Democracy is not an effective ideology in producing a successful society.

"Why can't you accept the argument of at least SOMEWHAT absolute morality?" That's absurd. Somewhat absolute morality completely contradicts the "absolute" part. Do you even know what you're saying? "Killing is wrong, stealing is wrong and the like. Always with exceptions of course." Always with exceptions. Hence, NOT ABSOLUTE. "There is no real proof of absolute morality because we would need an entity outside of ourselves to prove it. Obviously this is not possible. " Which goes along with my point about how morality is determined by society and not as an absolute. In that case, democracy fulfills your moral requirements in the best way possible. "We can deduce that it is objective however. Most everyone would agree that it is as wrong to murder a person in the United States as it is in Kenya, and everywhere else. This is objective." No no no. This is not objective. This is logical fallacy. Namely Argumentum Ad Populum. The masses do not dictate truth. However, if you are going to argue by popularity, be my guest, because all it does is strengthen my point about morality being dictated by society. "I do not have to give examples of any other ideologies or societies in order to find fault in and criticise democracy." You do if you want to determine whether it is successful or not. Which is a key part to this debate. "If you believe that our society, or any other society is successful I would disagree. How can you deem a society a success if it has homeless people and people dying without health care, and people being abused and people who are not free to express unpopular thought without being ridiculed to the point of silence?" So the only way a society can be successful is if everyone is completely happy, healthy, content, respected, and worshiped. Thus, the only successful society is heaven. I'm sorry, but this point is ludicrous. If you're going to define success as perfection, you should have just said "democracy is not perfect" so that everyone in the comment section can criticize you for setting up a rigged debate. As for me, I am not going to allow you to use this definition of success because it is absurd. "These things need no comparison to be true. The only comparison needed is that to an ideal society, not an existing one. When these things, among others, cease to exist in our society, I will conceded to it's success, until then I will criticise it." Comparing things to an ideal is the basis for finding flaws, not for detailing success. Success is determined by comparing several imperfect things. For example, asking if a person is successful is not the same as asking a person if he happens to be God. "EFFECTIVE in producing a SUCCESSFUL society. Yes, virtually every society is a failure. This argument is not moot, give me a reason it is. The society of which you are a part may be successful for you, but it surely is not successful to everyone, It can't be both, so it can not be called successful. You may argue that the majority believes it to be successful, but I will not accept the majority's opinion as the end all be all, or of much validity at all." If you define something as only being able to exist as an ideal, it is akin to saying it can never exist, making the definition, and thus, the argument moot. Success is not an ideal, it is defined as the attainment of a favorable outcome. Favorable over other things. Success is inherently compared to realistic situations, not only to an ideal. I don't need to appeal to popularity because your definition is invalid. "I didn't realize I had to convince anyone that it is moral to let everyone marry whoever they like and as many people as they like without interference of the state. Or that people shouldn't have beliefs imposed upon them by the law." And seeing as how you didn't do that here, you lost your only chance to validate absolute morality. "None of this gives anyone the right to impose on another person, their ideas, even if they are right. If I choose to ride a motorcycle without a helmet I should surely be allowed to." I see you have no comment on drinking and drug use. I take your silence as a concession. "This is where Mill's harm principle applies. The majority should not be able to make rules for the minority as well as themselves, unless it is a law passed for the protection of RIGHTS not safety." The right to life? The right to live safely and securely in public? Shouting "fire" in a crowded movie theater is an exercise of the first amendment but can result in grievous harm to people. How about bomb threats that aren't carried out? What about the right to privacy of several men carrying large, bomb-shaped packages onto a plane? "I agree that democracy is more effective than dictatorships, in most cases, fascist governments and theocracies. I am not comparing one poor ideology to a worse one however, as far as I'm concerned that is not the way to progress. I am comparing a poor ideology to what the ideal is imagined to be. I have stated what the ideal society, or even a successful one would not posses above." And that's why your argument holds no weight. Success is not determined by comparing an existing thing to an ideal that is impossible to reach. Success is determined by comparing a reached state to other states. You are wrong in saying that you have stated what the ideal society is, but right in saying that you have only specified what a successful (perfect) society would not possess. This type of deliberate ambiguity is not going to strengthen your point. "This debate is about the shortcomings of democracy, not the semantics my opponents seems so intent on fixating on." Incorrect. If this debate were merely "democracy isn't perfect" then it would be a rigged debate that does not contribute to this forum in any way, shape, or form because nothing is perfect. It would not even be a debate. It would be a blog. This debate is on whether democracy is successful or not, and I have used the LOGICAL definition of success and showed that this definition applies to democracy. ************** My opponent's argument is essentially this: Success means perfection. Democracy is not perfect. Therefore, Democracy is not successful and I win. I find it to be ridiculous to define success as complete and total perfection. Yes, democracy is imperfect, but that does not mean it is unsuccessful. My opponent has failed to respond to any of my points, agreeing to all of them and hinging her entire argument on the notion that something cannot be successful unless it is perfect in every way, shape, and form. Given the absurdity of this argument, I have defined success as a favorable outcome out of possible outcomes. I have also shown that democracy applies to this.