CreateDebate


Debate Info

8
6
I understand the contradiction Easily you nugget
Debate Score:14
Arguments:25
Total Votes:14
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 I understand the contradiction (8)
 
 Easily you nugget (6)

Debate Creator

Quantumhead(733) pic



Logical Quagmire #22: How Can We Have A Democracy If There Is A Leader?

The very basis of democracy is that decisions are made by a majority vote of the people. You might presently think it is practical or reasonable to delegate these decisions to a handful of "representatives", but I urge you to think on it a little harder. Is this reasonable, or is it a symptom of a lifetime of political indoctrination?

My counter argument is simple. If we place decisions into the unilateral hands of individuals then we do not have a democratic political system. What we actually have is a dictatorship in which the dictator is chosen through a (semi) democratic election. Clearly, these are not the same thing.

I understand the contradiction

Side Score: 8
VS.

Easily you nugget

Side Score: 6
1 point

I understand the contradiction. But it's just another example of trying to win a debate by definition, which frankly is among the least compelling ways to debate. If this is a quagmire then ironically I feel very little discomfort living with this quagmire you've pointed out to us.

Side: I understand the contradiction
Quantumhead(733) Clarified
1 point

Hi Grenache,

I am afraid I don't even understand what you mean by "trying to win a debate by definition". I just like to make people think about the things they have been brought up to believe, and whether they are actually true or not.

You have stated that you understand the contradiction, but also that you are comfortable living with it. So does this mean you are comfortable with a Donald Trump or an Adolf Hitler making unilateral decisions on behalf of the people? Let's say for example that Trump comes clean and announces his staff colluded with Russian intelligence in order to win the US election, but shortly afterwards grants himself and everyone involved a full presidential pardon. Would you would be comfortable with that? Would you be comfortable believing he was acting in the best interests of the electorate?

Side: I understand the contradiction
Grenache(6103) Clarified
1 point

No of course not. I'm just saying I'm comfortable that we elect representatives, because it's physically impossible to take a nation wide vote on any and every issue that comes up daily with government. I do not support Trump making unilateral decisions. I DO support the structure of our Constitution and our US government so as a group they can govern, and that group should be keeping Trump in check.

What I mean by argument by definition is the definition of democracy is everyone gets a vote, but the existence of a leader means by definition they don't get a vote on everything, thus a quagmire. A similar way someone used definition on this site was to say we're not a democracy at all, because a representative government is by definition not identical to a simpler definition of democracy. And indeed in that latter case they're technically right. But it neither makes us stop calling ourselves a democracy nor makes us want to change anything just because of the definition.

Side: I understand the contradiction

I don't think that there is a "leader" as such, but a representative of the government..

Side: I understand the contradiction
Quantumhead(733) Clarified
1 point

I don't think that there is a "leader" as such, but a representative of the government..

Let's jump back to my hypothetical argument about Trump issuing himself a full presidential pardon. Would he be representing the government by doing that, or representing his own desire not to go to jail?

Side: I understand the contradiction
beastforever(559) Clarified
1 point

Let's jump back to my hypothetical argument about Trump issuing himself a full presidential pardon. Would he be representing the government by doing that, or representing his own desire not to go to jail?

I do agree with the consequence of that, but I'm kind of confident that there is something which will not let him complete the process legally.

Let's look at the hypothesis as you've put up, which is quite interesting.. when we elect a person, we elect someone who has similar thought process and ideologies. It would not be wise to actually take every citizen's opinion on certain issues and consider a poll to make decisions, which they should be doing, so instead people elect this person who has a similar thought process and expect to make decisions on their behalf, more preferably the decision they want.. when "leaders" make decisions people don't like, they get upset, which can be observed..

Side: I understand the contradiction
1 point

If you have a LEADER, S/HE is the one that speaks, and acts, FOR THE MAJORITY! S/HE doesn't go off on his/her own agenda or party. S/HE acts FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE! No quagmire, no problem. #22 is illogical and gone.

Side: Easily you nugget
Quantumhead(733) Disputed
1 point

If you have a LEADER, S/HE is the one that speaks, and acts, FOR THE MAJORITY!

So Hitler was acting for the majority was he?

Side: I understand the contradiction
AlofRI(3206) Clarified
1 point

We were talking about inside a Democracy, I thought. In other political situations that would not be true.

Side: I understand the contradiction
1 point

This is why there is legislative, executive and judicial. Checks and measures so if one starts being too much of a pain in the arse, the others keep him in line.

Side: Easily you nugget
Quantumhead(733) Disputed
1 point

This is why there is legislative, executive and judicial.

But these things can be and are easily manipulated by the President and his inner circle, making it a moot point. Look at the war in Iraq as the perfect example. The president and his inner circle fabricated evidence to gain bipartisan support and passed a law in America which "legalised" a war which was unequivocally illegal by the stipulations of the UN Charter. They furthermore circumvented American law by torturing prisoners (including American citizens) in offshore holding facilities. If your argument is that the law holds the President's power in check then you are simply wrong. You are every bit as wrong as people are when they claim the media keeps the President's power in check.

Side: I understand the contradiction
bozwallocks(44) Disputed
1 point

The problem here is that no one takes international law seriously. The question is how do we come up with a system of international law that holds nations accountable.

Side: Easily you nugget
1 point

To start off, Democracy is, as far as I know, a dead political system. What we have here in the US is a Constitutional Republic with Democratic leanings.

Anyway, getting back to the issue at hand, the "leader" of a first-world nation is (supposedly) simply the representative of the views of the majority of the population. When powerful corporations and organizations become involved in politics, things get messy, but that's the basis for it.

Side: Easily you nugget