It is better for a leader to be more feared than loved.

R1: Loyalty In Contention 1 Con argues that leaders who are loved are “less likely of being overthrown or assassinated”, whilst citing the fall of the French Monarchy and the overthrow of Benito Mussolini. The problems with this argument are as followed: -The collapse of the French Monarchy was not the result of a leader that was too cruel or too heavily feared, it simply came from incompetence. This fails as a strong example because it was due to Louis XVII’s incompetence as a leader that he failed to maintain any fear or love as king. It was this lack of fear that the French people had of him that incentivized the storming of Bastille and eventually Versailles [1] The same can be said for previous examples of this kind, like the British Empire. Sources: 1. . https://www.mtholyoke.edu... R2 Alliances. “Most countries won't support someone who they're afraid of. This is why people like Napoleon and Hitler always fail. In both instances, there were many more countries fighting against them than they had on their side. ” Alliances are made, not on the basis of personal sentiment between leaders, but on simple necessity. If country A seeks to oppose country X then country will have to be allied with, regardless of personal distaste or lack thereof. This can be seen in the outbreak of WW2, the Kaiser of Germany, Wilhelm II was not only cousins with the Tsar of his enemy country Russia, but was also childhood friends with said Tsar. [1] It is also important to add that the subject of the debate is exclusive to whether leaders should be loved or feared, and not nation states. Sources: 1. . https://en.wikipedia.org... R3: Concession In the previous round, pro concedes to what is essentially the basis of my opening argument. That being, a leader who is solely loved tend to fall into a cycle of appeasing their subordinates. To concede to such a point that was essential to my argument would not be so far from conceding to the entire argument in general. As seen below, my opponent has clearly agreed on such a premise “[My argument]’If said leader must act in practicality yet pragmatic need contradict that wants of the masses , then said leader would simply be forced to appease the masses, because failure in doing so would be an affront to the very basis of his power. ’ [Con]That is true. ” R4: Bribery This last rebuttal will be a refutation of my opponent’s last rebuttal. In short, Con misrepresents the argument I had proposed. As I had argued that the root of Kim Jong Un’s incompetence as a leader is in his failure to invoke fear within his government and the populace, and that by “gift politics” he fails to sufficiently maintain legitimacy as leader. Con goes to state: “Leaders don't have to do that to be loved. Most leaders who are loved maintain their popularity by accomplishing great things that please their subjects. That's how Hitler maintained his power, as did many other monarchs and dictators I believe that this refutes your argument, which rests on the assumption that bribery is the only way for a leader to be loved. ” However, never did I actually state bribery as the only means of siring affection. I only stated that bribery, despite ethical muddiness of the method, was just one primary means that the Kim Dynasty seeked to maintain loyalty from their people. In short, Con has clearly misrepresented my argument. Conclusion: A leader who is feared amongst his or her subjects is legitimate because the subjects fear their leader, thus, a leader who is not feared in the least but, regardless of sentimentality, simply fails to be legitimate as a leader. Because discipline is strongly conductive to a punishment-reward based system of governance, to have no fear of punishment in the minds of one’s subjects or workers simply gives no base incentive to obey. A leader who is feared thusly bears the benefits of legitimacy and discipline from all under him, to lack any fear even if loved equates to an eventual loss of all order, legitimacy and discipline. This is why, ultimately, it is better for a leader to be more feared than loved. That concludes my side of the debate.