Is democracy better than dictatorship
Yes,of course
Side Score: 9
|
 |
No
Side Score: 13
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
Any intelligent person knows democracy is better. The ony reason we still have dictatorships is because those in power in dictatorships lead with an iron fist and will kill or throw in jail any person who speaks out on behalf of allowing a Democracy. America has been a great help in growing the numbers of democracies around the world. What intelligent people would willingly prefer to be controlled by one man who came to power through bloodshed, rather than having the freedom to elect their own leaders? Even if their dictator was the one in a million good man, he would already know that he had no right to control the people with his will, and would allow a democracy to take hold. Side: Yes,of course
0
points
Any intelligent person knows democracy is better. Do you consider Aristotle to be unintelligent? The ony reason we still have dictatorships is because those in power in dictatorships lead with an iron fist and will kill or throw in jail any person who speaks out on behalf of allowing a Democracy. America has been a great help in growing the numbers of democracies around the world. Here is a list of dictatorships that the United States has backed, for various reasons. What intelligent people would willingly prefer to be controlled by one man who came to power through bloodshed, rather than having the freedom to elect their own leaders? Dictatorships don't inherently come to power through bloodshed, and not everyone has effective freedom to elect their own leaders within democracies. Even if their dictator was the one in a million good man, he would already know that he had no right to control the people with his will, and would allow a democracy to take hold. Within our Western culture, you are most likely correct. But quite a few civilizations throughout history have had traditions of "benevolent" (or at least not horrible) authoritarian rulers. It's important to remember that our concept of individual rights is incredibly new within the context of human history. Side: No
"Do you consider Aristotle to be unintelligent?" (Non-)Argumentum ad Verecundiam? A wise man once said "there are no authorities". The greatest minds can also be wrong/mistaken. Einstein didn't get the Theory Of Relativity right in one sitting, and in fact, it was wrong the first times, and it's still not taken to be fully correct and may be revised in a near future. Aristotle could be wrong. Here is a list of dictatorships that the United States has backed, for various reasons. Non sequitur? The US also backed (backs) up extremist/terrorist groups. Does that make them ok for any reason? "Dictatorships don't inherently come to power through bloodshed, and not everyone has effective freedom to elect their own leaders within democracies." How exactly? Everyone has all the freedom to vote in whoever they see fit. There might be room for improvement, but whatever flaws the system has, it's not oppressing anyone regarding their freedom to voice/act on their opinion. So... what's missing? Also, there's no way one person can have their will imposed on everyone else without at least stepping on some people's feet a few times. So, in a way, you can't ever have a dictator without at least some figurative bloodshed. "It's important to remember that our concept of individual rights is incredibly new within the context of human history." Our concept of the scientific method is only 400 years old (incredibly new!). Yet it did considerably more for us in those 400 years than anything else did in the prior 9600 years of recorded history. Is there any dispute as to it being the best method of study and reasoning? The people in other ages knew better than to live anarchically, but no better than to live in non-democratic systems. If they had thought of it, or if they had been able to make it happen, they would've. No matter how benevolent a dictator might be, his individual opinions are imposed, thus most other individual minds will always have certain necessities being oppressed. We are not ants, we have individual agency. Ancient societies ought to be aware of that, even if they had no concept of it or if it was taboo; they might be illiterate ignorants, but not devoid of individual brains and emotions and wants and needs. Side: Yes,of course
1
point
1
point
1
point
|
1
point
Depends on what metric you use. If you value the ability to participate in your country's political process, democracy is better. If you value bureaucratic efficiency and quick decision making, a dictatorship is better. If you have a philosopher king, chances are their dictatorship would be better. If you have a well educated electorate, chances are a democracy is better. Etc etc. Side: No
1
point
I'm saying no purely because this seems to be asking if in every situation it is. Sometimes a dictator is a much better ruler, they can get things done efficiently and quickly, and if they aren't corrupt then it can be a very well run country. On the other hand, if you are judging based on political freedom then democracy would be best. Although again, everything is situational, neither is inherently better. Side: No
Can you provide a significantly greater amount of examples of beneficial dictatorships that existed throughout history? Can you provide any, at all? A dictatorship removes agency from individuals. Even if a dictator has a good heart that doesn't get corrupted by delusions of power, nearly ever single other individual will have certain wants and needs suppressed/repressed/oppressed. Democracy is inherently better indeed, since it removes the enforcement of one individual's opinions over every other. It allows anyone to do as they please, and the only thing you need to enforce is that no one infringes on each others' well being. Democracy is as fair as it can get (at least so far). Dictatorship is the antithesis. Side: Yes,of course
1
point
My argument is that the political systems themselves aren't inherently better than eachother. While it is true that people can advocate for themselves better in a democracy, it is not inherently true that any other individuals will have their rights oppressed. A dictatorship can do things quicker, and more efficiently than a democracy - this allows hypothetically for a better government. However as I said, everything is situational. Side: No
1
point
Sometimes the guy the populations elected deceive them, and they are forced to wait until he presents its candidature to the next election four or five years later. During the mandate of a president the population will only suffer the decisions of the one they elected. It's almost a kind of dictatorship where the dictator changes every four years. Side: No
Decisions in that kind of political system are not taken by that one elected person. That's not likely to be the case in dictatorships. In a dictatorship you might not even be able to complain about it. That said, it's one flaw in democracy. One that should be addressed, that the people should be able to revoke their election by means of another majority voting. Flaws don't make it worse, though. No system is perfect, and surely democracy isn't either. That does not take away from it being by all means superior to dictatorship. Side: Yes,of course
|
