CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
We live in a mild dictatorship now, we may vote these parties into power but apart from that we have no influence over there decisions during that period of time in power, very rarely do we get given a referendum on issues were concerned about, and as soon as we stand up against the establishment were moved on like in parliamentary square! Democracy my arse!!
We live in a mild dictatorship now, we may vote these parties into power
That right there means you do not live in a dictatorship.
but apart from that we have no influence over there decisions during that period of time in power, very rarely do we get given a referendum on issues were concerned about,
The power to determine who is in control and the ability, albeit rarely, to pass referendums proves you are not in any form of a dictatorship.
that's why I said we live in a 'mild' dictatorship, it maybe defined as a democracy but the potential to influence through your local representative is almost impossible and leaves you feeling your dictated to, the only opportunity you have to make yourself heard is in the general election which is once every 5 years. it may not be a dictatorship but its not an ideal democracy hence the dissolution with politics and lack of people willing to participate in the voting.
But that's the thing: By the definition of dictatorship, it is not one, "mild" or otherwise". Just because you have a Representative Democratic system that does not include substantial direct-democratic action does not make it dictatorial in any way.
I know by definition we live in a democracy, and its far from a dictatorship like north Korea but the inability to voice your opinion or influence major decisions like the Iraq war regardless of public opinion, leans you towards feeling dictated to.
and that's why there's so much disillusion with politics in Britain because people feel there opinion will never be heard and its a waste of time voting.
If the governments gave the public a platform to question or voice there opinions on major issues, the potential for reengaging the public would be massive and we would feel less dictated to?
That is, factually, not true. A Representative Democracy is still, in fact, a Democracy. A Non-Constitutional Democracy is, in fact, still a Democracy.
You really don't know much about political science, do you? A "representative" Democracy is where the people rule via their elected officials who are beholden to the power of the electorate.
By your definition, North Korea is a democracy. How funny.
It's like you aren't even trying to be honest. North Korea is not a Democracy in any way other than name, it is Authoritarian. They do not hold elections, nor do they have a direct democratic process, and thus are not a Democracy (be it Direct or Representative).
Please, try to keep your comments honest. Otherwise, there is no point in having a discussion.
You really don't know much about political science, do you? A "representative" Democracy is where the people rule via their elected officials who are beholden to the power of the electorate.
If it's political science that makes this wrong definition, then I couldn't care less about it. Wrong is wrong, no matter what "science".
They do not hold elections.
You are mistaken again. They hold elections. Only Kim gets elected with the rather flattering result of 100%. But people truly vote.
If it's political science that makes this wrong definition, then I couldn't care less about it. Wrong is wrong, no matter what "science".
Except Democracy is a term from political science. It seems as if you have created your own definition of Democracy (which it seems is actually Direct Democracy, or "Pure Democracy"), and decided that all others are wrong.
You are mistaken again. They hold elections. Only Kim gets elected with the rather flattering result of 100%. But people truly vote.
Indeed, I should have said "legitimate" elections, as opposed to farcical elections in which there are no actual options nor any actual power in the electorate.
Technically, the label of representative democracy is used to cover a wide range of governments. The distinction for different types of democracies is pretty arbitrary as practices can overlap/differ greatly.
This is more a complaint against the act of labeling, not the definition of democracies.
Democracy has made countries weak. As leaders and/or parties only stay in charge for a few years they can't make much of a difference. It means that politicians don't make policies that they think will benefit the country but they think will make them popular with voters and therefore stay in power. Politicians no longer have the power to do anything. Democracy means tolerating groups that don't deserve to be tolerated. People need to be controlled more.
Not the point. The aim for anyone in regard to political should be to develop and broad and sophisticated viewpoint based on a variety of experience. Every opinion you have is based on your fear of something that hasn't happened yet.
I love how you value the right to worship a pedophile more than the right to love who you love. As a left winger you will always side with the foreigners.
You can have one or the other. Worship means slowing the progression of gay rights as all religions are homophobic. Islam specifically however leads to the total destruction of gay rights
For every efficient dictatorship out there (China), there is probably at least 10 other crappy ones. There is no reason to believe the dictator you get can/will achieve the removal of Muslims from your country.
Also, you seem to misunderstand the purpose of democracy. Policies are supposed to reflect popular opinion.
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary."
The Greek philosophers believed that the ultimate form of government would be a "benevolent dictatorship", but where are we going to find such incorruptible individuals.
Can we clone Elliot Ness.....?
So in the absence of the incorruptible I will put my vote for democracy as the overall most beneficent we have invented so far because if my memory serves me well so far dictators of history have all become malevolent self serving monsters.
That's not necessarily true, but that is what happens in practice, see DK's post. A dictator does not have to be bad, they just have all been like that in the past. With a Democracy you have to convince many people to exclude rights, and with a dictatorship only one needs to do it. But, it goes the other way as well.
There are quite a few ways. One way occurs in the United States: The death penalty. People democratically decide to include a penalty within our penal system that ends a felon's life.
Except what I stated wasn't an opinion, it was simply a fact. The nature of a democratic government, where individuals come together and vote to come to a collective decision, is not inherently antithetical to the concepts of torture or killing. Now those things are less common in other countries.
Can you please explain how what I said constituted an opinion?
A democracy is a system in which people come together and vote in order to achieve a collective decision: Fact.
A group of people posses the capability to collectively decide to torture someone: Fact.
The United States, a democratic country (albeit a Representative Democracy) has, via the process of election, democratically decided to maintain the death penalty, which involves killing a person: Fact.
I fail to see any sort of opinions in what I have said. My opinions would be that we are wrong when we torture others, and it is wrong to maintain the death penalty.
The United States, a democratic country (albeit a Representative Democracy) has, via the process of election, democratically decided to maintain the death penalty, which involves killing a person: Fact.
If you're going to start using that line then you can piss right off. He is stating facts. They're not opinion just because you do not like them. This is what people mean when they say you don't debate properly.
It is not a fallacy to state the fact that a true democracy honors human rights. You are just trolling and looking for attention like most conservatives do,.
Yes it is you psycho. There is nothing about democracy that makes it non violent. You are using the exact words of the no true Scotsman fallacy.
So, where did you go to school? Do you have a PhD from some prestigious school? Because, if you don't, you need to seriously examine why you are so much smarter than everyone on this site. You are the only one who recognizes fallacies and the only person who knows any facts. You should stop and ask why that is.
He just does it out of reaction now. She gets 3 or 4 arguments of losing before throwing out that I am a troll. Plus, it isn't every time. This is the fastest I was able to win with the fewest words.
Rome for a long time was a Republic and was very advanced in terms of human rights for its era. Until quite recently nearly all lawyers studied Roman law as part of their training.
