Head-2-Head Kamikaze Debate: Is Democracy Really The Best Form Of Government?

page: 1
5

log in

join

posted on Apr, 22 2007 @ 08:38 AM
link   
Welcome to the first round of Head-2-Head Kamikaze Debate!

This is a new format that we are testing out with our members, and seeing if it works. We'll get our feet wet, give a few members an opportunity to duke it out, and then see if we need to add, remove, or tweak any little portion of the process. Remember, this is your forum, your debate, and we are hear to operate to meet your needs. But enough of that, lets get to it.

Subject

"Democracy Is The Best Form Of Government"

Participants

Pro - enjoies05
Con - whatukno

Guidelines

1. Each member will post an opening statement, two rebuttals, and one closing statement.

2. Outside links are acceptable. (Note: Rule Change While using external links is acceptable, quoting external sites is not acceptable)

3. No pictures are permitted in any post.

4. Each reply must be within 72 hours of the previous.

5. Opening & Closing Statements have a restriction of 5,000 characters. All Rebuttals have a restriction of 10,000 characters. Anything over that limit will be edited out.

6. enjoies05 will post first.

If either of you see an infraction, contact me via u2u to discuss the course of actions.

General Rules

The following General H2H Debate Rules (current at the time this debate started) apply:

1. Any violation of the terms of a debate will result in a forfeiture.

2. Debate posts may not be edited by participants for any reason.

3. Any participant may voluntarily forfeit at any time.

4. Forfeitures are final. If you want a rematch, start a new debate thread.

5. Only agreed-upon participants may post to a debate thread.

6. Disruption by non-participants in debate threads, T&C violations or failure to cooperate with the H2H staff may result in loss of Fighter status.

7. AP/H2H staff may take action as they see fit to maintain proper H2H forum operation.

8. As with all forums, the AboveTopSecret.com Terms And Conditions Of Use apply.

9. Quoting external sources is strictly forbidden. Members are permitted to reference links as sources, but they are not permitted to quote external sources. The only quotes that should be used in these debates are that of their opponent's replies.

(New) 10. No emoticons are permitted in any Head-2-Head Debate post.

Good luck to both participants! Contact me via u2u when the debate has concluded.

Thanks.




posted on Apr, 22 2007 @ 01:55 PM
link   
In a Democracy everybody has a voice. The public votes for a person who they think will be best suited to serve them and their country. It is the best form of government because every single voter has the power to change the polls - everyone matters. It gives the common man a voice. And this also gives a broad range of support and loyalty to the government. Why wouldn't you want to give every person an equal voice?


The other forms of governments are worse then Democracy.

Dictatorship

One ruler with total control is not a good idea at all. A Dictator's policies suit their own needs, not the peoples. The needs of the people can be neglected. And the decisions the Dictator makes can be wrong or dangerous and not supported by the people, but they cannot do anything about it. This is the same case for an Oligarchy government.

Anarchy

Anarchy is violent, dangerous and no order whatsoever. I don't think anybody would want their country to be like that.

Monarchy

This is also a form of government where there is one ruler, and the common people have no voice at all on what they think or want. This complete power is passed down from one person to the next through family, so it is possible that there could be a ruler that has no ability to do their job at all and it would not matter. The general population gets very little regards from the ruler.

Democratic countries have been more successful in being peaceful with neighbors, educating the citizens of the country and construction purpose in society, and growth in economy.

In a Democracy people have freedom to do what they want, not what one ruler wants them to do. Church and State are separated in a Democracy, which is also a good thing. Other reason is Democracy protects human rights better than any other form of government.

I think the most important people in a country are the common people, and they need to have a voice in how their government is run and who is running it. They need to have their problems and issues taken care of, and other forms of government don't take care of them. People need a voice, and Democracy gives them that voice.

Good luck Whatukno. (Would have been a smiley here except it's not allowed. Ha)

This Kamikaze Debate is a challenge, but I'm up for it. I'm sure you're up for it too. Good luck once again.



posted on Apr, 22 2007 @ 02:48 PM
link   
I would like to begin by thanking chissler, and the ATS staff for allowing this debate. As this being a Kamikaze Debate going into this debate will present an excellent challenge I also would like to thank my opponent enjoies05 and I am sure this will be a great discussion for the both of us.

Now without further ado…

Democracy, it has been touted as the highest, most benevolent form of government known to man. But is it really the best form of government available? America when it was first formed as the grand experiment, ushered into existence a new idea based on the freedoms of the individual and the checks and balances of the branches of government.

However now we see that this system itself has its flaws. Over the last two centuries this republic has changed from its benevolent system for individual freedom to a near tyrannical oppressive regime. The individual has lost touch with their representatives; they fear the power that the federal government holds over them. The main currency is not printed and issued by the government itself but through the Federal Reserve. Our own constitution is circumvented routinely and maliciously to further the goals of individuals in power with no oversight by the people that elect these individuals. I will show that throughout history governments of this type naturally evolve into a dictatorship leaving the once benign system to rot away in favor of a more malicious tyrannical form of government.

Our elected officials now are no longer realistic representatives of the people but the representatives of the social elite. The common man has little in common with these people having neither the social status, nor the financial independence of these people in power. Often times our letters to our representatives are ignored or responded with a form letter that has little or nothing to do with what issue we have addressed.

With the arrival of the Department of Homeland Security we have within our lifetime witnessed a disconnected branch of our government that has little or no accountability to the citizenry formed. This newly developed branch of government with no oversight by the citizenry works nearly outside of the laws our government has built and maintained.

In this debate I will put forth the following points:

1. Democracy is an unstable form of government that limits the involvement of the individual citizen, and represses the population giving them little opportunity to refute decisions made by lawmakers, even less of the presidency, and none for the judicial branch. Through its design it can never last as a true democracy and eventually and inevitably destabilize into an empirical monarchy.

2. The increasing powers of non elected officials within our government has eroded the ideals of democracy and taken the power away from the citizenry that our government was formed to serve. These individuals are not subject to the people that they serve and have powers that are not specifically laid out in the constitution. Without any power to oversee these rogue branches of government and unelected individuals the power of the people in a democracy becomes null and void and the government that was once sworn to protect and defend the rights of the individual ceases to do so and begins to assert its own agenda free from reprisal from the citizenry.



posted on Apr, 22 2007 @ 04:45 PM
link   

The individual has lost touch with their representatives; they fear the power that the federal government holds over them.

How is this Democracy's fault? Why would somebody fear a person they voted for?

Do you think a citizen would be more afraid of a person they voted for, and a person they have the ability to change or a crazy Dictator who has complete control over them and doesn't care about what they want and need? What about a King or Queen who also has complete control? Wouldn't they fear them more? The leaders of a Democracy have the least amount of power over the citizens.



1. Democracy is an unstable form of government that limits the involvement of the individual citizen


Limits the involvement? Every citizen who is a voter is involved with the elections - so every individual citizen has a part in determining who runs their government. With other types of governments the citizens have no say at all in who runs it. What other ways would you like the citizens to be involved?


represses the population giving them little opportunity to refute decisions made by lawmakers, even less of the presidency, and none for the judicial branch.


Laws can be changed if enough people want them to be, and if those people work together to get them changed.

Besides, when there is an election being held the people vote for somebody to make laws that will stay and help the people. Elections aren't held just so the elected person can make a law only to have it changed every time a few people don't agree with it. If somebody is elected they have proven themselves, to the majority of the people, capable to make laws. Why would laws need to be changed? If a law was really in need of change a large percentage of people would agree, and it would probably get changed. But if it isn't a law that is so wrong that a large percent of citizens want it changed, it is most likely just somebody’s opinion. And if laws were passed just because of one or a few people’s opinion the country would be a mess.


Almost every type of Government has a person or a group of people that make laws. Wouldn't you rather have a say in who those people are? Again, in a Democracy people have that say. Other types do not.

Another plus for Democracy is that pretty much anybody can get elected if they get enough votes. If you really felt that the law-makers weren't doing a good job, you could run and get the votes of people and you could make the laws. You wouldn't have to be a family member to make laws like other forms of government.


If you don't think Democracy is the best form of government which one do you believe is? Unfortunately, every type has it's downsides and flaws, but Democracy has the least. Democracy is the best type for the people because it's made by the people. The common folk have more involvement with Democracy than any other form.

So again, what other type of government is a better choice than Democracy?



posted on Apr, 24 2007 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by enjoies05
How is this Democracy's fault? Why would somebody fear a person they voted for?


I was actually referring to those that are in our government that we do not vote for. These people wield a great amount of power with little or no oversight. We as the citizens of this country do not have any authority over these individuals but they have a lot of leeway in our lives every day.


Limits the involvement? Every citizen who is a voter is involved with the elections - so every individual citizen has a part in determining who runs their government. With other types of governments the citizens have no say at all in who runs it. What other ways would you like the citizens to be involved?


When was the last time someone that was not a part of the elite class won a high office in this country? In our society only those that can afford to run for office are able to. Great leaders are out there but without the financial backing they are unable to run for office. Besides the fact that our votes only affect the Electoral College and those few people are the ones that actually cast the votes that elect our leaders. To site the [url=http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html]2000 presidential election[/url, when Gore won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote he lost the presidency. So tell me that you vote counts for anything in this country?


Laws can be changed if enough people want them to be, and if those people work together to get them changed.


Unfortunately in this society we usually are forced to bend to the will of special interest groups that have the funding to buy the congressional votes. These are the people that have the influence in this "democracy" not the individual voter.


So again, what other type of government is a better choice than Democracy?


I have given a list of all available forms of government in my opening statement. While democracy looks great on paper in practice it fails to live up to its expectations.

Corruption and greed often times derail a promising form of government and this is a prime example in democracy.



posted on Apr, 26 2007 @ 10:34 AM
link   

I was actually referring to those that are in our government that we do not vote for. These people wield a great amount of power with little or no oversight. We as the citizens of this country do not have any authority over these individuals but they have a lot of leeway in our lives every day.
.

Yes, but there are those kinds of people in almost every other form of government. There are leaders that have complete control over the public’s lives; they have complete control of who will lead when they pass away. They don’t just have a lot of leeway, they have it all. And there is nothing the public can do. Would you want that, or Democracy where no one has complete control?


When was the last time someone that was not a part of the elite class won a high office in this country?


Well looking through the biographies of a number of US. Presidents, a lot of them started out with nothing spectacular, and worked there way up. Being elected for small positions and working their way up, gaining followers. I’m sure the average person who is driven could work their way up as well.


Besides the fact that our votes only affect the Electoral College and those few people are the ones that actually cast the votes that elect our leaders.


Here it explains it. The elector votes for the person who got the most votes in the state. The common people’s votes decide who gets the States Electoral vote. So yes, our votes count.



You mentioned that Kritarchy was a better form of government. In this form no one has any power over the public. Courts of law and the police have no more power than citizens. A country needs people in power, not total power mind you, but some form of power over it’s citizens to keep order and control.

Another thing about Kritacrhy is based on Natural Law. Natural Law doesn’t exist. Man created laws, not nature. If humans did what nature intended there would be no laws, no fighting, just freedom and peace, but I don't think that will be happening soon.



posted on Apr, 26 2007 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by enjoies05
The common people’s votes decide who gets the States Electoral vote. So yes, our votes count.


Interesting, I would bet you Al Gore would beg to differ. Having earned the majority of the popular vote, Al Gore lost the electoral votes. Also ask the voters in Miami Dade County in Florida if their votes counted.



You mentioned that Kritarchy was a better form of government...

Another thing about Kritacrhy is based on Natural Law. Natural Law doesn’t exist.


Natural law exists. I don't understand why you would say that natural law doesn't exist. There are many different versions of "Natural Law" typically this means that whatever customs and rules dictated by society is the natural law. It's a near perfect form of government, all humans are created equal. I believe that we should uphold that principal.

Democracy does make for a great promise of individual freedoms and it would seem that in theory it's a great form of government. However we have seen that corruption by the powerful does negate the fruitfulness of the labors of democracy.

Many other forms of government look promising on paper and in theory but in practice the people that receive the power from these forms of government often times abuse the power themselves and destroy the blessings of the government they are supposed to uphold and the people they are supposed to serve.

So I ask you what is wrong with a form of government where no one can hold such authority over any one else? What could be more beneficial to the populace of a nation than to know that you are truly equal to anyone else and not because of position or wealth or privilege.

The rule of law should be the rule of the people. Not the whim of government. We as the citizenry of the country should hold the keys to the nation.



posted on Apr, 27 2007 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Interesting, I would bet you Al Gore would beg to differ. Having earned the majority of the popular vote, Al Gore lost the electoral votes.


That election in Florida was very close. I myself am not sure what happened in that case. There were recounts after recounts and the difference was smaller than the margin of error. People and machines made mistakes and it was so close that it might have been the right outcome, or it could have been the wrong. But you cannot blame Democracy. At least in Democracy the people had a choice of who they wanted to vote for.


Democracy does make for a great promise of individual freedoms and it would seem that in theory it's a great form of government. However we have seen that corruption by the powerful does negate the fruitfulness of the labors of democracy.


Ok, that means people can ruin Democracy, just like they can ruin any other form of government. But the point is the debate is on which is the best form of government. Democracy is when people elect a person(s) to make laws to protect them and help them out. There is no one person ruling everybody. Democracy protects people’s rights; it doesn’t just push them aside. Laws aren’t made to make one person happy; it is to make the large part of the people happy in Democracy. Just because man has the capability to destroy this form of government (we can destroy anything, unfortunately) doesn’t mean it is still the best form of government.



So I ask you what is wrong with a form of government where no one can hold such authority over any one else? What could be more beneficial to the populace of a nation than to know that you are truly equal to anyone else and not because of position or wealth or privilege.


Because like a said before, if there is a large group of people they need a few to keep the order; to protect; to help out. Because lets face it there are a lot of people in this world that cannot care for themselves, and they need a leader to guide them and to help them. Not to push them aside and leave them out in the cold.


The rule of law should be the rule of the people. Not the whim of government.


It should be for the people, and by the people, which is what Democracy is.

I am finished!



posted on Apr, 27 2007 @ 07:14 PM
link   
We as a society have been taught that Democracy is the pinnacle of government bodies. We have been thoroughly indoctrinated in it's many glorious benevolent virtues. However we have been blinded by the fact that there are other forms of government out there that are on paper and in practice more feasible and less likely to degrade into corruption.

Corruption in a government is the cancer that eats away at the fabric of the society as a whole. When those in power abuse the rights and privileges given to them by the people the government looses something in the process. It's very soul itself.

We must also remember that as a species we are in a constant state of evolution and as such our ideas about how to govern ourselves will evolve over time and more benevolent and sometimes more terrifying forms of rule will evolve.

We as the human species need to also remember that in order to better ourselves we have to learn to govern ourselves as well. This is mankind's blessing, the ability to know that an ordered society is the key to our continued survival and proliferation. We as humans will find better forms of government out there to try and some will succeed and some will fail. It will all depend on the extent that we allow ourselves to be ruled.

This is why I believe that Democracy is not the best form of government because we as a people have not tried all forms of government. It would be impossible to say that one form of government is the greatest without trying out the others.

While there are many different forms of government listed in my opening argument I cannot tell you exactly which one is the best form. That question is one that should be left to the people that are to be ruled not for one person to decide.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank enjoies05 for his arguments and I would also like to take the time to thank Chissler and ATS for hosting this debate.



posted on Apr, 27 2007 @ 07:16 PM
link   
Our First Kamikaze Debate Has Concluded!

I will now close this debate until our judges can pick it apart and determine a winner. Congrats to both and we'll see what we come up with. I appreciate your patience and we'll have the results as soon as possible.

Stay Tuned...



posted on Apr, 30 2007 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Gather round, Gather round.

I've just received word from our judges, and the verdict is in. Before I post our note from the judges, I would like to congratulate whatukno and enjoies05 on a great debate and another worthy effort on both of their parts.

To the verdict...

 
 


Message From The Judges

This was a great debate, and certainly a great start to the newly formed "Kamikaze Debate". The two members, enjoies05 and whatukno, put forward a great debate and we all thought this was a most enjoyable debate. This one was a little shorter in material, but the debaters seemed to say just as much, just in fewer words.

Our decision here was based on one glowing fact that none of us could ignore. One member seemed to pose a lot of questions, but really came up with no answers. While one debater offered answers and facts, the other responded with a lot of hypothetical questions. This, and this alone, was the downfall of this member's debate, and ultimately was the determining factor in our decision.

We feel that whatukno won this debate, and enjoies05 only downfall was that he asked too many questions and offered too little answers. enjoies05 opening post was extremely well laid out, but seemed to waver off track track throughout the debate, and was caught up in asking too many questions to whatukno's posts.

Both deserve a huge round of applause and should be proud. whatukno fought hard and deserves this win. As for enjoies05, hopefully he can walk away from this with a little positive feedback and try a different approach in his next debate.

I know we look forward to it.

 
 


And there we have it. whatukno is victorious in the opening round of the "H2H Kamikaze Debate". Well deserved on his part, and his worthy adversary should be very proud as well.

A big thanks to our crew of judges for their time and efforts, as well as their positive feedback for both members. And one final congrats to both of our competitors, and I expect to see both of you back again sometime soon.

Good luck, and All The Best!

This debate is now open for any "Fighter" to comment on.


edit: bbcode

[edit on 30-4-2007 by chissler]



posted on Apr, 30 2007 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Great job enjoies, you did do well I thought in this and you do deserve respect for it. I know it was not the easiest debate for me to go with because I in fact am a staunch supporter of democracy after all.

I also know this settles a little side argument between enjoies and I that has been going on for a little while...

enjoies has been a good friend of mine even though sometimes we have not seen eye to eye and usually pick on each other. It was fun to face off with him during this debate and I hope it was as much fun for him as well.

Thank you chissler and ATS for bringing these debates back they have been great and I look forward to participating in many many more.



posted on Apr, 30 2007 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Aww shucks... 0 and 2

As soon as I got the u2u from Chissler I clicked it and saw the title and though, "Oh god"



Oh well. Nice job what. You deserved it.



posted on Apr, 30 2007 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Hey enjoies05,

After reading what the judges had to say, I have to agree with them. If you reread the debate, I think you will too. A lot of times in your posts, you posed a lot of questions without offering any answers. In a structured debate, judges are looking for you to provide more answers than ask questions. That was your downfall, and nothing more.

While it may be another notch on the belt, it is certainly an opportunity to receive some constructive criticism.

Pull a positive out of every situation.



posted on Apr, 30 2007 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Yeah, I read what they said, and agree too.



Thanks again for setting it up Chissler.

Hopefully next debate I'll do better.





new topics
top topics
 
5

log in

join