It is better to be feared than loved.

Power was raised up because this debate is a debate on whether how power she diould be used. I have divided my rebuttals into three parts. The first part will deal mainly with psychology. The second and third will deal mainly with the opponent's other points."The defense....truly irrevelant to this debate"“People choose to love at their own will; they choose to fear at the will of the prince.” This statement shall be mentioned many times in this debate. However, before we start onto rants about that, we must spot several faults in these statements. Sociopathy is not a mental disorder that prevents one from being able to relate to others on a deep, emotional level. Sociopathy is the disregards for social norms of others and the display of antisocial behaviors, classified as “a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others." Nevertheless, the opponent makes many false points regarding what I presume; when did I ever presume that everyone was a sociopath, or a narcissist, or even worse, “an emotionless self-embracing egomaniac”? He then makes this dangerous statement: “only emotionless self-embracing egomaniacs” will backstab you. Dangerous; Francisco Franco, the “Caudillo” of Spain, would backstab many of his comrades in an attempt to gain power. Adolf Hitler, the “Fuhrer” of Germany, would backstab Ernst Rohm, someone he called “eternal comrade” just years before he was backstabbed. Sarit Thanarat, the authoritarian ruler of Thailand, backstabbed Marshal Pibulsongkram, soon after being called “Pibulsongkram’s most loyal partner”. Now, we must look at the mental stability of all of them; although Hitler was allegedly diagnosed with some mental disorder, Franco and Sarit were people with perfect mental stability. They were clearly not egomaniacs too; they weren’t obsessed with personal glory, but national glory. (If that is considered egomaniacy, then I’m an egomaniac). Nevertheless, the opponent has attempted to take an assumption that all backstabbers egomaniacs; simply not true."Next, my opponent..... (only the higer up in power were scared of him)"Indeed, I do go on and describe the most efficient monsters in history. I wouldn’t call them monsters, but tyrants. The original statement states that “it is better to be feared than love, if you cannot be both”. Stalin was indeed love by his people, but what the opponent fails to observe is the source of this love; before his rise to power, Stalin was a simple Georgian who joined the Bolshevik in order to carry out the revolution. He was not known in the outside circle; he was simply a Bolshevik. When he did receive the power though, he was certainly not loved. He had to depend on fear; Machiavelli, in his book supports this: “men love at their own will, but fear at the will of the prince.” People would love Stalin at their own will; his extraordinary usage of propaganda propelled this love. The opponent says that Stalin was not feared, but loved, by the masses. This was not true; a farmer during the Stalinist era once stated that “it is not easy to predict where you would end up nowadays. It’s either your own bed or Stalin’s prison camp.” Stalin gained love through fear; his system of arresting those who dissented the Stalinist mode of production, or the Stalinist social order, effectively installed fear into the people of the Soviet Union; through this, he was given love back. "Pro then goes.....great example to raise" I would like to thank the opponent for his congratulations; it is indeed a very good example to raise. Mr. Adolf Hitler did have flaws in his ideology, but perhaps the opponent was misunderstanding the argument and why it was raised up; the opponent describes how the Third Reich ended. I intended to describe the Third Reich’s state of stability; it ran on fear. The Third Reich had virtually no opposition because all future political dissent was abolished; it ran a highly effective secret police force that always took the chance it had to abolish the opposition. Hitler DID end up killing himself, his children, his wife and his dog. But perhaps his end was not what was being emphasized here; it was his reign. Hitler did make several mistakes after 1939; the Third Reich I described was merely the 1933-1939 one, where a totalitarian state had been created. As opposed to the opponent, who simply looked at the end of the man’s rule; let me say this to the opponent: Adolf Hitler died from the same causes as JFK, which is, a bullet through the head. If we are to judge someone by how they died, then JFK would have clearly been infamous too. "Pro then continues.....first given opportunity." The opponent has made a classic error in his argument; love is voluntary, fear is necessary. Let me expand on this; you love at your will, but you fear as you must. Let’s scale this down for a second: a soldier fears his superior not because he hates him, but because it is necessary. You fear your parent’s wrath not because it is voluntary, but because it is necessary. Since the basic concepts of this statement has been describe, we should adopt this into a model of the relationship between state to man. If you love a leader, the leader’s power is absolute, but it is instable; when he makes many mistakes, that love is lost. Thaksin Shinawatra is an example of this; the Thai Populist leader; was loved when he initially came into office. However, he made many irreversible mistakes, and now he is a controversial figure in Thailand. He was so hated that he was ran out by a military coup, which then instilled a democratic state. However, if we were to compare this to someone who is feared, but hated, we would see many differences; Cesare Borgia, an Italian leader, was considered cruel and was feared. However, his authority was both absolute and stable; because of this, he was able to bring tranquility back into the region of Romagna. We can see that the absolute but instable authority of one person who was loved, but soon hated, is not very beneficial when compared to the case of someone who is feared. "Should I keep going....you were [end]" The opponent uses the example of Osama Bin Laden and Stalin; I would like to state that Osama Bin Laden shouldn't be used as an example, because he never ruled a state. Stalin, on the other hand, was an effective ruler. The opponent states that "even they turned ugly" Osama Bin Laden was indeed shot dead by US troops, but as I stated, he never ruled. In fact, he is an almost perfect example of someone who was neither loved or feared; his orders were sometimes ignored, or sometimes followed. Stalin, on the other hand, died of a stroke, in his bed, loved as the leader of the "proletariat against the capitalists". He came in as an obscure Georgian no one ever heard of, and died a great man. Is that ending ugly to you? I don't think so.At the end of the day, it's not about the legacy you leave behind, but it's about what one has achieved; one can say Cesare Borgia died a disaster, but what he has achieved, aka restoring honour and order back to Romagna, can be seen as a positive achievement. If you are feared, you are most likely to be loved in the future; many cases support this. Hannibal, Napoleon, I could go on forever. But it is clear; it is better to be feared than loved. Citations:http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...The Prince: 2nd Edition