CreateDebate


Debate Info

32
20
Democracy Dictatorship
Debate Score:52
Arguments:34
Total Votes:57
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Democracy (17)
 
 Dictatorship (15)

Debate Creator

Micmacmoc(2188) pic



Democracy VS Dictatorship

Democracy

Side Score: 32
VS.

Dictatorship

Side Score: 20
4 points

Quite how one could argue the opposite is beyond me.

| Side: Democracy
2 points

I have a friend (he was on here, hhioh or something), who after reading Plato's Republic, is completely in favour of a 'benevolent dictatorship by a philosopher king' or something similar. He's also toyed with the idea of aristocratic rule.

The main argument against democracy (other than people are stupid) is that people are selfish, and will only select a ruler who meets their own needs. This is at least partially true, leading to the massive amount of debt incurred by candidates offering a lot, for example. Essentially, popular decisions are not always the best decisions, so why elect a ruler by popularity?

| Side: Democracy
2 points

have a friend (he was on here, hhioh or something), who after reading Plato's Republic, is completely in favour of a 'benevolent dictatorship by a philosopher king' or something similar. He's also toyed with the idea of aristocratic rule.

As a stand alone system, I can't dispute the merits of benign dictatorships. But when juxtaposing them with democracy, they fall down in the fact that the people don't have a voice.

The main argument against democracy (other than people are stupid) is that people are selfish, and will only select a ruler who meets their own needs.

This is not necessarily a bad thing. The whole point of any political system is meeting the people's needs. When leaders can't fulfill their promises, that's when we have problems. And this is not exclusive to democracy; there have been numerous dictators throughout history that have failed to deliver. This then is not a specific flaw of democracy.

Essentially, popular decisions are not always the best decisions, so why elect a ruler by popularity?

A fallacious decision is not always the wrong decision. The purpose of a leader is to govern his people. Who better than the people to decide then? Hereditary rule eliminates all need for the leader to be talented, and aristocratic rule would likely descend into hereditary rule, seeing as the elite are often determined by birth.

| Side: Democracy
IzFerno10(28) Disputed
2 points

Democracy is just mob rule by ignorant masses. A benevolent dictator would be infinitely better.

| Side: Dictatorship
TheAshman(2310) Disputed
3 points

Unfortunately Benevolent Dictators quite often become Tyrants

| Side: Democracy
Jaskaran(1) Disputed
1 point

he would be more strict also and will not think about countrys welfare

| Side: Dictatorship
OreEle(16) Disputed
1 point

There is a common logical fallacy, known as appeal to popularity or appeal to majority. Democracy (assuming we are talking about direct democracy, it should really be clarified) is a structure based entirely around this logical fallacy.

We must also look at what the theoretical possibilities are with the two options. With a dictatorship, since it is based on the knowledge and wisdom of a single individual, it has the potential of vast greatness, or vast evilness. While democracy is going to be based on the knowledge and wisdom of the average individual. This means that the ignorant and foolish that exist in every society are going to be drags on the potential of democracy.

| Side: Dictatorship
ChuckHades(3194) Disputed
2 points

There is a common logical fallacy, known as appeal to popularity or appeal to majority. Democracy (assuming we are talking about direct democracy, it should really be clarified) is a structure based entirely around this logical fallacy.

If you're saying what I think you're saying, you're committing the fallacy fallacy. That is, just because something is fallacious, it isn't necessarily wrong. Furthermore, democracy makes no truth claim or argument, so to say it commits ad populum is disputable.

While democracy is going to be based on the knowledge and wisdom of the average individual. This means that the ignorant and foolish that exist in every society are going to be drags on the potential of democracy.

This is false. Firstly, those in power would need to be above average intelligence to become politicians. Secondly, the ignorant and foolish most likely will not vote in elections, making them arbitrary to the democratic procedure, essentially non-existent.

| Side: Democracy
Nebeling(1118) Disputed
2 points

There is a common logical fallacy, known as appeal to popularity or appeal to majority. Democracy (assuming we are talking about direct democracy, it should really be clarified) is a structure based entirely emaround this logical fallacy.

Appeal to popularity is an informal logical fallacy, and you thus can't conclude that appeal to popularity is a categorically useless argument. (as you rightly could if it were a syllogistic fallacy). If 99% of the masses agree on some particular issue, then there's a very strong reason for believing they are right. But as you have pointed out, it doesn't conclusively follow that they infact are right. Informal logical deals with probalility, not mathematical certainty.

Now there is a peculiar feature one has to notice about democratic estimations. If you walk thorugh the office with a jar of X jelly beans, and ask your coworkers to guess the amount of beans in the jar, the mean of the guesses will be almost spot on (given that you ask enough). This is obviously a very different and much simpler question, but I think it's very true that common wisdom is very close to what is in fact true. So I think categorically rejecting what the masses believe is a form of informal fallacy in and of itself. What the people is saying has to be taken into account somehow in political decisions.

| Side: Democracy
2 points

A benign Dictatorship should'nt be a problem and there were some good dictators from Ancient Rome but I would rather have a Democracy and freedom to think how I want rather than be told what to do and how to think

| Side: Democracy
2 points

democracy has expanded during the last hundred years to more and more countries in the world.more than half of the independent countries in the world today are democracies. this expansion of democracy shows that how democracy expand at global level.

| Side: Democracy
2 points

didn't work so well for north Korea did it? or alot of countries in the middle east.

| Side: Democracy
2 points

Democracy is freedom in politics, Dictatorship is a form of tyrannical oppression which snuffs out all religious, political, and individual freedoms. Democracy is far better option over a controlling figurehead and his ideal driven army. Democracy gives all of its citizens the freedom to vote and to chose who is in power rather than being told and forced to choose into power.

| Side: Democracy

I'm for a direct democracy of the people. No leaders, no states, no government. The people as a whole vote to decide the laws and how things are run.

"Anarchy is order." - Pierre Joseph Proudhon

| Side: Democracy
1 point

in a democracy you have free wil to protest and say what ever you want also you can vote for any partie and even make up your own

| Side: Democracy
3 points

Yes, if you could have a highly intelligent, wise and benevolent Dictator. Then you would probably end up with much better results than in a democracy. I used to believe that democracy was the best system, but in recent years I've come to have my doubts. This is because it seems so easy to manipulate an electorate that is often woefully undereducated, apathetic, and lazy about researching serious issues. An example is the climate change crisis.

With very few exceptions, scientists are pretty much in agreement that this is a) real, and b) caused by man, and c) a likely to become a serious threat to human civilisation. Yet, governments are doing very little about this. Why, because they are worried about short-term issues. They do not want to do anything that hurts the economy in the short term, even if it saves the economy/nation in the longterm. Because their goal is to try and get back into power every few years - and this means trying to please the majority - instead of doing what they know is best their electorate. A dictator would not have this concern and could plan for the longer term. Furthermore, it is so easy to manipulate the beliefs of an undereducated and apathetic electorate. Take the climate debate again. The media (corporate owned, and acting in the interests of the corporate sector - which is also concerned with the short term issues of profits and shares) has provided the electorate with a very poor understanding of how serious the climate issue really is. Indeed, some media, like Murdoch owned media, has actively sought to muddy the debate and steer readers/viewers to doubt the scientists claims. With so many people so ignorant of the actual science, the government does not have the support to take the proper action required. Finally, our so called democracies have been bought by the corporate world, and most politicians are in the pockets of big business. So they are not acting in the interests of the majority anyway. So we don't have real democracies anyway.

| Side: Dictatorship
1 point

I'm only on this side because some members of this site (who need special education) consider Monarchy to be a form of Dictatorship. So I don't want to be caught out.

| Side: Dictatorship
GuitaristDog(2503) Clarified
2 points

There are different kinds of monarchy, modern England has a diplomatic monarchy, while other countries have a dictatorship style monarchy.

| Side: Democracy
1 point

I know, but I didn't want to go on the democracy side in fear of some twat going "but your country has a dictator Queen".

| Side: Dictatorship
1 point

It really depends. If the dictator is effective, takes care of the people and brings prosperity to the nation - what is so wrong about it?

In the same sense, who should control the ship - the capten or the passengers?

| Side: Dictatorship
Nebeling(1118) Disputed
2 points

The burden of proof is always on the authority. The people has to approve a person or a small group of people who wants to govern. Even if a single person makes all the laws, the people still needs to have the power to control who is in control (slightly paradoxal, but I think you know what I mean :) ).

| Side: Democracy

The only difference between Democracy and Dictatorship is that in a Democracy, the majority chooses their ruler.

| Side: Dictatorship
1 point

Since there is so little defined for this question, and both democracy and dictatorship have a ton of various meanings, we can look at two different aspects. The worst of each and the best of each. Starting with the worst.

Direct Democracy vs Tyrannical Dictatorship

Tyrannical Dictatorship has the problem that they often don't care about the people that they lead. They often cause negative effects on the living conditions and economic well being for their people. They will often use military and police force to keep the people from revolting. While this is often viewed as the worst form a government can take, it is actually not that bad for the very reason that it is not too hard to correct. Revolution can be difficult because of the police and military force, however, when conditions get bad, the police and military will often step aside. This can very from dictator to dictator (see Egypt vs Libya for both ends), but it with enough will power, it is always able to overthrow them.

Now, comparing to Direct Democracy, we see that different issues arrise. First, there is a reason that this form of democracy is often called "tyranny of the majority." It allows the majority, regardless of any moral code or guidance to enact whatever they want. This means that if the poorest 51% want to make the top 49% to pay a lot more taxes, and they want to "equalize" their economic differences, they can. This means that if enough ignorant people see that more crime is committed by minority groups, they can impose racist regulations. This means that the law will be directed by the ignorance of the majority. This can cause just as horrible economic and liberty restrictions as the Tyrannical Dictator (though it will usually take longer to come out), however, it is harder to have a revolution against. Since the oppressed are a minority, rather than a majority. Because of this difficulty in revolting and correcting the problem, the Tyrannical Dictatorship is superior.

Representative Democracy vs Benevolent Dictatorship

Now we can look at the ideal for each form. The Representative Democracy allows people to choose the best leaders to make the rules. Because they vote for individuals, rather than individual policies, a particular candidate cannot take stances which are too extreme or polarizing. Because if they have 10 issues that they hold as important, and 1 is extremely polarizing, then all the people that do not like your view on that 1 issue, will not support you regardless of your other 9, and those that do like that 1, may be changed by the other 9. As such, many are voted on, not because of particular stances on specific issues, but based on a more generic ideology or philosophy. This has the downside that many candidates may simply pander and lie to get elected, as we see with the current US congressional makeup.

In Benevolent Dictatorship, the dictator chooses actions which they honestly believe are best for their people. While they may be wrong, and so bad things can happen, they also have the ability to recognize that their ideas are not working and changing their ideas. A single individual can learn and adapt significantly faster than a group. And since the individual dictator does not have opposing parties to throw blame at, they are more likely to actually adjust their thinking and policies for the good of the people. So in the ideal sense, the Dictator is better.

Since the dictator is better in both the worst and best situations, then we can say that a dictatorship is better than a democracy (even though neither are defined).

| Side: Dictatorship


About CreateDebate
The CreateDebate Blog
Take a Tour
Help/FAQ
Newsletter Archive
Sharing Tools
Invite Your Friends
Bookmarklets
Partner Buttons
RSS & XML Feeds
Reach Out
Advertise
Contact Us
Report Abuse
Twitter
Basic Stuff
User Agreement
Privacy Policy
Sitemap
Creative Commons
©2014 TidyLife, Inc. All Rights Reserved. User content, unless source quoted, licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Debate Forum | Big shout-outs to The Bloggess and Andy Cohen.