I will mark u as brainlist if u will give me ans today becoz tomorrow is my debate class so plzz help me
Write at least 10 points for debate topic is current politics is good (in favour)
Answers
Answered by
1
Overtime, a democratic government has been seen to be a negative way to run a country. The government doesnt seek out what is best for all citizens but only does want the majority of them want. A government such as a democracy, waste a lot of money campaigning and puts and unneeded strain on the economy for funding purposes. Therefore, when being compared to a communist government, there are more effective ways to run a country!

Con
I accept, I look forward to our debate!
When claiming a system is bad, you most compare it to other systems that might take its role; it's meaningless to list the costs of Democracy without a point of comparison to determine how much of them might be saved by doing something else, and what other things are lost or gained in doing so.
Communism is not something that stands opposite democracy. Communism proposes a system without classes and with common ownership of the means of production [1]. This is not a method of governance, but rather an economic system, and is better compared to concepts like capitalism. Democracy is simply a system of governance whereby decisions are made according to the wishes of the majority [2]. There is nothing stopping a country from adopting a democratic communist way of life.
You cannot claim democracy is not the best form of government without either demonstrating a better alternative or advocating a lack of governance.
[1]http://www.auburn.edu...
[2]http://www.whatisdemocracy.net...;


Pro
Like every government system, democracy has positive and negative effects towards society. Throughout time, democracy has proven to be a defective way to run a country. In the world we live in, a democratic government is a potential danger to civilization and at any point in time it could lead to a disaster. Within many countries in past and present times, a representative democratic government puts an unneeded strain on the economy for funding where money could be used elsewhere. In the end, a democracy doesn't seek out what is best for all citizens but simply does what the majority wants. For a democratic government to work there are many changes that will need to be made for it to be the best form of government.
First of all, because we don't live in a perfect world and we have realized that man is a fallen creature, a democracy could easily lead to disaster. In a democratic government, the majority has the power to destroy a minority. Throughout history there have been many examples where the majority has had the power and destroyed the minority. For instance, in Germany in 1933, Hitler and his National Socialist Party were voted in by the majority. From here, Hitler then incorporated his power into the Nazi dictatorship with his strong sense of racism and plans for world domination. During this time, Hitler produced a novel," Mein Kampf," dedicated to Thule Society member Dietrich Eckart. The novel was an autobiography and an exposition of his ideology about racial purity which also incorporated future plans Hitler had which any German citizen could have read and used against him. Although at first, German Jews assumed that Hitler would not last long due to the fact, the nazi movement was so much against basic German traditions of cultural and religious tolerance. In the end, if the democracy had not been seeking change, in the year 1939, the Holocaust wouldn't have occurred. Therefore, collaborationist governments and recruits from occupied countries wouldn't have systematically killed between 11 and 14 million people, including about six million Jews, in concentration camps, ghettos and mass executions.
plz plz plz mark me as brain list

Con
I accept, I look forward to our debate!
When claiming a system is bad, you most compare it to other systems that might take its role; it's meaningless to list the costs of Democracy without a point of comparison to determine how much of them might be saved by doing something else, and what other things are lost or gained in doing so.
Communism is not something that stands opposite democracy. Communism proposes a system without classes and with common ownership of the means of production [1]. This is not a method of governance, but rather an economic system, and is better compared to concepts like capitalism. Democracy is simply a system of governance whereby decisions are made according to the wishes of the majority [2]. There is nothing stopping a country from adopting a democratic communist way of life.
You cannot claim democracy is not the best form of government without either demonstrating a better alternative or advocating a lack of governance.
[1]http://www.auburn.edu...
[2]http://www.whatisdemocracy.net...;


Pro
Like every government system, democracy has positive and negative effects towards society. Throughout time, democracy has proven to be a defective way to run a country. In the world we live in, a democratic government is a potential danger to civilization and at any point in time it could lead to a disaster. Within many countries in past and present times, a representative democratic government puts an unneeded strain on the economy for funding where money could be used elsewhere. In the end, a democracy doesn't seek out what is best for all citizens but simply does what the majority wants. For a democratic government to work there are many changes that will need to be made for it to be the best form of government.
First of all, because we don't live in a perfect world and we have realized that man is a fallen creature, a democracy could easily lead to disaster. In a democratic government, the majority has the power to destroy a minority. Throughout history there have been many examples where the majority has had the power and destroyed the minority. For instance, in Germany in 1933, Hitler and his National Socialist Party were voted in by the majority. From here, Hitler then incorporated his power into the Nazi dictatorship with his strong sense of racism and plans for world domination. During this time, Hitler produced a novel," Mein Kampf," dedicated to Thule Society member Dietrich Eckart. The novel was an autobiography and an exposition of his ideology about racial purity which also incorporated future plans Hitler had which any German citizen could have read and used against him. Although at first, German Jews assumed that Hitler would not last long due to the fact, the nazi movement was so much against basic German traditions of cultural and religious tolerance. In the end, if the democracy had not been seeking change, in the year 1939, the Holocaust wouldn't have occurred. Therefore, collaborationist governments and recruits from occupied countries wouldn't have systematically killed between 11 and 14 million people, including about six million Jews, in concentration camps, ghettos and mass executions.
plz plz plz mark me as brain list
Similar questions