Democracy vs Totalitarianism

In this round I will refute my opponent's opening outline, as well as refute his points regarding my opening round. Efficiency of decisions --"One of the biggest advantages of totalitarianism is the fact that decisions can be made with in a split second"-- My opponent and I agree on this. One of the greatest drawbacks of U. S. style federal democracy is the slow pace of its governance. --"For example, lets take the recent debt ceiling crisis in the U. S. It took months and months of deliberating"-- --"In a totalitarian system, it would have been able to be raised with the snap of a finger by the dictator"-- My opponent is correct regarding the speed of governance in Totalitarianism, however his example here isn't applicable. The U. S. is in many ways unique in its ability to rack up debt, this is due to the international perception of economic stability, thus the value in its economic ‘futures', with specific comparisons to other world economies. There would be no reason for a Totalitarian government to willingly apply so much debt to its economy (as much of our debt remains ‘voter placation'). In fact the only other nation with a conceptual ‘debt ceiling' is Denmark, a western democracy. [1] A totalitarian government wouldn't need to raise its debt ceiling to continue to pay for Medicaid and unemployment's benefits, as the dictator would likely allow their citizens to starve, and blame it on a regional minority. Economy --"…Many totalitarian states were planned economies"-- I'm going to have to insist that my opponent give more examples of these ‘planned economies' so I can adequately refute their efficiency or relevance. The one example my opponent does provides cites Nazi Germany. --"…Democracy doesn't imply planned economy and implies free-market"-- My opponent needs to provide a greater illustration of the value of a ‘planned economy'. Most of the world's most stable and thriving economies over the past 50 years have been ‘democratically managed', a system that has brought more prosperity to a greater number people. To my opponent's example of Nazi Germany, I will concede that Germany did in fact have a thriving economy under totalitarianism. This isn't an endorsement for totalitarianism as much as acknowledgement of the ability of war to benefit a country financially. Should my opponent concede that Germany's economy would stay stable if Germany remained at a perpetual state of war, then I would have to admit to the merit of this example of ‘successful economic totalitarianism'. However, it is doubtful that my opponent is suggesting such a thing, and when the war ended, either by Germany winning or losing, the war machine based economy would flounder. This is what occurred, and both the people and the dictator suffered. A democratic Germany has created a stable, prosperous economy that serves a greater number of people. This government seems unlikely to be toppled or militarily defeated any time soon. Human Rights My opponent and I mostly agree on this. Western ideals of ‘human rights' are indeed not embraced everywhere and are a fairly new social construct. That said a large portion of the world has been living with some very specific ‘rights' for a while. Residents of the U. S. and Europe (among others) have enjoyed a level of liberty that if taken away, would lead to an extreme amount of social disorder. Under such circumstances, it is likely that any government responsible for this would be overthrown. This can be taken a step further as we see people who have been living under these types of totalitarian governments, revolting against their leaders. This speaks directly to my most important argument regarding stability. How stable are Egypt? Yemen? Syria? Jordan? Libya? These dictatorships were rolling along quite nicely, and now are awash in citizen discontent and violence. --"…In the eyes of history, human rights are not considered correct. -- My opponent is correct about the ‘newness' of ‘human rights'. However, for the people who have enjoyed living with them, and those who have seen what ‘rights' they could have, the governments of these people are going to have a harder and harder time convincing their populace that they should be without it. These dictators will naturally attempt to maintain stability by pointing to external things (blaming the Jews, the West, regional minorities) or simply using cash to placate their citizens for a while. [2] I will now respond to my opponent's rebuttal. Efficiency of decisions "My opponent keeps talking about populous support. However, that really doesn't matter in a totalitarian state. " When popular support is low enough it doesn't matter what type of government it is. History shows that all people have an eventual breaking point. The recent dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak (who was western backed due to his ability to maintain stability, 1981-2011) was overthrown when his ‘populous support' was finally lost. Egypt, now a military dictatorship, will likely hang the former dictator and elect another leader, who will also likely be hung if he hangs on to power too long and loses popular support. [3] The same is true of Libya and possibly Bashar Assad and Ali Abdul Saleh [4], of Syria and Yemen respectively. While the people of the latter countries may not be successful in removing their dictators, the stability of these societies is suffering, as a direct consequence of the lack of response to the people's demands. Economy --"Greatest stability? Yeah right. In the U. S. from 1950, there were 10 huge recessions and many smaller ones. Yes, an economy can flourish. But it will also plummet. However, a planned economy will stay stable for a very long time. -- No government is perfect and no economy will remain constant over a long period of time. While things like the great depression and other major recessions are part of the draw back of the free market, many modern influences reduce the consequence for such inevitabilities. Most democracies contain social safety nets. These help the people during tough economic times, and while the people may face difficulties, it doesn't come close to what my opponent endorses. Under the totalitarian economy of North Korea, mass starvation is the norm. In the totalitarian economy under Stalin, (whom my opponent cites as an endorsement of totalitarianism) he allowed his citizens to starve as a matter of policy. Under these systems, a depression or a dozens recessions, would have very little effect on people who already have very little. [5] Again, I would like to ask my opponent to give me examples of these ‘planned economies'. Human Rights "How will it matter to the state if people are treated poorly? It won't. The only people that you need to treat well is the army. Therefore, you can maintain order. Rights will not make a society better. They might in fact do the opposite. " I believe I have addressed this earlier. I will simply add that given the examples we are seeing today, if a dictator would like to stay in power, he must concede some of his people's demands or be eventually overthrown by his populace or opportunistic outside influence. Egypt is an example of this. On the other side, the Syrian military is still mostly sympathetic to the control of its dictator. Only time will tell how long that will last. Clearly the less people feel they are being oppressed, the less likely they are to over-throw their perceived oppressor. [6] Resolution negated. Vote Pro. [1] . http://marketplace.publicradio.org... [2] . http://www.aolnews.com... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] . http://www.dw-world.de... [5] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [6] . http://en.wikipedia.org...