Round 1. wahoo V mig12: The Elite

The topic for this debate is "Only the elite can truly successfully manage national affairs."

wahoo will be arguing for this proposition and will open the debate.
mig12 will argue against this proposition.

Each debator will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

No post will be longer than 800 words and in the case of the closing statement no longer than 500 words. In the event of a debator posting more than the stated word limit then the excess words will be deleted by me from the bottom. Credits or references at the bottom count as part of the post.

Editing is Strictly forbidden. This means any editing, for any reason. Any edited posts will be completely deleted.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements only one image or link may be included in any post. Opening and Closing statement must not carry either images or links.

As a guide responses should be made within 18 hours. However if the debate is moving forward then I have a relaxed attitude to this. However, if people are consistently late with their replies, they will forfeit the debate.

Judging will be done by an anonymous panel of 11 judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. Results will be posted by me as soon as a majority (6) is reached.

This debate is now open, good luck to both of you.

EDIT: Due to Quicksilver taking too long with the opening, the reserve (wahoo) has been called upon to take the affirmative side instead.

[Edited on 22-2-2004 by Kano]

Ahhhh...first off I would like to say that I hope everything is ok with Quicksilver. Thanks to Kano and others for allowing me to step in at the last moment, and to mig good luck as this would seem a difficult topic, and I look forward to hearing your views....

My... at first glance this topic would seem to raise the hair on the back of my neck, me being NOT one of the elite but as I have pondered this more and more I have come to the conclusion that I very strongly concur with this idea.
Whether we like it or not America is truly a country that is based upon the class system. True every adult has a voice in the government but who do we voice our opinions to??? The elite. Now by elite I am making a broad assumption that we are referring to the long rumored and much maligned "1% that rules America" spouted by conspiracy theorists for years.
Now it doesn't take rocket science to see that with increased socio-economic status comes increased oppurtunities, which I shall outline for us before all is done. Also with this status comes power, it would seem a sad yet realistic adage but money DOES equal power.
And who better to handle our national affairs, but those in power already, and those used to power. Do we really want some uneducated bumkin from Podunk, U.S.A. representing our country and making decisions that will affect generations to come?? I think not!!!

I would like to say thank you to all the judges for taking time out of their busy schedule for this, to Kano, for all his hard work and help, and to my peer, wahoo, for his energy and time. Let's get this thing on the road!

Before we start we must first define the word we are debating. My American Heritage English Dictionary describes elite as:

e�lite or �lite
n. pl. elite or e�lites

1. A group or class of persons or a member of such a group or class, enjoying superior intellectual, social, or economic status.
2. The best or most skilled members of a group: the football team's elite.

The point I will be proving in my arguement is that the elite are not the only ones who can manage national affairs. When we describe the "elite" we can describe them as being higher than the intellectual, or economic standards. If we do "voice our opinons to the elite" it is because we have elected them there. If we voice our opinions to "the other 99% of Americans" it is because we have elected them there. As you will see, many figures in history have managed us without being elite.

I'd like to say thank you one more time. Good luck, and godspeed.

Man oh man it's on....

First i would like to thank mig for regaling us with the definition of elite. My old buddy Luke would cringe but we all are aware of my proclivity for definitions. The only problem with this time is that you have shot your debate in the foot right off the bat mig. In two different ways, here allow me to use your own defintion against you.

A group or class of persons or a member of such a group or class, enjoying superior intellectual, social, or economic status.

Please tell me that you would want someone of superior intellectual status running our country and handling our affairs. It would keep me up at night if someone of average intellectual capacity was sitting on Capitol Hill pondering the war on Irag, or deciding what legislation to support or rally against. In my humble opinion i would pray to God that the intellectually elite are who is in control right now.

The best or most skilled members of a group: the football team's elite.

Again I would hope that our country is being run by the best and most skilled businessmen, politicans and military leaders. If not we are in some serious trouble mister.

As for your assertion that many figures throughout history have managed us without being elite, that doesn't make sense to me. To even be a figure in history would make one socially elite by your definition of the word.

Back to you my friend......

Here we go...

Please tell me that you would want someone of superior intellectual status running our country and handling our affairs.

Of course that is what one would want, but please refer to the topic at hand. If you look two posts up to Kano's first post the topic is: Only the elite can truly successfully manage national affairs. One would hope this, but the "regualrs" can handle these duties also. Seeing as your last post has just been decemated, I will move on.

The 31 women leaders around the globe "come from both the world's largest and smallest countries, the richest and poorest countries, the most socially and economically advantaged and disadvantaged countries. In addition to coming from diverse countries, the global women leaders also come from diverse personal backgrounds. Some are rich and some poor. Some come from societally prominent families, while others come from families without substantial influence."*

This proves that while economically disadvantaged leaders can lead just as well as those who are. These women leaders lead their contries not only competently but also above the norm.

Back to you...
*www.cic.sfu.ca...

I'm sorry mig but with all due respect I can't make heads or tails out of your post here. Who are these women? You failed to name even one, but I'm guessing that as I posted above if they are indeed a household name then they enjoy the status of being among the socially elite. Now by your own definition elite DOES NOT only refer to financial status but also to intellectual and potlitcal as well. Is it possible that these women fit into any of these categories? I'm willing to bet that they do.

Truly I would hate to have to argue the dissent on this one as to me it seems nearly impossible. As you attempted to point out in your opening, even if we look to the "other 99%" for leadership, it is because we elected them there. Well it is plainly obvious that if indeed these people were elected, then by your own definition they will then achieve the status of being socially elite.

You know elite is not a bad thing. If you were having brain surgery would you want the person who barely scraped through medical school always on the verge of flunking out or would you want a surgeon who was in the top 10% or the "elite" of the class? If you were on trial for your life would you want the guy who just barely graduated from Acme Community College night school of Law, or would you want the creme de la creme from Harvard or Yale Law arguing on your behalf? I know my answer and I feel pretty confident in most everyone else's answer as well. Sure the regular people could go through the motions but would they be SUCCESSFUL at these things?

I am truly sorry...

As soon as I hit the post button I realized that I forgot to name the women. Some of these women include Tarja Kaarina Halonen, Mireya Elisa Moscoso de Arias, Vaira Vike-Freiberga, Helen Clark, and Jennifer Smith. These women come from all the corner of the globe. The come from Bermuda, New Zealand, Panama, Lativa and Finland.

Of course elite is not a bad thing. If I can redirect your attention back to the top of the page, the topic is: Only the elite can truly successfully manage national affairs. One example of someone aspiring to power who was not raised in a socially, financially, or intellectually elite is Abraham Lincoln. At the time, this man was not known by much of America, did not have very much money, and had no formal education, yet he still aspired to power. One of the reasons behind the south's secession was because they did not know this strange man. They only knew he was from a party which didn't support slavery. Seeing as how you have yet to prove your point, I hand it back to you.

"Greatness is not a birthright." - Newest Adidas Commercial

Thanks for the names, but as I already stated it doesn't matter as these women are household names. Therefore making them among the socially elite.

I'm really unclear as to why you feel I have not yet proven my point, heck you even agree with me. Allow me to reiterate, that with ANY type of elitism comes power. You own example of Abraham Lincoln is a fine example of this. True he was raised in poverty, but as I have already pointed out one can be considered elite in areas other than finances. Mr. Lincoln was an among the intellectually elite at an early age, indeed his desire for learning made him the best of the best among his peers or "elite". Through his drive and determination he became among the "elite". This all culminated when he won the Republican nomination in 1860. Truly Mr. Lincoln is a fine example of the American Elite.

You see mig, your mistake is in making the wrong assumption of the meaning of the word elite. Which really confuses me as we are operating off of your own definition. One doesn't have to be born elite.

Now really who better to run our national affairs than the creme de la creme of American Society? I realize I have said this more than once but it is the truth I speak my friends. If a person doesn't even have the drive to be the best at whatever it is that they do, would we want them managing this country? Would we want someone who is third or fourth best in their profession representing the U.S.A. to foreign countries? Would we want someone who was just "regular" deciding when to wage war on other countries? Of course we wouldn't !

And frankly mig so far you have failed to show one example of how a regular person can successfully manage the affairs of this great nation.......

Are these names really household names? I for one have never heard of even one of these women.

Let me make myself clearer. Does one type of elite make the person among one of the elite? I, for one, wouldn't want a socially elite person such as Jessica Simpson in the White House, or any place in power for that matter. Can you see what would happen if she mistook an invading country for "those Car-making people"? (I was referring to the incident when she mistook tuna for chicken.)

Last time I checked, I didn't see the topic as "Only the elite can successfully manage the US' affairs". No, the topic is NATIONAL affairs. One could make a pint for any country. You misassumed that I lived in "the great US of A". Honestly, the US isn't that great of a country. If the US is being run by these elite, why are they doing so horribly? Bush has falisified documents, he invaded Iraq for oil, there might be another draft, etc. etc. etc.

So, seeing as just being socially elite doesn't make one elite for our cases, what does make one elite? The line is very blurry. How can we define it? Truth is, being socially elite doesn't make one automatically elite. I think that in actuality, one must have two of these characteristics.

I look forward to your closing statement, Woohoo.

Well I sahll attempt a closing statement here. Thanks mig for NOT clearing anything up and in fact stirring the already muddy water. (Jessica Simpson WTF?)

Obviously I have shown several reasons why only the elite, whether it be financially, socially or intellectually, can be the ONLY logical choice to successfully manage national affairs. I used America as an example as that is the only country I know.

Mig has failed to give one incidence, example or situation in which one of the "regular people" have shown that they could manage national affairs. At least from what I could tell.

I will now leave this in the hands of the judges....tahnk you mig....and thanks again everyone for letting me step in at the last minute......

Ok, let's wrap this thing up...

Obviously, wahoo doesn't know the social figures of his own country, so therefore, one cannot be considered socially and in power. Hell, Jessica Simpson can even be considered financially elite, but I wouldn't want her ruling my country.

As for me failing to prove my point, I think I did. I don't think you ever proved your point, for that matter. I have shown that these women that come from financially, intellectually, and socially deprived countries can rule just as well as the "elitists" in the world.

I leave this in the judge's hands. Thank you very much.

Good job, I'll open the crypt and let the judges out to get judging.

Results in a day or so.

Well done to both of you. The results are in.

The winner of this debate by a margin of 6-4 is mig12 congratulations to mig12 and commiserations to wahoo.

Good luck to mig12 in the next round.