Democracy is the best form of government

His/Her Case "democracy is based on consultation and discussion. A democratic decision always involves many persons, discussions and meetings. This reduces the chances of rash or irresponsible decisions." However, they are still made, as human nature will lead man to act in ways that are irrational when faced with a great stress, like right after a terrorist attack. If the United States was a direct democracy, the people would have a brief discussion, but it would be short, and lead to an irrational and bad decision. "Having fleeting passions and not having full knowledge is not because the form of government is a democracy, the main reason is because it is not efficient. The debate over here is not about the efficiency of a democracy, it is to decide the best form of government." I find that all direct democracies have this flaw of inefficiency, because of the simplicity and problems of the common man. The inefficiency of a direct democracy makes it less great of a form of government. "This can again be proved by my previous argument. there is a difference between an efficient, good democracy and a true democracy." Your previous argument was, I believe, that my points were only proofs of the inefficiencies of democracy, which is, as you claim, now what we are debating. I again, disagree. The corruption found in representative democracies is inherent as well, because again, most people desire power, and so those with those desires are going to seek in through politics, and from there, they would only want more. +++++++++++++++++++++++++ My Case "You propose an establishment of a nation led by a philosopher king, well, it cannot be guaranteed that corruption will not exist when a nation is led by only one individual." A philosopher king, inherently by name, seeks wisdom. By wisdom I don't necessarily mean the knowledge of math problems, or ability to recite historic events; but the knowledge and desire to learn about things such as 'not what are beautiful things, but what makes things beautiful?', 'what is justice?', or 'what form of government would be best for all?' Philosopher-kings would have an exponentially smaller chance of becoming corrupt because of their nature, being a philosopher, someone who seeks (loves) wisdom. If they become corrupt and dictatorial, then they're no longer a philosopher king, so really it must be the best form of government. Also, there have been men who have led with total control that have done so while keeping their subjects best interests at heart, such as Alexander the Great, of Macedon. I won't say more, as my opponent can't rebut. ++++++++++ Points rebuttal. 1. The views of the people, as I said before, makes a nation weak, because they aren't always the best views. This is an inherent flaw in all democracies. 2. I think that a person who was smart to begin with, and who always sought more intelligence, would be more trustworthy to lead. He or she would be strong enough in mental might to rectify any errors that may be made in the best possible manner. 3. I'm not sure how much people deserve the dignity to lead me and control how my life works, also, the philosopher-king's existence wouldn't reduce the dignity of anyone, and would likely promote it through other means. 4. I think the same could be said for a philosopher-king led government. 5. Again, by nature, philosopher kings seek what is best as a whole. This most of the time will include the citizens as a group that he or she would actively work to ensure their well-being. And again, the wishes of the people can easily be skewed by momentary passions, making them hard to rely on. +++++++++++++++ Quick Explanation In my refutations to my opponent's case, I use the real-world as implied examples to my rebuttals. My opponent responds saying that in theory, a democracy would be best. "The debate over here is not about the efficiency of a democracy, it is to decide the best form of government." (Since no government is 100% efficient, then I think this is an implication of democracy as a theory, not its real world applications.) In my case, I speak of a theoretical form of government, one led by a philosopher king, which my opponent rebuts with the real-world and implied examples behind the problem with dictators. I say that with a philosopher king, corruption would occur much less, and probably never. So basically, to my opponent's case, he/she uses theorectical government, and I reply with real-world, in my case, I use theoretical, and my opponent responds with real world. If one who judges looks at this debate from "which form is better in the real world" , one should vote for me, because I've shown that the chance for corruption to exist would be much smaller and that the chance for dangerous errors to be made is much smaller as well. If one who judges this debate looks at it from "which form is better in theory", one should also vote for me, because the rule of the many, by nature, won't always make the best possible decisions, whereas with rule by a philosopher king, the best possible decisions would be made, making my form of government more desirable. I also extend thanks to my opponent, and I most certainly enjoyed this quick debate.