This is a little misleading. It is asking two questions and trying to force us to give the same answer for both.

I suppose we could say that homosexuality is not common, and so not normal (pending one's definition of normal). But that really degrades into semantics for both sides on what is "normal."

I will start by saying that "normal" is not the same as "moral" and so none of my argument should be looked at with morals in mind. I will also like to say that none of this reflects what I believe any laws should be.

I would argue that sexual desires are an evolutionary trait to get us to try to spread our seed and allow our genes to pass on. Any sexual desires that contradict that evolutionary goal are not "normal."

Now, I'm con to this argument, but I do feel that I should correct your misunderstanding regarding traffic to websites.

1) None of us are owners of DDO, so none of us stand to make any money from more revenue to DDO.

2) If you ever look over DDO (and I'm assuming you haven't), you'll notice that there are no advertisements, and so, no advertising revenue to be generated from traffic. If anything, extra traffic will just require extra bandwidth, which will only add an expense.

Do you think that just because some members of DDO come here, that makes them "defectors"? If that is the case, do you also believe that any members from CD that go to DDO are "defectors" even if they remain active on both sites?

Standing on its own, it is hard to make an accurate statement. It is best to compare to various options. So here, I will compare to democracy.

Both democracy and dictatorship have a ton of various meanings, we can look at two different aspects. The worst of each and the best of each. Starting with the worst.

Direct Democracy vs Tyrannical Dictatorship

Tyrannical Dictatorship has the problem that they often don't care about the people that they lead. They often cause negative effects on the living conditions and economic well being for their people. They will often use military and police force to keep the people from revolting. While this is often viewed as the worst form a government can take, it is actually not that bad for the very reason that it is not too hard to correct. Revolution can be difficult because of the police and military force, however, when conditions get bad, the police and military will often step aside. This can very from dictator to dictator (see Egypt vs Libya for both ends), but it with enough will power, it is always able to overthrow them.

Now, comparing to Direct Democracy, we see that different issues arrise. First, there is a reason that this form of democracy is often called "tyranny of the majority." It allows the majority, regardless of any moral code or guidance to enact whatever they want. This means that if the poorest 51% want to make the top 49% to pay a lot more taxes, and they want to "equalize" their economic differences, they can. This means that if enough ignorant people see that more crime is committed by minority groups, they can impose racist regulations. This means that the law will be directed by the ignorance of the majority. This can cause just as horrible economic and liberty restrictions as the Tyrannical Dictator (though it will usually take longer to come out), however, it is harder to have a revolution against. Since the oppressed are a minority, rather than a majority. Because of this difficulty in revolting and correcting the problem, the Tyrannical Dictatorship is superior.

Representative Democracy vs Benevolent Dictatorship

Now we can look at the ideal for each form. The Representative Democracy allows people to choose the best leaders to make the rules. Because they vote for individuals, rather than individual policies, a particular candidate cannot take stances which are too extreme or polarizing. Because if they have 10 issues that they hold as important, and 1 is extremely polarizing, then all the people that do not like your view on that 1 issue, will not support you regardless of your other 9, and those that do like that 1, may be changed by the other 9. As such, many are voted on, not because of particular stances on specific issues, but based on a more generic ideology or philosophy. This has the downside that many candidates may simply pander and lie to get elected, as we see with the current US congressional makeup.

In Benevolent Dictatorship, the dictator chooses actions which they honestly believe are best for their people. While they may be wrong, and so bad things can happen, they also have the ability to recognize that their ideas are not working and changing their ideas. A single individual can learn and adapt significantly faster than a group. And since the individual dictator does not have opposing parties to throw blame at, they are more likely to actually adjust their thinking and policies for the good of the people. So in the ideal sense, the Dictator is superior.

Since the dictator is better in both the worst and best situations, then we can say that a dictatorship is better than a democracy (even though neither are defined).

Well, yes, he did say it. But the two options presented clearly show that the "yes" side is completely out of context to what it was that he said.

The truth is, they didn't do it on their own. That is not to say that they don't deserve credit for what they've done, but they must also acknowledge that it is not a 100% individual effort. They received a loan or a grant to fund it. If they paid for their business straight out, then they got the money from either their parents or from previous jobs. All of which mean that they had assistance in some form. There is also the fact that they utilize the police, roads, and various other things which are provided by the taxes of EVERYONE not just their own.

Since there is so little defined for this question, and both democracy and dictatorship have a ton of various meanings, we can look at two different aspects. The worst of each and the best of each. Starting with the worst.

Direct Democracy vs Tyrannical Dictatorship

Tyrannical Dictatorship has the problem that they often don't care about the people that they lead. They often cause negative effects on the living conditions and economic well being for their people. They will often use military and police force to keep the people from revolting. While this is often viewed as the worst form a government can take, it is actually not that bad for the very reason that it is not too hard to correct. Revolution can be difficult because of the police and military force, however, when conditions get bad, the police and military will often step aside. This can very from dictator to dictator (see Egypt vs Libya for both ends), but it with enough will power, it is always able to overthrow them.

Now, comparing to Direct Democracy, we see that different issues arrise. First, there is a reason that this form of democracy is often called "tyranny of the majority." It allows the majority, regardless of any moral code or guidance to enact whatever they want. This means that if the poorest 51% want to make the top 49% to pay a lot more taxes, and they want to "equalize" their economic differences, they can. This means that if enough ignorant people see that more crime is committed by minority groups, they can impose racist regulations. This means that the law will be directed by the ignorance of the majority. This can cause just as horrible economic and liberty restrictions as the Tyrannical Dictator (though it will usually take longer to come out), however, it is harder to have a revolution against. Since the oppressed are a minority, rather than a majority. Because of this difficulty in revolting and correcting the problem, the Tyrannical Dictatorship is superior.

Representative Democracy vs Benevolent Dictatorship

Now we can look at the ideal for each form. The Representative Democracy allows people to choose the best leaders to make the rules. Because they vote for individuals, rather than individual policies, a particular candidate cannot take stances which are too extreme or polarizing. Because if they have 10 issues that they hold as important, and 1 is extremely polarizing, then all the people that do not like your view on that 1 issue, will not support you regardless of your other 9, and those that do like that 1, may be changed by the other 9. As such, many are voted on, not because of particular stances on specific issues, but based on a more generic ideology or philosophy. This has the downside that many candidates may simply pander and lie to get elected, as we see with the current US congressional makeup.

In Benevolent Dictatorship, the dictator chooses actions which they honestly believe are best for their people. While they may be wrong, and so bad things can happen, they also have the ability to recognize that their ideas are not working and changing their ideas. A single individual can learn and adapt significantly faster than a group. And since the individual dictator does not have opposing parties to throw blame at, they are more likely to actually adjust their thinking and policies for the good of the people. So in the ideal sense, the Dictator is better.

Since the dictator is better in both the worst and best situations, then we can say that a dictatorship is better than a democracy (even though neither are defined).

If you're saying what I think you're saying, you're committing the fallacy fallacy. That is, just because something is fallacious, it isn't necessarily wrong. Furthermore, democracy makes no truth claim or argument, so to say it commits ad populum is disputable.

First, I didn't say it was wrong, I merely pointed that it is structured upon fallacious logic. While democracy itself does not make a truth argument, in passing policies via popular opinion, it cannot make any logical truth statement other than what is most popular and not necessarily most effective at economic growth, or equality, or whatever else you consider important. When considering what is "best" (by each of our subjective opinions), "most popular" is almost always considered to be way down the list, and as such, democracy should logically be way down the list as well.

This is false. Firstly, those in power would need to be above average intelligence to become politicians. Secondly, the ignorant and foolish most likely will not vote in elections, making them arbitrary to the democratic procedure, essentially non-existent.

This is an equivocation fallacy. As I said in my first post (to avoid making this fallacy myself, because the initial post was so extremely vague) assuming direct democracy. Since that is what I was talking about, you cannot claim that it is false with the reasoning that you gave. If we were talking about representative democracy or a democratic republic, then we can make those claims. But, as I said, this needs to be clarified.

There is a common logical fallacy, known as appeal to popularity or appeal to majority. Democracy (assuming we are talking about direct democracy, it should really be clarified) is a structure based entirely around this logical fallacy.

We must also look at what the theoretical possibilities are with the two options. With a dictatorship, since it is based on the knowledge and wisdom of a single individual, it has the potential of vast greatness, or vast evilness. While democracy is going to be based on the knowledge and wisdom of the average individual. This means that the ignorant and foolish that exist in every society are going to be drags on the potential of democracy.

It entirely depends upon the dictatorship in question. There is no reason to rebel simply because there is a dictatorship, but rather you should rebel or not based on what the dictator does.

As a very active member on DDO (debate.org) I must say that I don't believe that there should be a debate. I would say that it would be nice to have members between both sites to have friendly and competitive debates between them on various topics through various mediums. The idea of having a debate on which site is a better debate site is childish and immature. When such acts are done for other activities, it is a classic sign of an inferiority complex.