8E- Could a dictatorship work better than a democracy?
Yes, it could.
Side Score: 34
|
 |
No, it couldn't.
Side Score: 20
|
|
|
|
|
3
points
Opening Statement: Even though dictatorships are seen as worse than a democracy, this isn't always the case, though. Dictatorships have proven to be much better for developing countries. Research shows that even the cruelest dictatorships show enormous improvement in the economy.
Supporting Evidence:
http://www.businessinsider.com/
Side: Yes, it could.
2
points
Argument: When people say that a dictatorship needs to convert into a democracy then how is it that when Mr.Trump who claims to democratic also claims he will shut the press up that is a classic example of dictatorship. Yet people vote for him.They vote for the dictator. Most people would say that a dictatorship is the worst form of government. It is not as oppose to democracies the annual GDP such as in China the second largest in the world at $11,000,000 which falls short of the USA by $6,000,000 and Japan coming in after China with a difference of $ 7,000,000 which is significantly higher than the rest of the so called democratic counties. Side: Yes, it could.
1
point
hen people say that a dictatorship needs to convert into a democracy then how is it that when Mr.Trump who claims to democratic also claims he will shut the press up that is a classic example of dictatorship. Yet people vote for him.They vote for the dictator. Side: Yes, it could.
2
points
Argument : Crime goes with very lenient punishments, the right to fair trial is not a bad thing but the freedom democracy allows people to commit crime with ease and less fear.Example a man abuses his wife or vise versa, most would say he or she deserves die, this may not be right but 30 years in jail will not change the person. Rehabilitation will also not break the criminal mind either. Side: Yes, it could.
1
point
Argument: Dictatorships are known to greatly improve the economy of countries. One example if Francisco Franco and Spain. During his reign, he improved Spain's GDP by 4.36 times. Francisco was seen as a cruel and horrible ruler, however, he improved Spain's economy by a great amount. Another example is King Idris. Another ruler that is seen as bad that helped the country grow. King Idris improved Libya's GDP by 9.78 times. This shows that dictatorships are much better for developing countries as they help to improve the economy a lot.
Supporting Evidence:
http://www.businessinsider.com/
Side: Yes, it could.
3
points
Dictatorships are known to improve the economy of countries but out of the 15 richest countries in the world 13 are liberal democracies, showing that stability and reliability can work better for long term economical results. India which is one of the fastest growing economies is democracy. A poor country can also get our of poverty by becoming a democracy because it provides reliability with the government and example is Portugal which is an underdeveloped country that have accomplish a safe environment through political freedom and the democratic system. Side: No, it couldn't.
3
points
Even though many of the richest countries are democracies right now, that has not always been the case. Many countries developed through dictatorships, the switched to democracy to keep the economy sturdy and less changing. One example of this is Pakistan. Pakistan was in a horrible war situation, and they gave power to a dictatorship. Pakistan regained a sturdy government and switched back to a democracy. Also, even though the richest countries are democracies, the fastest growing economies are dictatorships. Some of the current day examples are Turkmenistan and Papua New Guinea.
Supporting Evidence:
https://www.cia.
Side: Yes, it could.
2
points
1
point
Democratic countries do make the people have a choice and more freedom. It is very rare for a dictatorship country to have a civil wars. A dictator would imprison the people against him. If that voice that the people have could make civil wars in the country they are in, then they do not deserve a voice. Countries must not have civil wars and if they are all dictatorships then it is rare that civil wars would happen. Civil wars tear families apart, and leads to lots of violence even more than dictatorships even if the dictator is bad. Side: Yes, it could.
Though your argument is fact, this does not prove that a dictatorship works better than a democracy because the people are still unhappy. What's the point of a good economy when most of the people are living in poor levels, and the leader is known as "bad." This good economy only benefits the Leader, few others, and maybe security of the country. This is currently happening in North Korea and considered a failed state. Only the Leader and a few other commanders are living well off while the people suffer. Side: No, it couldn't.
2
points
Though the people suffer it is only because they are forced to do a job they need to do and human nature is to go free and not do anything required the world would lay in chaos and ruins. Social equality runs among civilians because the leaders are above. Dictatorships leading to democracy is a common occurrence but the establishment of order is what allows the freer government to come through. Side: Yes, it could.
2
points
Saying that all dictators only focus on their own power is stereotyping. There are many benevolent dictatorships, such as Singapore, UAE and Qatar. These countries have a very high rate of happiness. People in these countries are not suffering at all. In fact, it's quite the contrary. Singapore has the lowest crime rate. Even though some dictators are only focused on their own power, there are also many dictators who care a lot about the people as well. Side: Yes, it could.
2
points
Statistics are more important for a country. There are 'happy' dictatorships.Do not say there are not bad democracies either. Side: Yes, it could.
1
point
Closing statement: Though democracies may seem to work on the surface due to the imperfection of human nature order is also needed. A healthy mix of both is very rare on this planet. Economic stability and environmental consciousness is preferable to economic instability in order to apease the majority that turns itself away from the minority Side: Yes, it could.
|
3
points
Opening Statement: The most important thing a dictatorship lacks that democracy has is citizen participation. The citizens or people get to vote on desitions, representatives in the government and head of state. With the people having a say in the government this reduces the chances of the people going against the government. Side: No, it couldn't.
2
points
Argument: Dictators would take away freedom of speech so that no one will revolt against their interests. Freedom of Speech is key for democracy to work because the people need to express their ideas and complaints about the government to be able to live happily in the country. For example, same sex marriage was legalized in the US because the citizens were allowed to protest the idea and government later took in in consideration to pass it. Next, dictators come into rule by force, so most of the population wouldn’t want that person ruling them in the first place. In democracy, citizens are sure to have a say in who runs their government. For example, when random military leaders took over in South Korea, almost the whole population were against them. In conclusion, democracy works better than a dictatorship because there is citizen participation in the government. Citation: Jackson, Tom. South Korea. Washington D.C.: National Geographic 2007. Print. Side: No, it couldn't.
1
point
Votes of the people are equal not necessarily a bad thing if people were perfect AND equal, there are some ignorant voters who do not reflect on their choice and develop a herd mentality because, majority must be right. The minority is usually not heard out as the majority turns a blind eye to their claims some of the time being more legitimate to even outsiders. Equality they said. As democracy is a system where people get to vote and majority rules, a candidate must give up truth as that is usually what people do not want to hear. Which is why a lot of people say that their president didn’t do anything, he only told them what they wanted to hear. Side: Yes, it could.
When you saw "majority" and "minority" you are speaking of the people. The people would turn a blind to each other but the government listens to every opinion. The government represents the views of the people who elect them and can throw them out if the government does things that the people do not like. Side: No, it couldn't.
1
point
Not all dictators come to rule by force. There are dictators that have followers and many people want them to get into power. One of the biggest examples is Musharraf of Pakistan. A large majority of the population wanted him to get into power. Also, having the majority be able to choose their ruler can be bad. In countries with a low literacy rate, very little people will know much about what the right choices are. In places with low literacy rates, a bad leader could be very easily chosen. There are also democratic countries that restrict freedom of press as well. Look at Turkey for example. In the past two years, many new reporters have been imprisoned for saying something against the government.
Supporting Evidence:
http://listverse.com/2013/06/16/
Side: Yes, it could.
MOST dictators come to rule by force. Hitler came to rule peacefully however his rule resulted in the biggest war in human history. Their intentions could be good but they can result in international war. What is being attempted to be said is that the dictator could be a little beneficial for country but not at all internationaly. Side: No, it couldn't.
1
point
Argument:The citizens feel heard and wanted and democracy imposes equality, making it a safeguard for a revolution from the people. For example, in LA, there is a program in place for those with a vote to be paired with migrants on the path to citizenship. They have the opportunity to discuss current politics (the American election) although they are not yet afforded a vote. This group of people includes refugees, migrant workers and convicted felons to ready them for when they are able to have a say in the country. This prevents revolution and violence. A democracy is based on giving the people more power, so each ruler can only have its place for around 4-5 years depending on the place, but this prevents a party to become doctoral or to care less about the citizens in general. This keeps the ruler on their feet knowing that the people have the choice and that they can be thrown out in the next election. Some of these countries are Canada, USA, Argentina, Norway, Belgium, UK. Side: No, it couldn't.
1
point
There are security issues within this system the country is too free in letting in undocumented people especially convicted fellons . Elections are expensive and leave the country vulnerable like if the USA has elections ongoing and the current president is slacking they are more open to military attacks as all energy is focused on elections Side: Yes, it could.
1
point
Even though elections are expensive it keeps the people happy and prevents the people from rebelling against the government making it a safe envoiroment for the citizens. Usually, dictatorships do not last long because the citizens try to overthrow the leader and dictators almost never hand their power into someone's else's hands meaning the power would have to be forcefully taken away from them. This causes for dictatorships not to be safe an example is Syria in Syria there is bombing and shooting and more. The citizens are trying to escape it is clearly not a safe environment and one of the many dangerous dicatorships. Side: No, it couldn't.
1
point
Closing Sentance: Overall democracies are better because it is equal to the people, it has a stable economy, and it provides a safe environment for the citizens. The people stay happy and there is less rebellion against the government. Democracies are stable and give equality to the people. Side: No, it couldn't.
|
