Every tyrants dream.

Tyrant - a cruel and oppressive ruler. [1] Dream - a strongly desired goal or purpose. [2] Despite our rich history of politics, we still cannot create a flawless system. Evil men corrupt governments and create negative effects on populations. My following arguments are based on historic evidence and modal logic. Argument 1: It is possible that a tyrant"s dream may be ethically immoral. Suppose a tyrant dreamed to murder and rape people. We would judge these actions to be ethically wrong. Even some moral nihilists might say "that"s not fair!" or "that"s not right!" We somehow have an ability to perceive "right and wrong," even if it all is just relative. However, if one truly insists that there are no rights or wrongs, we can easily change the argument to "It is possible that a tyrant"s dream may impact society in a negative manner" or something similar. Now this concept of a tyrant seems to be logically possible. When we use the word "every," we sometimes mean just the currently existing members of a set, but we sometimes mean all possible members of a set. The google definition is "all the individual members of a set without exception." [3] This would include all possible tyrants- even some that do not exist in our possible universe. Martin Luther King Jr famously said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." [4] So even if there is just one possible tyrant with a "bad" dream, this would still be bad. If there was a book with 999 true statements and 1 false statement, we could not honestly affirm every assertion in that book. Therefore, we should not agree with the dreams of every tyrant. Argument 2: Hitler"s dreams were ethically immoral. We can structure a solid argument like so: 1. Hitler"s dreams were ethically immoral. 2. We should not agree with the ethically immoral. 3. Hitler was a tyrant. C: Therefore, we should not agree with the dreams of all tyrants. Support for Premise 1: Hitler desired to wage war. [5] I take it that wanting to wage war is obviously ethically wrong for numerous reasons. Premise 2 is self-evident for everyone but the moral nihilist. Premise 3 is practically self-evident. There is no need to provide resources if my opponent agrees with this premise. Rebuttals: "I am a Pope, a Mullah, and a President....." Not every tyrant dreams to be a pope, mullah, or president. It is practically self-evident that this is not the dream of every tyrant, if this is what my opponent is asserting. Rather, tyrants would have many different dreams, just as people have many different dreams. One tyrant might be a sadist, and enjoy hurting people. Others might hate their positions, but they act cruelly through fear and ignorance. The other statements by my opponent are similar to this, and do not affirm the resolution. In conclusion, we have good ethical reasons to disagree and oppose the resolution. Until my opponent provides solid arguments against these objections and creates good reasons for affirming the resolution, I believe we must disagree with the resolution, just as we must disagree with a call for rape or a resolution for murder. Sources: [1] https://www.google.com... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3] https://www.google.com... [4] https://www.africa.upenn.edu... [5] https://en.wikiquote.org...