#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.
|
should people be able to be elected for president more than two terms
Should people be able to please when you put an argument to explain your reasoning
yes why not
Side Score: 29
|
no its already bad with two
Side Score: 36
|
|
1
point
1
point
Power does not corrupt. People are already corrupt; power simply allows people the avenue for the expression of their corruption. Continued, if everyone is corrupt, then it follows that any form of government is bad, since every government is corrupt. Democracy is one of the worst, since it gives voice to "the many." The many, as Socrates says, and most philosophers say, are stupid. Hence, we must not be ruled by the many, nor the corrupt. From a Biblical presuppositionalist approach, it seems to me that the only way one can fight corruption is if one has become a Christian: been born of the Spirit of God, being renewed in thought and action to the conformity with Christ. Hence, it follows that a Christian should rule the land. Furthermore, a divided household cannot stand, which means that this ruler must be singular. Hence, a theocratic monarch is the best system of government. Side: yes why not
1
point
Power does not corrupt. People are already corrupt; power simply allows people the avenue for the expression of their corruption. True Continued, if everyone is corrupt, then it follows that any form of government is bad, since every government is corrupt. True Democracy is one of the worst, since it gives voice to "the many." The many, as Socrates says, and most philosophers say, are stupid. Hence, we must not be ruled by the many, nor the corrupt. True From a Biblical presuppositionalist approach, it seems to me that the only way one can fight corruption is if one has become a Christian: been born of the Spirit of God, being renewed in thought and action to the conformity with Christ. Hence, it follows that a Christian should rule the land. Furthermore, a divided household cannot stand, which means that this ruler must be singular. Hence, a theocratic monarch is the best system of government. The problem is how to tell if one is a "true" Christian or not as some "Christian" tyrants such as Adolf Hitler (He was obviously not a Christian). Which is why a Republic with a moderately strong flexible government is the best form of government or something based on a modified form of the United States Constitution. It is true that no government is perfect. Side: yes why not
1
point
The people don't know who is a true Christian, since the many are not Christians. True Hence, only the church leaders should choose the head of the state. And he should remain head as long as he lives Most church groups now are just watered-down versions of the gospel and who knows if the church leaders are true Christians. A constitutional republic is the way to go. Side: yes why not
This is why we must go in faith. We cannot trust a constitutional republic, since the many will most certainly vote down any person who truly is a Christian, which means that the government will never be Christian. The many enjoy anything that is non-Christian. Hence, if anything it must be governed by the few, with faith that the few, the church-leaders, or so called church leaders, choose a good leader. Side: yes why not
1
point
Everyone says that! He was raised Anglican. He was influenced by certain deists, that's true, but he still held some strong Christian beliefs. He extracted verses from the New Testament and made his own versions of the Bible called "The Philosophy of Jesus" and "The Life and Morals of Jesus". He is quoted as saying "I am in a sect of my own". A sect, as you probably know, is a branch within a larger group. In Jefferson's case, that group was Christianity. Side: no its already bad with two
1
point
Everyone says that! He was raised Anglican. He was influenced by certain deists, that's true, but he still held some strong Christian beliefs. He extracted verses from the New Testament and made his own versions of the Bible called "The Philosophy of Jesus" and "The Life and Morals of Jesus". He is quoted as saying "I am in a sect of my own". A sect, as you probably know, is a branch within a larger group. In Jefferson's case, that group was Christianity. While it was true that he was strongly influenced by Christianity he woulld seem to be strongly unorthodox Christian if you would even consider him that. Side: no its already bad with two
Jefferson was a deist. He took out everything supernatural from the Bible, displaying that he did not believe Jesus to be God. He believed that there was a God, which is why he said, in the Declaration of Independence, that there was a Creator. However, he most certainly did not believe in Christianity, nor any other religion; he said he was a "Christian", in the sense of being a "Christ follower" and disciple of Jesus, but that was it. He was a deist by definition, and one of the most obvious deists at that. The Enlightenment had tons of deistic thinkers, which is where Jefferson got a large portion of his philosophy from. He was a product of the Enlightenment. However, if you want to challenge what most historians think he was, then go ahead. We can point to the current president, Barrack Obama. Side: yes why not
Jefferson was a deist. "I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know"-Thomas Jefferson I'm sure you know that a sect is a branch within a larger group. The larger group in his case was Christianity. He took out everything supernatural from the Bible, displaying that he did not believe Jesus to be God. Yeah, I've actually looked at his Bible in the Smithsonian. He didn't believe in the divinity of Jesus, but he still considered himself to be a Christian: "To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; and believing he never claimed any other." However, he most certainly did not believe in Christianity, nor any other religion; he said he was a "Christian", in the sense of being a "Christ follower" and disciple of Jesus, but that was it. Well, I addressed this up above, but you have to keep in mind that Jesus wasn't a Christian. That is a term created by man. Considering how many sects of Christianity there actually are, Jefferson could have been a Christian if he considered himself to be one. His beliefs were just a bit different from Orthodox Christianity. However, if you want to challenge what most historians think he was, then go ahead. We can point to the current president, Barrack Obama. What about Obama? Side: no its already bad with two
"I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know"-Thomas Jefferson I'm sure you know that a sect is a branch within a larger group. The larger group in his case was Christianity. I already addressed that issue. I said that he considered himself a disciple of Jesus, but that is not a Christian. Yeah, I've actually looked at his Bible in the Smithsonian. He didn't believe in the divinity of Jesus, but he still considered himself to be a Christian: That is not a Christian, by definition. "To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; and believing he never claimed any other." And he said not for divinity. It was a secular following of Jesus. He was not a Christian, though, by definition. Well, I addressed this up above, but you have to keep in mind that Jesus wasn't a Christian. That is a term created by man. Considering how many sects of Christianity there actually are, Jefferson could have been a Christian if he considered himself to be one. His beliefs were just a bit different from Orthodox Christianity. Jesus was a Christian. He believed Himself to be God, the Savior of the world. What about Obama? Obama is not a Christian. Side: yes why not
That is not a Christian, by definition Well, neither is Mormonism... but it's still considered a Christian sect. And he said not for divinity. It was a secular following of Jesus. He was not a Christian, though, by definition Yeah, this is your third time saying that. Christianity by definition is: "religion that follows Jesus Christ's teachings: the religion based on the life, teachings, and example of Jesus Christ" Based off of that definition, Jefferson was a Christian. Jesus was a Christian. He believed Himself to be God, the Savior of the world. That's like saying a teacher is his own student. Jesus was Jewish. Obama is not a Christian. Oh... you're a conspiracy theorist. Well, he claims to be Christian and he attended a Christian church, so I'm going to assume for now that he is one. Side: no its already bad with two
Well, neither is Mormonism... but it's still considered a Christian sect. They are not Christians though. Christianity by definition is: "religion that follows Jesus Christ's teachings: the religion based on the life, teachings, and example of Jesus Christ" Christianity is believing in Jesus as the Messiah. It is not the following of a belief. That's like saying a teacher is his own student. Jesus was Jewish. Christianity is simply the expression of the belief in the God of the Bible. Jesus did so. Oh... you're a conspiracy theorist. Well, he claims to be Christian and he attended a Christian church, so I'm going to assume for now that he is one. When did he say he was a Christian? Side: yes why not
They are not Christians though. According to you. Christianity is believing in Jesus as the Messiah. It is not the following of a belief. Different sects hold different beliefs. If I remember correctly, didn't you say that you are a Calvinist? Many Christians believe Calvinist interpretations to be wrong. Would it be fair to say that you aren't a Christian just because your interpretation is different? Christianity is only the trunk that supports the different branches. Christianity is simply the expression of the belief in the God of the Bible. Jesus did so. And so is Judaism... but like I said, a teacher cannot be his own student. When did he say he was a Christian? "I didn't become a Christian until many years later, when I moved to the South Side of Chicago after college. It happened not because of indoctrination or a sudden revelation, but because I spent month after month working with church folks who simply wanted to help neighbors who were down on their luck no matter what they looked like, or where they came from, or who they prayed to. It was on those streets, in those neighborhoods, that I first heard God's spirit beckon me. It was there that I felt called to a higher purpose -- His purpose." -Barack Obama (National Prayer Breakfast: Feb. 6, 2009) Side: no its already bad with two
1
point
Although Thomas Jefferson strongly identified with Christianity in his early life, it was quite clear that he began drifting away from its Dogma in his later years. True, he still indentified as a "cultural" christian (he admired and respected the teachings of Jesus), he rejected the Dogmatic principles of christianity as a whole. If you look up on some historic sources, you will find almost all the verses in the Jefferson Bible do not mention any divine miracles or any supernatural happenings, suggesting that Jefferson viewed Jesus as a moral teacher, but not a Messiah. He could be considered a Christian in the way he admired and following many tenets of the Bibles teachings, he clearly did not believe in the Christian God or the divinity of Christ. His view of God was certainly Deistic, and his view of Jesus secular. In fact, he was a great influence on his friend (and fellow founder) Thomas Paine, who was a very outspoken advocate of Diesm and critic of origanized religion (Christianity in particular). It would probably be safe to say that if Thomas Jefferson existed in todays world and obtained our modern knowledge of science, he would be an atheist. To call Jefferson a Christian would be like calling me a Buddhist because I admire the teachings of Buddha, but I do not accept any of the dogmatic tennets of Buddhism, such as strict non violence (I will defend myself if it comes to it), I dont believe in the virgin birth of Buddha, or follow a strict vegetarian diet. Side: yes why not
I agree with most of what you said. I've personally seen Jefferson's Bible and he did cut out all of the miracles performed by Jesus. It's safe to assume that he didn't believe in the divinity of Jesus (I never argued that he did). But in the case of your Buddhist analogy, I would call you a Buddhist if you considered yourself to be a Buddhist. Jefferson considered himself to be a Christian even very late in his life. He said that he was in a "sect of his own", which is fair considering the definition of Christianity- a group who follows the teachings of Jesus. Buddhists can be theistic or atheistic, and I think the same can be applied to Christianity... maybe not atheism, but deism can and it would obviously be a very unorthodox sect within Christianity. There's an actual term known as Christian Deism, which fits Jefferson's beliefs. While it is certainly a branch off Deism, it consists of another branch off Christianity (it's a very odd looking tree LOL). The Bible has been tweeked so many times and added upon so many years apart, all by different writers, who in my opinon seem to hold slightly different beliefs, that it may be possible that Christians once held very different beliefs than they do now. Look at Mormonism, their beliefs are so far off from what the Bible actually says... but they're still considered Christians. Side: yes why not
1
point
1
point
This is why we must go in faith. We cannot trust a constitutional republic, since the many will most certainly vote down any person who truly is a Christian, which means that the government will never be Christian. Possibly but a constitutional republic is the best current form of government right now and I do believe you are acting in good faith for the Christian. I disagree because I feel like putting power into Church groups could be disastrous. The many enjoy anything that is non-Christian. While not anything that is mostly true... While the constitution of the nation would prevent that. Hence, if anything it must be governed by the few, with faith that the few, the church-leaders, or so called church leaders, choose a good leader. How would this work who gets the voting percentage? The population? if so the majority of the leaders would be catholic. If by registered churches couldn't people just make up their own "church". Would it be all groups that consider themselves Christian? While the idea may work on paper it will not work in real life. Side: yes why not
1
point
1
point
1
point
I would try to be as grace centered as possible. Peter was given to be in charge of the church of God on earth. I would try to follow his example, though he most certainly failed, disastrously I might add. However, I would have a series of pastors with me to help shepherd me along in my ruling. This is when Paul comes into the analogy: Paul rebuked Peter's character and the Spirit of God showed him that what he was doing was wrong. I shall do that same: I will rule with a series of pastor advisors, who will rebuke and reproof me at every turn, so that God is the one who truly rules, with me as the physical leader of the country. Faith and grace, and the stewardship of the people of God towards me. It will be very very similar to a republic/democracy. Freedoms will be allowed plentifully; grace will abound; people shall live and do as they please; however, the Bible shall be our "Constitution", with the monarch the one to be the final say in what he Bible actually does say. Side: yes why not
1
point
I would try to be as grace centered as possible. Peter was given to be in charge of the church of God on earth. I would try to follow his example, though he most certainly failed, disastrously I might add. However, I would have a series of pastors with me to help shepherd me along in my ruling. This is when Paul comes into the analogy: Paul rebuked Peter's character and the Spirit of God showed him that what he was doing was wrong. I shall do that same: I will rule with a series of pastor advisors, who will rebuke and reproof me at every turn, so that God is the one who truly rules, with me as the physical leader of the country. Faith and grace, and the stewardship of the people of God towards me. It will be very very similar to a republic/democracy. Freedoms will be allowed plentifully; grace will abound; people shall live and do as they please; however, the Bible shall be our "Constitution", with the monarch the one to be the final say in what he Bible actually does say. So like a real "theocracy" or just the monarch being in charge of the state church but having no real power in politics? Side: no its already bad with two
It will be a theocracy. Theocracy simply means that a religion is the basis for the government. There will be a monarch, who is required to be a Christian. He will use the Bible as his platform and for judgements. The official religion of the state will be Christianity; however, other religions can freely exist in the country, people are not going to be forced to believe Christianity, there will be much freedom and much ability to make choices, etc. Side: yes why not
1
point
It will be a theocracy. Theocracy simply means that a religion is the basis for the government. There will be a monarch, who is required to be a Christian. He will use the Bible as his platform and for judgements. For who? The official religion of the state will be Christianity; however, other religions can freely exist in the country, people are not going to be forced to believe Christianity, there will be much freedom and much ability to make choices, etc. That's good.... but who knows corruption is bound to happen by future monarchs who is ever going to do about the angry church leaders (Catholics, Orthodox, ETC) when it makes them have zero power over their church members? They would revolt pretty quickly Side: no its already bad with two
For who? What? That's good.... but who knows corruption is bound to happen by future monarchs who is ever going to do about the angry church leaders (Catholics, Orthodox, ETC) when it makes them have zero power over their church members? Of course corruption will happen sometime down the road. No government lasts, since we live in a fallen world, which tends to revert against God, more than towards God. This is why I think that the head of the church should elect the leader. They would revolt pretty quickly In modern times, most likely. People hate God right now. Side: yes why not
1
point
What? Would this monarch just have power over their church or in politics? Of course corruption will happen sometime down the road. No government lasts, since we live in a fallen world, which tends to revert against God, more than towards God. This is why I think that the head of the church should elect the leader. The problem is that corruption would increase rapidly.... in a short period of time because the monarch would be bound to abuse his power and systems. While a constitutional republic adds a check on government power. Side: no its already bad with two
Would this monarch just have power over their church or in politics? Both.The problem is that corruption would increase rapidly.... in a short period of time because the monarch would be bound to abuse his power and systems. While a constitutional republic adds a check on government power. Who says that the monarch would abuse his power? Let the Bible stand in as the Constitution. Side: yes why not
1
point
Could he be "checked" by other people. The people don't know what they are doing. History Actually, there have been many good monarchs. The monarch could just change the bible and no one would have any power to stop it. This is why the monarch must be a Christian, since no Christian would do such a thing. Side: yes why not
1
point
1
point
The people don't know what they are doing. They still wouldn't like their freedom being taken away.... Actually, there have been many good monarchs. True This is why the monarch must be a Christian, since no Christian would do such a thing. How would you tell? Side: no its already bad with two
1
point
The priests would have to examine him intensely. After that, it must be taken on faith. Well corruption in that would occur extremely fast and the government would fall apart with just one bad ruler something a constitutional republic can avoid. Side: no its already bad with two
One must examine the following: If you have the many ruling, then the country will be bad, since it is run by idiots and immoral peoples. If the few, or the single, rule(s), then the country could have two possibilities: a) a bad country, since the monarch is an idiot and immoral. b) a good country, since the monarch is intelligent and moral. The former ends in a bad government and a bad country, always. The latter sometimes ends in the bad, but sometimes ends in the good. So, do you choose that which is always going to be bad, or the one that has a possibility of being good? Side: yes why not
1
point
The former ends in a bad government and a bad country, always. The latter sometimes ends in the bad, but sometimes ends in the good. So, do you choose that which is always going to be bad, or the one that has a possibility of being good? A constitutional republic has worked for the United States. Side: no its already bad with two
It hasn't actually. The electoral system has failed, since it results in the appeal to the many, in order to achieve political prowess. And if you can't tell, America doesn't get anything done, nor does it have any sense of stable morality. Morality, goodness, Christianity, etc. have all faded as a result of this system. Republics only give power to the people; the people don't like that which is good and right. America is actually an example that the system does not work. Side: yes why not
1
point
It hasn't actually. The electoral system has failed, since it results in the appeal to the many, in order to achieve political prowess. And if you can't tell, America doesn't get anything done, nor does it have any sense of stable morality. Morality, goodness, Christianity, etc. have all faded as a result of this system. Republics only give power to the people; the people don't like that which is good and right. America is actually an example that the system does not work. While it is true that republics do economically well compared to theocracies and monarchies. About morality that is true unfortunately no government is perfect.... Side: no its already bad with two
Why couldn't the economy boom in a monarchy? The only reason it has boomed in America is because of the freedom of the market to buy and sell at will, with the hand of the government out of their affairs. Could a theocratic monarch not do that? Laissez faire systems are not inherently tied to republics. Side: yes why not
1
point
Why couldn't the economy boom in a monarchy? The only reason it has boomed in America is because of the freedom of the market to buy and sell at will, with the hand of the government out of their affairs. Could a theocratic monarch not do that? Laissez faire systems are not inherently tied to republics. My question is basically most monarchies do not exist any more or are replaced and are now "figure-heads". Why do you think that no monarchy is successful anymore? Side: no its already bad with two
There are a variety of reasons; for example, King Henry and King George both pretty much gave power to Parliament. Mainly, though, I would say that the Enlightenment gave rise to the notion of the social contract, that the Divine Right of Kings was false. The people wanted more power. That being said, though, another reason could be that of the exploitation of the people by the few. However, all of these are answered via a theocratic monarch, which establishes that the government will live by faith and grace. A true Christian will not exploit his people. A true Christian will do that which is good for his people (kind of like the relation between husbands and wives). So the only real complaint is that the past is filled with non-Christian leaders. That is why I designated for the monarch to be Christian. Side: yes why not
1
point
There are a variety of reasons; for example, King Henry and King George both pretty much gave power to Parliament. Mainly, though, I would say that the Enlightenment gave rise to the notion of the social contract, that the Divine Right of Kings was false. The people wanted more power. That being said, though, another reason could be that of the exploitation of the people by the few. However, all of these are answered via a theocratic monarch, which establishes that the government will live by faith and grace. A true Christian will not exploit his people. A true Christian will do that which is good for his people (kind of like the relation between husbands and wives). So the only real complaint is that the past is filled with non-Christian leaders. That is why I designated for the monarch to be Christian. The problem is most of them claimed to be Christians. Side: no its already bad with two
Of course many of them claimed to be Christians. However, we know that the kind of fruits one bears is a sign of what kind of tree one really is. Moreover, the church leaders will exercise extreme examinations of the person being chosen to be monarch. In fact, I would argue that the person should be chosen by the church leaders, though no necessarily, outside of the request of the person. What I mean by this is that the monarch cannot be one who actually has wanted to be the monarch. It must be one whom the church leaders choose, and then request for him to be king. The person who is chosen should not be one who has desired to be king, but it should be one who has and is trying to live the Christian life. However, this is not a necessary calculation. Side: yes why not
Anyone who is able to say 'not me, God inside me', anyone selfless enough to know that there's no perceiver, only perception and anyone who has in tune with the Eternal will know what is valuable in this world of temporality. Christians have always made the claim that Christianity is the only way, but it is not. You don't need to be a Christian to avoid corruption. Side: no its already bad with two
Yeah it's a great symbol and all. But clinging onto symbols is idolatory which necesarilly prevents you from truly opening up to God. It may portray it in all it's grace but again, symbology is never deliverance itself. The only way to achieve full deliverance is to maintain a fixed, concentrated, selfless love of God. Side: no its already bad with two
The Bible tells you that I can only love God if I am Christian. But if you truly love God then you don't need a book. To second love for God to that of what a book says is and always will be idolatory. The Bible is only a means towards the end that is God, it is not an end in and of itself. So no, you don't need to be a Christian to love God. Side: no its already bad with two
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Definitely if someone is performing well and serving the people of the country then he/she should be elected more than two terms. if you are in bad financial condition than get florida loan title and enjoy because it is really easy to avail. In many countries president and prime ministers are elected more that three terms event. Side: yes why not
|
1
point
1
point
I don't think it's necessarily bad with two, but I think we should keep it to two terms. I would endorse extending the length of each term to 5 or even 6 years though. The issue with the current term length is that pretty much any plan that is going to effect meaningful change in a nation of this size (not to mention how slow our government is in general due to the huge web of red tape) will take time to implement. A plan that takes time to payoff is extremely difficult to implement because of that. If a president starts one out during his or her first term and the payoff isn't here or at least obviously visible by the time elections come around, he or she isn't likely to be re-elected- and of course the next president will can the program that has since become unpopular. With 5 or 6 years per term to work with, a lot of plans that wouldn't be workable in 4 years become possibilities. Of course, if we're to extend the duration of the presidency in any way, we'll need to also make the impeachment process easier to implement, but that isn't a bad thing either. I could even get behind changing the presidency to one term only, with a duration of 6-10 years or so, so long as the impeachment process is made a more viable method to remove an undesirable president. For example, reneging on promises made during the campaign process should be sufficient grounds to start the process, even if it's not enough in and of itself to complete it. Side: no its already bad with two
|