Promoting world wide democratic principles should be a higher priority than promoting sovereignty.

Refutation one: ------------------------------------- 1. Sovereignty is more important than democracy Let me use a few examples, 1930's, Germany. Germany was in an extreme economic depression, people were looking for jobs, their currency was worth close to nothing. This was fixed when Hitler took over the country. If he had not, the country might have not survived for long. (I DO NOT agree with what Hitler did! This is just trying to prove my point! ) ------------------------------------ This is true, Germany was in a bad recession at the time and a sovereign leader was in power, however, here is what we all must realize. Hitler when coming into power, created more jobs and cut unemployment by opening a large number of arms manufacturing plants. Which subsequently lead to the power rushing to Adolf's head and instigating the holocaust and World War II. However, had that German government been a democracy, either representative or direct, than there could have been a check on his power, possibly preventing his actions. So while you believe Hitler's achievements in the economy have helped Germany, and that because he is a sovereign leader that this proves your point, (not to be completely rude) but you are wrong. Hitler is just a fine example of why there SHOULD be democratic principles worldwide, so that no more tyrannous activities can occur. The system of checks and balances which democratic ideals create are there to ensure a leader cannot get out of hand. Refutation two: ---------------------------------------- 2. A democratic government is a bonus Yes, here in America we are enjoying the benefits of a democratic government. But this government is a bonus. Example: Lets say country X is an unorganized group of cities and towns after a great war, no governing body, no order what so ever. Eventually sovereignty in the form of monarchy replaces this chaos. It may not be perfect, but it's at least under control! Maybe later after Country X has some order that you could insert democratic principles, but not at this point. My point is, would you rather have no government, or a government that didn't let you vote but kept you safe from invading armies. ---------------------------------------- Counter-Example: If country X just came out of a great war, and is now just a bunch of unorganized cities and towns, this means they lost. A country just doesn't lose its organization over night due to nothing. Because they lost, their going to belong to the country that beat them. So for one, not only is the example unrealistic, meaning country X would not just be left behind once being defeated, but also that it would not immediately install a monarchic government from the get-go. Who is to say that they would not install a democratic government. Secondly, Democracy is certainly not a bonus, but a primary form of government. How else would have the United States been formed? The House of Legislators, was the body that allowed a president to come about when it was first established therefore, not being monarchic. I await any further argumentation from my opponent to continue to refute. Thank you.