CreateDebate


Debate Info

28
13
Agree Disagree.
Debate Score:41
Arguments:45
Total Votes:56
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Agree (25)
 
 Disagree. (12)

Debate Creator

Axmeister(4320) pic



Democracy is a way of achieving the objective, it should not be the objective.

The "objective" being whatever a nation believe it should be steering towards, many politicians have some sort of fantastical utopia and focus all their policies to achieving that utopia.

However, what this debate is suggesting is that modern (western) politics is too focused on aiming that nations have a perfectly functional, democractic system. But does this lead to other goals which are more important being diminished? Is democracy actually that grand? Is pure democracy even practical? 

I hope you'll all be able to consider these questions and partake in this debate fully.

Agree

Side Score: 28
VS.

Disagree.

Side Score: 13
1 point

Absolutely, I don't share the Democracy fetish, it is nothing more than a veiled appeal to popularity fallacy.

If the majority vote to enslave the minority, does that make it ok? Of course not, the majority concept clearly is not an end in itself.

Side: Agree
1 point

democratic candidate must have some qualification to be seated on the seat and lead the country...if he is donkey why the people elect him..??? If the realize he's donkey why dont they throw him away and a common man with basic qualification and who can judge what is in favor of his citizen must be the priorty of the candidate...

Side: Agree
0 points

I agree that it should be a way of acheiving goals.

But at the same time, here i m making a question. Is this true that democracy is what the majority among the nation suggests? What if the majority among a nation are insane people, and they agree and vote to nominate a donkey as a ruler, does the democracy demands in such a case to elect a donkey as a ruler? Just a question.

Side: Agree

If the majority votes for a donkey, then the people deserve a donkey ruler.

Side: Agree
ColumCille(9) Disputed
1 point

And do the minority also "deserve" that? If the majority votes to impose something upon the minority, what then?

Side: Agree
Alif(29) Disputed
0 points

yeah, but in that case it is an absolute non-sense ofcourse. and ultimate extra-ordinarily injustice for the sane. Isnt it?

Side: Disagree.

I guess someone wants to ban donkey rulers.

Side: Agree
0 points

A pure democracy is a very ugly thing. The USA most closely resembles it...

In a pure democracy if the masses want you to die, then you die. There need be no justification other than that it is desirable by the majority. Its a society where there is only protection for the minorities that have happen to be popular during that era.

Side: Agree
StickinStone(649) Clarified
0 points

Pure democracy would essentially be mob rule. The people would have to vote on every action taken. I live in the U.S. and vote whenever I can, which is not that often, how does this resemble pure democracy?

Side: Agree
Atrag(5555) Clarified
1 point

There are a number of instances that stem from the fact that your judges are elected. If you're a paedophile, or someone else equally as unpopular, and someone murders you then that person is probably going to get a community sentence.

Another example would be the way you torture suspected terrorists. If you're not a voter, you have no rights.

Both these things would never happen in the UK or Spain (the only two countries I can speak with some authority on)

Side: Agree

Couldn't that also be called anarcy? Maybe a anarcy like system but, with some restrictions other then people getting mad and killing you.

Side: Agree
0 points

An ideal society is where all get what they want. In democracy, if 50.1% of people vote for John as the president, the country gets John as a president although almost half of the people want Mary instead. Difficult to achieve but society wants a result where all are happy. (Try not to have elections ^^)

Side: Agree
1 point

I agree to the statement that democracy is a way of achieving the objective, but then what is the objective? Is it establishing an perfectly egalitarian society- that would lead to socialism. I fail to see the objective to which a democratic measures should lead to. But if we effort to establish a democratic system, we can shift the powers from a central authority to the people and that does look like the objective of democracy.

If we reason that democracy leads to corruption or people end up choosing wrong candidates, lets look at the alternatives- an all powerful organisation who will elect others, but isn't that autocracy or dictatorial regime? God forbid if that happens then all we can do is hope that the supreme authority whoever he or she is, is a just person.

I see democracy as means to a transparent and just society where people have the freedom and power to accept or reject something. But there is no such perfect society, hence, the more democratic we are, the nearer we are to perfection. Hence democracy can be considered a means and a better and transparent democracy the objective.

Side: Disagree.