Debate Score:	6
Arguments:	7
Total Votes:	6
Ended:	05/07/16
More Stats

This debate has ended. You can no longer add arguments or vote in this debate.

Should their be an elected president?

Should have a president? Side Score: 4 Winning Side!		Should not have a president? Side Score: 2
Add New Argument		Add New Argument

Saintnow (3684)

1 point

I'll vote for From Within for president.......but I imagine he too would fall to intimidation and bribes from evildoers. Why don't you move to Russia or China, or any Muslim nation where whoever has the most power rules and they are not constrained by law?

8 years ago Side: Should have a president?

Support Dispute Clarify

KayneOfNod (317)

1 point

As the system stands the president is only one man in the USA political system (Assuming we are talking about the USA as that's chiefly where the term "President" is used)

he is not a typical citizen, nor a model citizen but is meant as a representative for the values of the majority of the american people. as such he is meant to act as the informed majority would act, without having to poll the entirety of a nation which would take too long a time.

the only logical alternative to this is a hive mind. which we've yet to do. so...until that point, a president is the best alternative.

8 years ago Side: Should have a president?

Support Dispute Clarify

↑ Hide Replies

Darkyear (345) Disputed

1 point

While you do make a very good case, the question is whether there should be an elected president. I argue there are ways that selecting does not have to equal electing.

8 years ago Side: Should not have a president?

Support Dispute Clarify

↑ Hide Replies

KayneOfNod (317)

1 point

I don't know how I feel about a selected president. it would remove some logistics issues, but... it opens up a different crock of shit in terms of ways the president could become corrupted. then again, an elected official isn't exactly always perfectly stellar either

I know that citing the definition is BS. But i feel like it should be said that being "elected" is an inherent part of the definition of president. I looked it up because in my "head" definition election was a requirement for the leader to be considered president. So... I'd argue we can't consider this Selected official a "President" per se... but maybe I'm splitting hairs.

all that said, I don't know if I disagree or agree with a selected official Idea. if it was done by something computerized, or an otherwise black and white Criteria, then I feel like it could be a successful thing. but even that assumes that the selection process couldn't be superseded by assassinations, diplomatic shenanigans or other criminal manipulation of data, so that one candidate passes another in the Criteria.

I may be making too many base assumptions about how the selection works though, what are you meaning by a selection process?

8 years ago Side: Should have a president?

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

Darkyear (345) Clarified

1 point

Good response.

I should also clarify that I'm not sure a single leader is a good idea. I might prefer an elected odd-numbered council made up of high qualified specialists in various fields.

I should ALSO clarify that everything I'm saying here is basically a thought experiment for me. I'm not totally sure about anything I propose, but I feel like my "dream government" could reduce or eliminate a lot of problems that most governments have had. Or maybe not. Please point out any glaring flaws or ask for clarification when necessary.

it opens up a different crock of shit in terms of ways the president could become corrupted.

Maybe. This is one reason I prefer a council. Also I think all actions of the council, all selection process for council membership and all financial records for council members and selection committees should be totally transparent and open to public scrutiny.

I know that citing the definition is BS.

Not at all. I prefer that we are on same page. That being said, this is the first entry for "president" from dictionary.com:

"the highest executive officer of a modern republic, as the Chief Executive of the United States."

I say we just use the word "leader" (or leading council) for this discussion. Agree?

if it was done by something computerized, or an otherwise black and white Criteria, then I feel like it could be a successful thing.

That's what I'm aiming for but there is a problem. With any meritocracy you have to decide what "merit" is. I feel like a transparent criteria selection process with participation of the general public could be good.

I have a few other ideas, but let's stick with this for now.

8 years ago Side: Should have a president?

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

KayneOfNod (317) Disputed

1 point

(I'm going to keep clicking dispute because I think that gives you notifications, otherwise we'd have to keep checking back in and I missed your last post to this)

I'd like to start by appending your statement, Indicating that a Meritocracy is indeed a gray area, but arguing that the real evil Is in defining what Utility is in Utilitarian society. as these two notions go parallel,I'm not certain which is the chicken and which is the egg.

A meritocracy is a reasonable thing to have, as is any society that is utilitarian, it makes sense that things (including humans) have some amount of value. but I feel as though you shouldn't have either of these as 100% your core values. otherwise mass murder is a reasonable leap of logic, as Return on investment will usually trump monetary value any day of the week.

In this way, a meritocracy and utilitarian society, almost need an inherently...kinda...backwards rule to prevent evil. they need to operate with the assumption that even those who have been stunted, are still worthwhile to keep. even though they are less valuable than able persons.

in this weird kind of way, the Criteria selection that I was describing wouldn't necessarily pick a person of high utility or merit. or even a council full of high merit individuals. if anything, the criteria would probably pick a middle of the road, average, every-man as the Leader. and would suggest to him a high merit cabinet.

I think we're going full on society planner here, so lets chat about a council. in that similar way, the criteria couldn't pick the cream of the crop as the only leaders. to maximize the well being and happiness of a society, you would need the leaders to be "model" citizens. (I mean that as literally as I can mean it) and so in this way I have a few weird proposals.and a few that make sense.

so, momentarily tabling the necessity of a central head that calls the shots in disaster time, I'm imagining a distribution of an odd number of members anywhere from 6 to 2001 that for a year are selected to be the governing body of our little nation. they would be a modeled community. and would live their lives almost like every other citizen, except they would be the only ones that new legislation would effect. this would be something like jury duty almost. as they would have to pay new taxes, and obey rules that very well may not be the laws as of yet...this model would have a shrunken treasury, a model for military expenses, and would overall attempt to model the nation with the changes that (perhaps a solitary leader) would issue. at the end of the model period the council group would silently vote on the new policy. if they felt it made no significant change to their life, then it would likely be passed into law unless they otherwise felt it caused problems. if it caused them discomfort, they'd VETO it, unless the leader felt it would be a detriment to society if they did not do it.

this model is... half baked. but I suppose I'd like to hear your thoughts on it so far.

8 years ago Side: Should not have a president?

Support Dispute Clarify

↓ Show Replies

Darkyear (345) Disputed

1 point

Well, I suppose I didn't make this clear so let me clarify...

I'm only talking about transforming the government into a meritocracy, not changing all of society. Because, society already is basically a meritocracy. You go to college (or trade school or just go out and get your first job) and get the skills you need for your chosen profession. Then you spend the rest of your life refining and adding to those skills, developing a network of connections and gradually moving up and making more money depending on your perceived utility. Then you have the military which is very much a meritocracy, especially among officers. Hell, even the clergy is a meritocracy.

But the government is not as much so, although it ideally should be. You don't technically achieve or retain an elected office based on experience and skill. Really, you just win a popularity contest, and actual merit may have 0 effect on that due to your constituency and how well you campaign (which always takes a ton of money.) So, high elected offices usually favor the wealthy. And I suspect it leads to the election of sociopaths (not that this is avoided in higher dollar positions).

So I propose that when a position needs to be filled, a specific set of criteria pertaining to the position is established (maybe ahead of time by a selection committee, again, all transparent.) Then, people who are interested apply. A committee arranges the applicants from top-down in respect to their skills, experience, education, etc. and offers the position to the best candidate. Up to a certain level, people outside of politics can apply, but they would be in competition with lifelong politicians. Once you get up to high levels (Lt. Governor, state senator, etc) you would have to have some direct government experience to move up higher. Each new level would have higher standards of scrutiny and skillset, with the President being the most intricate and time consuming process of selection.

As far as your model, it is interesting to think about. I kind of like it, but I suspect it wouldn't be practical. First off, some legislation takes years, even decades to really demonstrate proper effects, especially economic and environmental laws. I can't imagine it would be popular for anyone to serve in that position for that long. Also, you can't really determine how successful taxes would be without exposing the entire public to them.

And different laws have different effects in different parts of the country. One state's disastrous policy is a savior to other states.

8 years ago Side: Should have a president?

Support Dispute Clarify

Add New Argument

No arguments found. Add one!

#1	#2	#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:	Click here to send this debate via your default email application.	Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.

Debate Info

Argument Ratio

Debate Creator

Should their be an elected president?

Should have a president?

Should not have a president?

Browse More Debates

Already a Member? Login.	OR		Join CreateDebate! It's quick and easy.