 million civilian deaths, totaling around 21.5 million casualties.

"soldiers died as a result of wounds and/or disease. The greatest number of casualties and wounds were inflicted by artillery, followed by small arms, and then by poison gas."

This source provides credible and verified information regarding the human toll of the war. It states that estimates of total deaths in World War II vary from 35 million to 60 million.

"Millions throughout Europe were rendered homeless. There were an estimated 21,000,000 refugees, more than half of them “displaced persons” who had been deported from their homelands to perform forced labour. Other millions who had remained at home were physically exhausted by five years of strain, suffering, and undernourishment. The roads of Europe were swamped by refugees all through 1945 and into 1946 as more than 5,000,000 Soviet prisoners of war and forced labourers returned eastward to their homeland"

By analyzing the above sources along with the many others that can be found online, it is evident that political conflict is the largest threat to populations.

Political conflict is not only the largest threat by itself, this type of conflict also acts as an amplifier for already tense circumstances.

For instance, it can exacerbate existing tensions, weaken institutions, trigger wider crises, polarize societies and ultimately spread violence and struggle.

No worries for the confusion, it happens.

I would like to start talking about the meaning of the political conflict.

I think it isn't the biggest threat for the population, because to define "biggest threat"  we should consider many factors that affect to the effective starting of a political conflict.

As you mentioned earlier some examples of political conflicts are the Holocaust, WWII, WWI and other ones, but these events happened not also because of the corrupted policies, but they were due to the will of the population.

Let me be clear, the population itself isn't the triggering cause, but the problem is the way that the population decide to meet its own fate.

It's not like that the population is the culprit of what the politicians decide, but the population is the accountable of the acts of the politicians.

You mentioned earlier that the poor medicine and epidemics are also a threat towards the population during the past, but I think it is incorrect to only mention those for the past: just take a look in some areas of Africa (Somalia, Ethiopia, Uganda, Burundi, Gambia and others) the hygiene there is a real issue which is killing the population, and also why not mention Yemen: every minute in Yemen is dying for starvation a child. 

So yeah, whether political conflicts are a threat for the population, along with this there are also other threat that for us belongs to the past.

Con states that he will begin by delving into the meaning of political conflict, but avoids doing so abruptly. Showing inconsistency in argument.

Con evidently contradicts himself in this paragraph.

One cannot state that an entity is not the triggering factor of violence, stating that, "the population itself isn't the triggering cause", and, "It's not like that the population is the culprit of what the politicians decide". Then consecutively stating that, "the problem is the way that the population decide to meet their own fate", "they were due to the will of the population", and that, "the population is accountable for the acts of politicians".

Con first denies the population’s responsibility, then blames the population’s, "will", and holds them, "accountable". This is contradictory and unclear.

The population is not held, "accountable". The population suffers from the decisions of a corrupt government.

The government is held accountable, therefore the economy of the government is attacked, leading to the downfall of its population.

Corrupt policies = official laws, regulations, or governmental practices that are designed, implemented, or maintained in a way that enables, encourages, or protects unethical, illegal, or dishonest conduct by public officials for personal or political gain.

Many corrupt politicians have come to power due to corrupt policies, as con has said.

Leading factors also include lack of press freedom, electoral manipulation, desperation through economic hardship, poverty, foreign influence etc.

Examples from listed factors:

- Weak institutions – In Zimbabwe, Mugabe controlled the courts and military, stopping any legal challenge to his power.

- Voter manipulation – In Venezuela, Maduro used food handouts and threats to influence poor voters.

- Controlled media – In Russia, Putin shut down independent news and jailed journalists who exposed corruption.

- Low education – In rural areas of Sudan, limited schooling made it easier for corrupt leaders to mislead citizens.

- Poverty – In Kenya, corrupt politicians gave money or jobs before elections to win votes from struggling communities.

- Foreign support – China backed Mugabe’s regime in Zimbabwe for access to diamonds, despite his human rights abuses.

Con constructs a red herring by attempting to combat the fact that I did not provide present instances as examples along with my past ones.

This does not strengthen Con's stance, therefore I will not refute this specific set of points.

I intriguingly ask Con, if you strongly disagree with my claim that political conflict is the largest threat to populations, what is the largest threat to populations?

Con has not provided a single concept to combat my stance, but only bold and non evident claims that populations are to be held accountable for political corruption.

So, what is the biggest and worst threat for the population? 

My answer is without a doubt: the decisions that the population itself take.

Let me show you some historical statistics about how population decides for itself, and with so to its own threat.

What conclusion can we draw? For the historical events showed they both align at a shared point: what fascisms and the French Revolution have in common is the active participation of the population.

In both cases, whether through support, mobilization, or pressure, the people were not passive observers but active participants in shaping political change—either by empowering a regime (as in fascist Italy) or by overthrowing one (as in revolutionary France).

The consequences leaded to decisions taken by the population aren't always what the population had expected.

Hannah Arendt, in her seminal work The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951), argues that the rise of totalitarian regimes was not solely the result of authoritarian leaders seizing power, but also depended heavily on the complicity and passivity of large segments of the population. She explains that totalitarianism thrives in societies where traditional social structures—such as family, political parties, and civic associations—have been dismantled or weakened, leaving individuals isolated and vulnerable to manipulation. Unlike previous forms of dictatorship, totalitarian regimes seek total mobilization, engaging the populace in all aspects of political and social life, thereby transforming masses into direct instruments of state control. Arendt highlights the concept of the “banality of evil”(which can be found in the book Heichmann in Jerusalem) where ordinary citizens obey and participate in oppressive systems without critical reflection or overt malicious intent, which implies a collective moral responsibility. Thus, according to Arendt, the population is not merely a victim but an active, if often unwitting, participant in the establishment and perpetuation of totalitarian rule.

Thank you for the chance to express and clarify my previous argument.

Sources 

Hannah Arendt: The origins of Totalitarianism