Democracy

Double Rejoinder #1 "You made the debate topic broad, So you don't get to qualify it after the fact. " I have not attempted to qualify the argument post facto. You are the one attempting to pigeonhole the argument to some responsibility of providing an alternative. That is YOUR argument; NOT mine. I'm under no obligation to help you make your argument. Alternatives matter? Then you should have made and substantiated your point rather than having argued from ignorance, A fallacious argument which proposes the truth of a claim (e. G. Democracy is a sound form of government) by reason of lack of evidence to the contrary (e. G. "So if you can't propose an alternative, This debate is over because democracy wins by default, ") I reject your attempts to shift your burden of proof. Double Rejoinder #2 "I don't care what Murray Rothbard says, That's an argument from authority. A good argument should be logical and stand or fall on it's own merits. Such arguments don't require an authority. " My mistake. I can see where it appears I made an appeal to authority. That should have read, ". . . Because as Murrary Rothbard pointed out, not "Because Murray Rothbard pointed out". I did not leave out the "as" intentionally. I was referencing his particular statement on the logical inconsistency of democracy because those statements aren't my own. His "authority" doesn't matter at all. Only the assessment of the logic does as described in my reference in Round 2. "You seem to be against the idea of representatives as well. I don't see why because you're handing the same amount of power over in the end anyways. " "Seem" is not an argument; "seem" is your impression. If you can't point out which statement I made that informs your assessment, Then it's irrelevant. "My math is accurate" Your arithmetic is arbitrary (given that you made up the scale. ) My entertaining it was a thought experiment meant to demonstrate (and did, By the way) the inconsistency of this division argument, The significance upon which you have yet to expand. ". . . Because the representative are elected, There in choosing who to give their power to. This is fair because communities that agree on things can elect like minded representatives and this work great for their town. Their city, Or their nation. " You have contradicted your own argument. Why are you invoking the concept of "fairness"? You stated, And I quote, "Democracy does not address the issue of morality at all. Democracy is only really designed for the electoral end of a system. The moral implications of what happens afterwards are entirely on the shoulders of the representatives or the people that vote for anything. " "You talk about the will of the people being immoral. That's irrelevant, Any system has a chance of producing an immoral power holder or holders. " I didn't assert that the will of the people is immoral. I extended your argument, "Only the actions taken by representatives are immoral" to its logical conclusions: either the immorality is an aberration and the representative does not represent the will of its people (making it undemocratic) or the representative is a proxy of the people's will and thereby said will is immoral. It's simple logic. "That just brings you right back to anarchy again. That's the problem with not suggesting an alternative, Every criticism you make just bring us back to anarchy. " This is a false dilemma, A logically fallacious argument which proposes two opposing views as the only possibilities. It could very well be the case that in my rejection of democracy, I'm endorsing "anarchy, " or "autocracy. " So it isn't "either" Democracy "or" Anarchy. Furthermore, The suggestion of an alternative or the lack thereof, is, Once again, Your responsibility, Not mine given that I'm not the one who proposed it. If you want me to address your argument, You'd first have to substantiate it, Not just state tautologies. The subject of this debate, Once again, Is Democracy. If all you want is anarchy, Then I win this debate by reductio ad absurdum because anarchy can be shown to be absurd. " That is not reductio ad absurdum. Reductio ad Absurdum is a rhetorical device used to demonstrate the absurdity of a proposition when its premise or argument is extended to its logical conclusion (e. G. Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal. ) Not only have you failed to demonstrate the absurdity, But by your very description "Democracy has it's flaws, But so does every other system, " my premises couldn't possibly extend to anarchy given per you that anarchy has the capacity for flaw and immorality. (For the record I haven't once proposed anarchy. ) Furthermore, Your false dilemma indicated your flaw in logic when arguing either Democracy or Anarchy. This false dilemma lead you to present a strawman argument a logically fallacious argument which misrepresents the opponent's argument with a distortion and claims to have refuted it. " Closing Arguments: 1. I presented two premises upon which I would base my argument: (a) Democracy is illogical, And (b) Democracy coerces dissenters; therefore, It's immoral. I provided substance to these arguments through rationalization including that my own and my reference to Murray Rothbard's assessment in Man, Economy, And State, With Power and Market. " That is, Democracy by extension of policy arguments suffers from argumentum ad populum a logically fallacious proposition which denotes the truth or validity of a claim to be a function of its popularity. In Murray Rothbard's essay, It's pointed out that the contradiction in democracy is in its very nature--majoritarian consensus. Majoritarian consensus allows for the despots to assume power and end further elections less there be restriction which disallow this capacity, Thereby undermining and invalidating majority rule. Furthermore, Democracy is immoral because it coerces their submission of their labor and resources through non-compliance law and taxation, Which are codified with the threat of harm, Violence, Force, Or aggression (i. E. The extension of an armed officer's discretion to exercise deadly force. ) If it were otherwise, And dissenters could exit the arrangement, Then it wouldn't be majority rule. Decisions would be made unanimously. 2. My opponent proposed a tautology that all systems have their flaws. He then continued to operate on a premise he'd neither expand nor justify, I. E. There's no alternative to Democracy. He merely stated that the other systems were flawed despite conceding that democracy was flawed as well. 3. He then used arbitrary arithmetic, Which I indulged and debunked, To make an estimation of the division of power, The significance upon which he would not expand. In his failure to do so, He attempted to shift his onus onto me: in his incapacity to demonstrate the reasons behind his assertion that there are no alternatives to democracy, He then suggested that the logic of my arguments were dependent of my proposing a contrary argument rather than his supporting his own argument. It should be noted that I did not once propose or insinuate an alternative. That was his argument not mine leading to my rejection of his attempts to shift his onus. He continued to focus on the validity of "his math" while failing to support the validity of the claim which was meant to support, The division of power. 4. My opponent then continued to argue fallacy after fallacy (argument from ignorance, false dilemma, relative privation, strawman argument, Etc. ) He also incorrectly cited and invoked the Reductio ad Absurdum. Thanks to my opponent; Thank you, Audience. Vote well.