Instigator / Pro
1500
rating
2
debates
50.0%
won
Topic
#6317
Democracy is the best form of government
Status
Debating
Waiting for the next argument from the contender.
Round will be automatically forfeited in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
1556
rating
18
debates
69.44%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Democracy = form of government in which power is held by the people, who rule either directly or through freely elected representatives.
Key features:
- Free and fair elections
- Equal voting rights for all citizens
- Protection of individual rights and freedoms
- Rule of law where laws apply equally to everyone
- Government accountability to the people
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.
Examples:
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)
In conclusion:
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.
Fascism can be good and Authoritarianism is necessary.
Democracy is inherently corrupt for a few reasons.
- No matter how you set the system up, you are dictatorial to all those who voted against the winner anyway.
- It depends entirely on variance and so to say 'pot luck' if the party representing one's combination of views even exists to vote for. Most people suffer again and again and keep havinh to vote what they see as a less terrible edition of a corrupt regime.
- Democracy tends to lead to too much multiculturalism. This matters because how can a sexist homophobic culture infiltrating a nation that strongly is for gay rights and feminism fit in? Especially if that culture is pro dictatorship. I cannot type more for risk of spreading hate speech getting me put in prison. I will leave it as a valid issue of democracy.
- On top of multiculturalism leading to disunity of the populace, you tend to get mindviruses such as atheism spreading (I won'y mention the othwrs for risk of being put in prison for hate speech)
Democracy blackmails regularly. It has authoritarian laws and enforces them in authoritarian manner.
There is no such thing as a non aithoritarian regime.
Even anarchism is authoritarian, you end up enslaved to the whims of local thugs or to the masses and their impulsive whims where they feel something is wrong or right and enforce that.
This illusion democracy creates is a poisonous one. It placates the would-be rebels and metaphorically castrates or neuters the still-pushing radicals.
There is a quiet tyranny to it all.
If I tell you I am liberal and then handcuff you for offending someone, am I actually liberal?
If I tell you this is a free coubtry and force you against your will to not be nude and also to bake a cake for a gay wedding against your will because you cannot legally deny the gay couple your services, is that really a free country?
Democracy also has a saying 'horseshoe theory'. This theory is sonewhat true and also very false.
Of course all strongly held fundamrbtalistic viewpoints ends up anti democracy. The antifa anarchists or communists hate democracy just like the fascists and hardline non-constitional monarchists do. The green party eco warrior does also but so does the environment hating pure corporatist (and no, fascists are not actuall pure corporatists at all).
The reason horseshoe theory works inside of democracy is because anyone who truly wanta a radical regime change to come and stay put ultimately is not going to want it to be that people can vote evil into power.
If 85/97 people want rape legalised should we legalise it? Only a non democracy can fully explain how they would prevent that being legalised.
Round 2
"Fascism can be good and Authoritarianism is necessary."
I respect all political and religious views, however this statement is highly absurd.
With this statement, implies that you are pro Nazi.
Fascism = totalitarian political system rooted in authoritarian rule, militant nationalism, social control, and the violent suppression of dissent, aimed at creating a unified, homogenous national community under a powerful leader and state that controls all aspects of life. It rejects democracy, liberal freedoms, and pluralism, promoting instead a mythic national rebirth through strength, conformity, and conflict.
To put into perspective.
It's as if you are sheep living in a society where terrorists are in power.
It's a disgusting political view and practice which has led to events such as the holocaust, which brutally murdered 6 million Jews.
"Democracy tends to lead to too much multiculturalism. This matters because how can a sexist homophobic culture infiltrating a nation that strongly is for gay rights and feminism fit in? Especially if that culture is pro dictatorship. I cannot type more for risk of spreading hate speech getting me put in prison. I will leave it as a valid issue of democracy."
Multiculturalism = social and political philosophy or policy that recognizes, values, and promotes the presence and coexistence of diverse cultural, ethnic, religious, and linguistic groups within a society.
Present societies are actually seen to be pro LGBTQ and non sexist, with rights being advocated for by much of society through support and being given a whole month of commemoration .
Even here in Ireland there are charities and volunteer work open for LGBTQ.
Taking sexism into account, I would argue that women have more social power over men in today's society. For instance, if a divorce occurs, the man is legally obligated to remain in support of the mother and child through child support, with serious repercussions if not payed.
Men have gone into jail for lifetime after a mere allegation without evidence by a woman.
Eg - Richard Phillips
- He was convicted of rape based on the testimony of two girls and spent 45 years in prison.
- He was exonerated in 2018 after DNA evidence proved his innocence.
- This case is one of the longest wrongful imprisonments in U.S. history based on mistaken accusations.
This is not an isolated incident, but many similar occurrences have taken place.
Labelling society of being homophobic and sexist due to past stereotypes or perceived stigmas is without a doubt invalid, and hateful behavior.
"Even anarchism is authoritarian, you end up enslaved to the whims of local thugs or to the masses and their impulsive whims where they feel something is wrong or right and enforce that."
This point is invalid for many reasons, most notably being that with this logic absolutely anything can be "authoritarianism".
Spontaneous and impulsive actions of criminals do not equate to authoritarianism.
In case you have forgot the meaning anarchism and authoritarianism:
Anarchism = political philosophy or belief that all forms of government or authority should be abolished, because people can organize society themselves without rulers or laws imposed from above.
Authoritarianism = system of government or rule where one leader or a small group has strong, centralized control, often limiting freedoms and not allowing much political opposition or public participation.
The concepts and practices if Anarchism and Authoritarianism are polar opposites, leading your point to be completely invalid.
"There is a quiet tyranny to it all."
This is a short sentence of conspiracy. no evidence, no valid reasoning, just plain waffle without a mere base of logic.
"If I tell you I am liberal and then handcuff you for offending someone, am I actually liberal?"
There are many levels to being liberal, just as there are of being conservative. There is not one set left, and there is not one set right.
If someone such as yourself is a FAR left extremist, then sure, you would not be liberal in that view.
If someone is liberal but not an extremist, who respects other people's views without extremism, then you would be liberal ion that view.
"If 85/97 people want rape legalised should we legalise it? Only a non democracy can fully explain how they would prevent that being legalised."
I will not answer or argue against highly absurd hypothetical scenarios.
However, what I will say is that no society would vote this, as unless you've been living under a rock, you would know that rape is extremely frowned upon and attacked by practically every society.
"Democracy also has a saying 'horseshoe theory'. This theory is sonewhat true and also very false.
"Of course all strongly held fundamrbtalistic viewpoints ends up anti democracy. The antifa anarchists or communists hate democracy just like the fascists and hardline non-constitional monarchists do. The green party eco warrior does also but so does the environment hating pure corporatist (and no, fascists are not actuall pure corporatists at all)."
"The reason horseshoe theory works inside of democracy is because anyone who truly want a radical regime change to come and stay put ultimately is not going to want it to be that people can vote evil into power."
Con also rambles on in regard to the horseshoe theory, which is apparently "somewhat true but also false".
I will not argue Con's rant on the horseshoe theory, as it does not oppose democracy at all.
It is unclear what the debate is.
Pro seems to want to ban neonazis being able to have their views represented in the democratic process.
That is a valid viewpoint to hold, since democracy is futile, so it is better for a believer against neonazism to ban them having any capcity to get voted into power.
The issue is Pro says democracy is the best form of government. This means people who want Sharia dictatorships can show up, settle and vote Sharia dictatorship into power. Naturally, the more a democracy truly is a democracy eventually if 85/97 people want rape legalised, it will be. My opponent says that will never happen but today Saudi and Iran have no age of consent at all and alloed marriages as young as ages I won't type (imagine so young you'd gag thinking of it). Now, the issue is my opponent assumes democracy fixed that. Wrong. Christianity did.
Christianity fixed rape, murder, theft and a lot of issues that Islam thinks it fixed but failed to. Christian dictatorship is a better system than democracy and Christian feudalist dictatorial regimes are the ones that brought human rights to the wordk eventually and also developed faster than the world in many different facets.
My opponent talks constantly about that women are equal to men in his treasured Catholic Ireland but this arguably defies some of Paul's teachings. That said, it is fine. The issue is when you open borders, you allow in people who don't believe that about women (I won't specify for fear of 'hate speech' arrest from oh so free democracies) and you will find over time they gain a foothold to vote women's rights away, it literally is down to numbers. The minute they reproduce faster enough and pressure the kids to stay loyal to the regime they want or disown them and threaten them with apostacy killings back home if they take them there, it creates a problem.
Now notice something.
Hitler rose inside of democracy. So did Mussolini. Franco (the Soanish Fascist/Falangist) sort of did but required a more violent coup to secure it.
So, democracy does not actually secure against what Pro talks about at all. Even if he hates fascism, it does not matter. Democracy enables it.
Democracy:
Cambridge Dictionary
Adolf Hitler never won a majority in a free and open national election. He never received more than 37% of the vote in a free and open national election, but he argued that 37% represented 75% of 51%, and demanded political power. It was the political calculus by which the Nazi leader disabled, then dismantled, the Weimar Republic. Hitler exploited his 37% to gridlock legislative processes, to cudgel or crush the political opposition, and ultimately to undermine the country’s democratic structures. When Hitler had vowed in court, in September 1930, to destroy democracy through the democratic process, a judge asked, “So, only through constitutional means?” Hitler replied crisply, “Jawohl.”
Hitler exercised his constitutional right to free speech and freedom of assembly to hold rallies across the country and spew invective in all directions—against Bolsheviks, social democrats, immigrants, Jews, even fellow rightwing nationalists. He chided the ruling elites. If God had intended aristocrats to run the country, Hitler said at one rally in fall 1932, “we’d all have been born with monocles.” He vowed to make Germany great again. He promised a Third Reich bigger and better than the previous two.
You will find that most democracies allow Hitlers to rise anyway because they do not actually work how democracy is meant to work anyway. Democracy almost never lets the popular one win. Part of why coubtries like UK and Germany are now safer from a new Hitler is specifically due to anti democratic republican setups in place to make the most popular one lose at times if they cannot gain seats or if the others coalition. They also maintain unelected House of Lords in UK as well as Royal Family tontopple any democraticallt elected leader deemed too disloyal to the nation. Irishman Pro will hate that but Ireland is not as much better as he assumes, for his cause.
In Ireland there is security to make sure an elected leader cannot really do all they necessarily promised. First of all, they have to share the houses of parliament (or the Irish equivalent) with many ofnthe less popular party that can be a vot blockade so if enough MPs within the majority party also oppose it, they secure a bill defeated. In fact they also can vote no confidence in the leader and eradicate/oust a rightly elected leader.
Also, the majorty of people don't really elect much. They elect a sham of a leader with many false promoses and then have 0 say on pooicy decisions of the leader once actually in power.
If I promise you I will ban green paint and party with green paint all over me and green clothes sticking middle fingers up, laughing, you cannot do anything to me inside democracy. In certain dicatorahips, that would lead to my military killing me and couping.
Life is not a gamenof democracy. We did not elect God, lesser animals did not elect us to lead them. We never elect our parents.
Life is not democratic. Get over it.
Do you know who can actually stop a Hitler ever rising? A different autocrat.
Round 3
Forfeited
Democracy is a sham.
If 99/111 people want Christian dictatorship to become law...
Wait.
That is a good idea.
Round 4
My opponent’s argument is not only incoherent, it is built on fear, fantasy, and fallacy. It reads like an unedited rant dressed up as political analysis.
Let’s dissect this carefully.
First, their central claim is a false dilemma, that we must choose between democracy and a so-called “Christian dictatorship.”
This isn’t just bad logic, it’s laughable.
Democracies come in many forms, with checks, balances, and built-in protections. You do not need to abandon human rights just because democracy requires difficult decisions. Presenting dictatorship as the only alternative shows a complete misunderstanding of political theory.
Con evidently relies heavily on the slippery slope fallacy, claiming that if we allow freedom of speech, it will inevitably lead to neonazis taking power, Sharia law dominating, or rape being legalised. That is not argument. That is hysteria.
Modern liberal democracies are not systems where majorities can simply vote away human rights. They are governed by constitutions, judicial review, and international law, all of which exist specifically to prevent such outcomes.
Con's argument is also packed with historical falsehoods.
Con claims that “Christian dictatorships fixed rape, murder, and theft”, which is absurd.
Medieval Christian regimes tortured heretics, executed “witches,” banned books, and treated women as property. If that’s your idea of “human rights,” you’ve rewritten history with a blinding theological bias.
Human rights as we know them came from Enlightenment thinkers, liberal revolutions, and secular law, often opposed by those very theocracies.
The Hitler example is misused again, painfully.
Hitler did not come to power through a fully democratic majority. He manipulated a weak system, intimidated opponents, and abolished democracy as soon as he could. The lesson here is not that democracy enables fascism, the lesson is that we must strengthen democratic institutions to prevent their abuse.
What Con's offered is a classic strawman fallacy, attacking a version of democracy that exists only in your head.
Even worse is the outright discrimination in Con's rhetoric.
Con repeatedly suggests that immigrants , (without naming them but clearly targeting Muslims), will outbreed and brainwash their children to vote away freedoms. This is textbook xenophobia, cloaked in concern. It paints entire communities as a threat based solely on origin or religion.
That is not only morally bankrupt, it’s politically useless. Modern democracies have laws, education, and cultural integration, not because they are perfect, but because they are self-correcting. That’s what makes them stronger than any dictatorship.
Con also leans on shock tactics by invoking child marriage, apostasy killings, and unspeakable abuse to frighten the audience rather than persuade them.
Con also leans on shock tactics by invoking child marriage, apostasy killings, and unspeakable abuse to frighten the audience rather than persuade them.
That is not debate. That is emotional manipulation and an insult to survivors who deserve respectful discourse, not rhetorical weapons.
Then, Con says “Life is not democratic. Get over it.” That’s not analysis. That’s a meme.
Then, Con says “Life is not democratic. Get over it.” That’s not analysis. That’s a meme.
Life isn’t democratic, sure, but governments are not nature. They are human inventions, meant to lift us above violence, fear, and power without reason.
We don’t elect God or our parents because those aren’t political roles, but we elect leaders because we believe in justice, not bloodline.
Lastly, Con's idea that a “different autocrat” could stop someone like Hitler is perhaps the most dangerous nonsense of all. Dictators do not stop evil, they often become it. You have offered nothing more than a swap of uniforms, replacing one tyrant with another and calling it a solution. It’s not.
Conclusion:
Con's argument relies on fear, not logic. On fantasy, not fact. On prejudice, not policy.
Con misuses history, misrepresents democracy, and insults both the intelligence of the audience and the seriousness of this topic.
If Con truly cares about freedom, justice, and safety, the answer isn’t dictatorship dressed up in religion. It’s a stronger, smarter, and more accountable democracy.
I look forward to Con's attempt of rebuttal.
Not published yet
My commitments raised much difficulty in abiding by the 1 day time for argument, particularly for that day. I did not voluntarily forfeit. I am officially announcing this to eliminate any impression that I deliberately forfeited round. Thanks
This debate is, now half-complete, shaping up to be a very good debate worthy of voting on. I encourage members to do so. It may be one in which [not to put too fine a point on drama] is not won until the final round. I'm curious why it has not attracted more attention here in the gallery. Is this an over-debated issue? Seems members are still willing to use the Forum in open discussion of two of three most frequently visited topics, politics and religion [with the third being, in my estimation, the absurd topic of gaming, in which I don't think I have entered a single posting in 5 years. If I have, it is to express this sentiment].
worst form