Democracy is the best form of government
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
- 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
No information
Pro- starts with the definition and key features. "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.".
Con- "Fascism can be good and Authoritarianism is necessary.".- Makes a statement Which is not relevant to his opponent's argument.
Continues to misrepresent the term:
"Democracy blackmails regularly. It has authoritarian laws and enforces them in authoritarian manner.
There is no such thing as a non aithoritarian regime." Mistaking it for a dictatorship.
"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?" Also irrelevant to the actual term on which this debate is centered.
Pro continues to adress all his points accordingly- "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."
"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."
Con again points to irrelevant non-democratic societies such as saudi arabia- "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."
Then turns to defending his religion. wich is not a political system.
"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."
"It is not wrong. If my opponent wishes to stop neonazis ever rising he must support a dictatordhip that bans them. Currently most democracies are such dictatorships, proving themselces wrong. However, many dictators of sorts have risen inside democracy.
Submit to Jesus, son of God.
For real. kneel!"
This is a misconduct. Religious rant in a political discussion.
Need i say more after this?
Until one analyzes the Resolve, one may relive this debate is about the practice of government, but that is the incorrect application of this debate; the Resolve can be interpreted only as it is worded, and practice is not its intent, but its "form." That is the keyword of the Resolve. Pro sets that tone in R1, arguing a Resolve-based conclusion: "Democracy holds individuals in power responsible for their actions." Con's R1 is concluded by the initial argument, "Fascism can be good and Authoritarianism is necessary. Democracy is inherently corrupt for a few reasons." The reasons listed are matters of government practice, which is not only contrary to the Resolve [a correct counter-BoP, but going after the wrong BoP, for it does not address "form," because neither address power's responsibility for government actions, but are authoritarian by form. Con also argues "There is no such thing as a non-authoritarian regime," and "There is a quiet tyranny to it all," and "Democracy... leads to multiculturalism," These first two, again, aim at practice, not form for the same reasons noted above. The third is used as if multiculturalism is government form, but it is culture, not government form or practice.
Pro's R2 rebuts fascism's authoritarian form resulted in the holocaust, an historical fact, that multiculturalism is a social structure, and that "tyranny" is not democracy's form, but a illogical practice by some.
But Con's R2 also contains an unintelligible argument: "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." That is not only nonsense, but inapplicable to theResolve, nor Con BoP, having no reference to color.
Pro's R3 is an admitted unintentional forfeit, but it represents only 125% of the rounds, and there is no conduct point in. a winner selection debate.
Con's R3 declares o joke about a small, democratic vote that concluded the vote is a good idea, which argues against his BoP
Pro's R4 declares "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," then proceeds to detail each issue, such as the historical inaccuracies of Hitler's 1932 election [See comments], rhetorical discrimination, and "Modern democracies have laws, education, and cultural integration, not because they are perfect, but because they are self-correcting."
Con's R4 beginning: "My opponent clings to proving that democracy can work. I agree. It can work." Thpugh surely not intended, thy amounts to a concession. It wasn't necessary.
Pro wins by argument, not by a joke.
> I don't know if you are a bot or a person.
Moderators are not bots, but we do use boilerplate descriptions for some of the most common vote removal reasons.
That said, we actually do appreciate you putting the time and effort to vote. The policy we enforce is necessary to minimize issues perceived unfairness… Imagine you debate your favorite topic, you make what you believe are excellent thought provoking points, and then voters talk about their opinion of the topic without addressing what you wrote… That would suck right? While that’s taking it a few steps further than what you mean to do, but hopefully it still works as an analogy for you of what feeling to avoid.
You have the username wrong btw. That is pierree not UC.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Umbrellacorp // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
it is not only for the argument, but also for the patience to have dealt with someone that acts like pro in the debates. Not criticising the argument's because both sides have played really well but ideally I'm closer with Pro's ideas. Great debate anyway
>Reason for Mod Action:
Voter does not adaequetly analyze the arguments in this debate.
**************************************************
It is the 3rd time i repost my vote. The only way it would be sufficient would be for me to say that all your arguments are nonsense and completely break the rules of human logic. But such votes do not count here. I am sorry you don't even understand that your arguments do not have anything to do with democracy.
Its unrated and even if rated Id have debated it similarly.
I accept the loss now. Fauxlaw sealed it. Your vote imo is still insufficient but I guess it wouldn't get removed.
It is an L. I think people like democracy too much to comprehend its flaws.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Umbrellacorp // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to Pro
>Reason for Decision:
My new vote. Hopefully not 'vague'! And with quoting.
Pro- starts with the definition and key features. "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.". - A basic argument but good for starters. Defends his stance.
Con- "Fascism can be good and Authoritarianism is necessary.".- What does this have to do with anything? Are you implying that Pro is defending fascism? I don't understand but anyway, an irrelevant statement to start your argument with.
-"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.". - These two arguments make understand that he doesn't even know what he is talking about. How does it depend on 'pot luck' if the party of the majority gets selected? Have you no idea what democracy means? Yes, people who did not vote like the majority might suffer in a hypothetical strictly democratic system. It is not the case in reality, because they get representation for the % of votes, but he is right on the perspective. Then he says it leads to 'multiculturalism'. What??????? How???? If the majority wins, then where is the multi-culture?
Again he states:-"Democracy blackmails regularly. It has authoritarian laws and enforces them in authoritarian manner.". Source for this. Maybe cite an authoritarian law? Also, this statement is brutal in itself. Implying that 'Democracy is authoritarian'. Totaly the oposite of what it is. If you derive this from a real life example then cite! But again, this is not a topic about the democracy in 'x' country.
Excuse me but i am not going to go further to the christian arguments. They for me do not count. It is clear con doesn't know what he is talking about here.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Voters are required to only consider arguments made in the debate and not impose their own arguments on the debate to make their decision. In this case, the voter appears to respond to Con directly without explaining what points Pro made that establish he won the debate apart from pointing to the initial argument Pro makes and saying he defended it. If Con's arguments were defeated by Pro, then it should be clear how he did that.
**************************************************
I said your "can be" was a joke, that Pro won by argument. You missed the entire point that the win was by pointing out the distinction between your accused practice and the Resolve's point of form by the very word. Hey, you know you did; it was your hammer all four rounds. Form, my friend, is an ideal, not necessarily a practice, though you admit it can be a practice that we treat one another by the form.
How did I concede?
It can work doesnt mean it is the best... How was that a concession?
Con's argument in R2 of Hitler's rise to power is a mish-mash citation of an article with poor math mistakes I'll let y'all figure out in detail. Doesn't really matter, because Hitler did not win the election, but took power anyway, very uin-democratically. Con says, because the article says that Hitler had 37% of the election results and that 37% is 75% of 51%, therefore, a majority of the vote. An election total would be 100% of the vote total, not 51%, yeah? Hitler, and the article writer ignored 49% of the voters. A mistake is published as fact, and read and cited as fact. Oops.
If you have time in tbe next 2 days, please vote. Thanks
Umbrellacorp is using his own rebuttals amd arguments agianst my case and ignores that I myself address most of those arguments in later Rounds than Round 1.
A major example of this being unfair is the fact he takes for granted that Pro states that liberty comes with democracy.
I proved both that Democracy is not actually liberal and that liberalism can interfere with protecting against evil in a nation. He ignores all my rebittals to Pro and says I needed sources.
I was the only side that used sources.
I don't know if you are a bot or a person. But if you read the debate, con completely deviates from the topic here. I voted based of those early points they both made, which i explain. I don't understand the removal of this vote.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Umbrellacorp // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 1 to pro
>Reason for Decision: I will vote for pro even though i do not agree with his stance, but his arguments are considerable. Con fumbles hard here. There are a few potent and irrefutable arguments (with real life examples) to be made supporting his position and i can't find any of them in his arguments. Instead he turns it into some kind of a written rant, but that is none of my business.
>Reason for Mod Action:
In essence, this vote was just too vague... This can be avoided in future by just commenting on the core contention (and the main counterpoint or the lack thereof), listing a single source you found important (if voting sources), saying what conduct violation distracted you (if voting conduct)... You need not write a thesis, but some minimal level of detail is required to verify knowledge of what you're grading.
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************
As said before, I'm not gonna debate religion. It's like speaking to a wall. U can have the last laugh or call It ignorance, idc tbh
Couple of corrections to my.
own stuff:
I said founded.
The Founder of Orthodoxy and Catholicism is listed as Christ himself. My apologies.
Secondly its is Apostolic, not Apostolitic.
As for your Biblical ignorance, see here:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020%3A21-23&version=NCB
Change it to whichever translation suits you and click the magnifying glass. That is New Catholic Bible translation.
As for what I said, it is so important to realise this:
First there was a Church
Then there was the Bible in the 300s.
The Bible was finalised and compiled by what became Catholicism and primarily Eastern Orthodoxy. Admittedly, Oriental Orthodox, Jews and others may have contributed to the Bible. Regardless we would regard the Jews as Messianic Jews and they would be moderm Christians rather than Jews perhaps if in this era.
There is no possible way to deny that the Bible you are reading does not for instance say Trinity. Also it doesn't have the Apostle's Creed. So as a protestant you are clinging to concepts from Catholicism to comprehend it.
Peter and the apostles could not forgive on God's behalf. It's never biblically implied or stated. Only God himself has the supreme authority to forgive sins.
In the pentecost, the spirit of God came down and blessed the disciples with gifts so that they could preach to the masses, this only gave them some degree of authority in order to spread the gospel.
“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
Jesus didn't call Peter himself, "his rock", as you state.
As evident above, he said that "upon this rock I will build my church".
the Bible never implies that there will be a Pope elected, one after the other.
So I'd advise religiously latching on to only what the Bible says as it's the pure word and will of God himself.
There is a large amount of historical indoctrination that is fed to people of the Catholic denomination to this day, which goes against what God has to say, and what Jesus said.
St. Peter and the Apostles could forgive on God's behalf. Not at first while Christ was alive, it came later on that he appointed Peter as the head of the church. He already called Simon Peter his 'rock' while alive.
This is very very key to understand.
There was a Church first, the Bible came 300s as they finalised the Apstolitic teachings in the First Council of Nicaea (but for Eastern Orthodox it took 3 more Councils to finish their theories). Some of these peopleoved West afte the First Council amd founded what is now known as Catholicism.
The original church was not Catholic (biblically).
If you're historically aware of the reformation and Catholicism in early Christian Ireland, you would know that the Catholics manipulated the Bible for their own means
(which were extremely corrupt and against the Bible). For instance - the sale of indulgences, consubstantiation, Mary being holy (without sin).
There's no mention of any of this within the Bible.
The concept of there being a Pope, and there being a process of "confession" is also not biblically accurate at all.
Furthermore, they also see Genesis as symbolic, which is biblically absurd as it's written in detail as a historical account.
All this is the reason why I follow the Bible alone, these denominations run on their own man made agendas rather than relying on God himself.
The Catholics and Orthodox are stemming directly from the original Church. Protestants have no claim to it.
Those are Sect differences denomination is within a Sect.
St. Peter was the first Pope to Catholics and the first example of a Patriarch apostle or something, to the Eastern Orthodox. The Oriental Orthodox (North African, not Chinese) have their own Pope. They are closer to Eastern Orthodox in dogma but have some Cath stuff they agree on tradition-wise. The Coptic Rite is arguably slightly closest to EO of the OO Rites. That is the one with the Pope.
No. I'm non denominational. I don't stick to denominational agendas, only whats written in the Bible. In case u want to oppose this, I prefer not to debate religion
Oh no are you an Irish Presbytarian?
If you have knowledge of the Old Testament, I'd say u disagree with the concept of being transgender in general (not to imply hate). So no, I don't think you'd disagree with the title of the debate. I'm not in the catholic denomination, but it's good that you've turned to God if you genuinely have. I'll pray for you.
I am a Catholic convert. Do you think I disagree?
Join my debate. It's the corrected version of the last one we had
You brought adult topics into a mafia game where 13 yos can play and under 13s can access.
I dont think staying on topic is top of your agenda.
I have no idea where we got off topic. Democracy leads to the ability of those entering a nation to end up totally altering its laws. That is an actual flaw of it for those already there.
Started reading this, and I may come back to it... But I will say it got painfully off topic.
Hello everyone. Please cast your votes when feasible. Thank you
Peter says similar elsewhere, stronger even.
I just like the Ephesians wording slightly more for this debate's context.
Thanks for accepting the debate and persisting through it. Just to clarify, I’m not a catholic, Paul’s teaching at the end was not relevant to the debate.
I’m not sure how you know that I’m from Ireland, and that doesn’t automatically mean that I’m a catholic.
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