The debate "Why are Dictators Bad" was started by
February 20, 2017, 6:08 pm.
14 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 3 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
thereal posted 22 arguments, ankit_19 posted 1 argument, historybuff posted 1 argument, braymus17 posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
historybuff posted 2 arguments, Nemiroff posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
thereal, historybuff, ankit_19, Christian, Ematio, braymus17, Thepanther and 7 visitors agree.
GoldlineStudios and 2 visitors disagree.
Power is a drug, and it is addictive. If you give one person absolute power, even if they have good intentions for the people they are ruling over, they will eventually abuse this privilege, and go mad with power.
You want a simple answer? It is wrong for a dictator to simply kill all opponents because they are not all violent extremists trying to kill him. As I said, many simply seek to bring the crimes committed by the dictator to light and improve the lives of the people. The safety, security, and well being of the population is not at risk from political opponents. Did Malala deserve to be shot in the head for saying girls should be allowed to go to school? Was that statement so incendiary that she deserved someone trying to kill her? Or will you admit that power to kill people without reprocussions is often abused?
No, democratic leaders do not typical kill opponents. If they did, Obama would have had Trump killed. The whole reason both parties can exist is that neither is allowed to kill the other. Compare that to dictatorships where the leader kills opposition leaders.
Castro was not a political opponent, he was the leader of an enemy nation. If you don't understand the distinction, do some research. If you do, you are intentionally being intellectually dishonest.
Finally, if you think all political opponents in Africa plot murder, you are vastly out of touch with reality. Many try to stop the killings and improve the lives of the people through peaceful means, then are killed. If you would like examples, I would be happy to provide some.
You are simply incapable of debating like a grown up, aren't you? There are always insults and cursing and rambling about how anyone who disagrees with you must be stupid. That may work in your school, but it really doesn't help your arguments.
I did not imply killing in self defense was wrong, I dismissed the idea that killing all opposition could be justified as "self defence". If there was sufficient evidence of a crime like conspiracy to commit murder, they should be tried, not summarily executed.
You created a thread to debate a philosophy. He shredded your arguments and position more than 12 hours ago. Sorry if I was mistaken in assuming you were participating in the thread you created. I see that at the time when you replied here, you hadn't yet seen him dismantle your arguments. Do you still need me to explain how morals exist outside religion, or is his explanation sufficient?
I also find it hilarious how you just avoided the question i asked you altogether for the 3rd time. You still havent explained why you think him killingbhis opponents is wrong. So go on, answer it. Why cant the dictator kill everyone opposing him if the safety, security, and well-being of 40 million people is at risk? Should he risk all those people just to save 1 evil opponent?
You did not state it explicitly but one of the main arguments you presented against dictators was that they kill their opponents, which implies youre too stupid to realise that democratic leaders do the same all the time. In regard to the Castro example, it does not matter whether your pathetic self agreed or disagreed with the action taken. The fact which matters is that it happened-600+ times for that matter- so that shows democrats can be just as brutal as dictators sre in your opinion. Also your examples of Alec Baldwin show how detached and uneducated you are when it comes to the situation of the world. In africa, like i already stated, they dont act like a bunch of f***tards and make fun of you on TV, they try to kill you. I dont know if youre too stupid to realise this or not (probably are) but sometimes there isnt enough time to arrest the leader and take them to court. This isnt america you f***tard. It only takes 1 good shot for them to kill you, you dont get a second chance.
I shall also address your clear mental retardation post by post, so that there is not too much information for you to understand.
Firstly, you implied that killing in self defense was wrong because that was the only scenario i had presented to you regarding that matter and you said there would be no point of having a meaningful convo about morals with someone regarding such a matter. Learn to read, dumbass. Im pretty sure they teach to read between the lines even in middle school (possibly older years of elementary too).
Also when did theexistentialist prove me wrong ever? What are you talking about? I dont think ive ever even debated with him on this app. And please, you just about have an iq above that of a 4 year old, you could never school anybody on my level.
It is also a simple fact that morals do not exist outside of religion, as atheists have no moral foundation therefore they have been grasping onto a BIBLICAL philosophy for their moral direction but theyre too scared to admit it. theyre savages.
If they are plotting his death, they deserve to be arrested. If they simply are trying to protest something he has done and not being violent or plotting assassination, do you still consider their murder justified?
When did I say only dictators try to kill their opponents? If you want to argue against my position, first you need to understand what my position is.
The problem with dictators is the lack of checks and balances. Fidel Castro was seen as a danger to the US, so the CIA attempted to have him killed. I don't agree that he was a threat, so I disagree with their actions, but it had to go through multiple levels to get the missions approved. A better comparison to the powers of a dictator would be if Trump tried to have the FBI kill all of his political rivals and members of the media who attack him politically. For example, if the police shoot Alex Baldwin dead for mocking Trump on SNL. This can't happen because the US has protections for the public in place.
Let's address your stupidity post by post for simplicity.
At no point did I say killing in self defence is wrong. If someone is trying to kill the dictator, they should be arrested charged and have the evidence presented against them in court. Would you accept Trump having Clinton, Sanders, as well as various members of the media killed in the streets and claiming they were trying to kill him so it was self defence?
I would think you have been embarrassed enough recently over your inability to understand morals outside of a religion, but if you would like I could school you in this debate. I probably won't be as well spoken as TheExistentialist was, but since it is fairly easy to prove you wrong I can if you require it.
so back to the question at hand: if he is in power and has a huge target on his back, why cant he defend himself against his opponents? they do say "offense is the best defense".
Youre also complete moron for assuming that only dictators try to kill their opponents lmfao. are you stupidly unaware that Fidel Castro (a dictator) survived 600+ assassination attempts by the CIA? the dude was a badass! and it was a democratically elected leader who sent out the hit. dumb boy.
Ahh, dumbf*** liberal strikes again! if somebody breaks into your house and tried to stab you, are you not going to defend yourself? i asked you a question, so answer it. why isnit wrong for him to kill his opponents who want to kill him? if youre too stupid to think up an answer, just humbly bow out. say that you are incapable and make it a non-issue. otherwise, this is a debate and you must discuss questions at hand otherwise leave. Also that last point about meaningful conversations about right and wrong was hilarious because youre an atheist lol. what do you know about morals?
If you don't understand why having someone killed is morally wrong, there is no point debating with you. If you can justify having political opponents killed as "self defence" your moral code is messed up to the point that meaningful conversations about right and wrong are impossible. How do you explain why dictators are bad to someone who doesn't consider killing bad?
also PsychDave, Gaddafi improved EVERYTHING in Libya. Him allegedly killing political opponents were lukely in self defence. You fail to realise that Africa is not America, being the leader of a country paints a target on your back and over there political opponents usually have a militia backing them which could try to assassinate you at anytime. Gaddafi was the best leader Libya couldve had because anybody else wouldve been corrupt and the Libyan people would be starving again. But hey, america could get cheap oil so it would benefit them i guess! As with the rape allegations, gaddafi was not that type of man. he was loved by all including his family and was a very strongly moral human. Such allegations were just that- allegations-nothing more. A bunch of baseless accusations made up by his opponents to discredit him so they could seize power.
PsychDave, obviously both would get arrested but usually the murderer who committed the act would get the more severe punishment. But can you explain why you feel that the hirer or the murderer are in the wrong? If the country is in turmoil under the dictator (as you assume), then by killing that person the dictator/murderer would be putting them out of their misery. Whats wrong with that? people kill injured animals to put them out of their misery all the time, do you think the animal asks for it? No, but it is seen by people to be the merciful thing to do.
this doesn't seem to be getting us anywhere. so I'll try coming at it like this.
in a democracy, the government exists to protect and serve the interests of it's people. that is it's reason to exist.
in a dictatorship, the government exists to do whatever the dictator feels like. sometimes they can do good, usually they do bad.
what do you think the purpose of a government is thereal?
we would both get arrested is that not justice?
Gaddafi did improve the economy, education and health care of Libya. He also killed political opponents, reportedly raped many women, and violated the civil and human rights of people how disliked (predominantly non-muslims).
I'm not sure why you believe everything has to be one extreme or the other. Almost all leaders have areas they do well in and areas they do not. Dictators are no different. The problem is that when your word is law, it is hard to remember that people might have a good reason for disagreeing with you. This leads to executing or imprisoning anyone who challenges you, even if they have the nation's best interests at heart. The issue isn't one of all dictators being pure, unadulterated evil. It is that power without checks and balances almost inevitably leads to abuse of that power.
So you believe that hiring someone to commit a murder is acceptable and leaves your hands clean? You analogy falls apart because BOTH people are arrested because while killing someone is definitely a crime, so is commissioning a murder.
PsychDave, the people ARE fools. And no, the dictators didnt steal crops. Gaddafi, without shedding any blood, toppled a corrupt monarchy which kept all the oil money for itself and then he made Libya one of the wealthiest countries in the Arab world until certain dickheads took him out. Now look at the country.
Mussolini was one of the worst? i wish you had researched facts. Mussolini was loved by his people until Italy lost the war and then they turned on him like savages. what disgraceful people indeed. Mussolini didnt believe in racial superiority or anything so no, he wasnt that bad.
Neveralone, are you saying that if you sent someone to kill me only you would get arrested and they wouldnt? exactly. It is not the fault of the dictator, it is the fault of the fool who carried out the act so why should they behead the dictator? why dont they find and behead the executioner?
The dictator is not responsible if the people starve because of crops or rain. The problem you are going to run into is that the dictators you have cited were taking the crops and resources from the people. If people are starving so that the dictator can live in luxury, they deserve to be overthrown. The people are not simply stupid fools, they are everyone, including you and I.
Mussolini was one of the worst. look at Hitler. most of his ideas come from Mussolini.
that is his fault because he gave the order. that in itself is why. if I ordered someone to kill u and he does am I not responsible?
Also the people who fought for him were normal people. they fought for him out of choice, he himself never killed anyone. he simply gave out the order and his men CHOSE to carry them out. they couldve easily just said no, and what would he have done? seriously, if all his men rejectef his orders, what could he have done? nothing. his men, who are apart of the masses, CHOSE to carry out the beheadings so that is not his fault. this is another example of where dictators were used as scapegoats.
So what if he was born into royalty? whats wromg with that? nothing. "the people" were simply envious and jealous of him thats why they wanted him to be killed. He was just an innocent person going about his life and the envious masses killed him due to their jealousy. Do you think it is right for people who are genetically gifted in say, sports, to be beheaded by the masses because theyre jealous? of course not so why such double standards?
Gaddafi was a good leader and guess what they did to him...Mussolini was a great leader and look what they did to him...the only people who appreciate their leader are the north koreans and the chinese.
he earned it how? did he do some courageous deeds or some great accomplishment that earned him his people's respect and the throne?
or did he just get born lucky and earned nothing?
his actions as King justified getting him deposed. I don't believe in the death penalty for various reason, but do you know how many people he had beheaded while king?
PsychDave them starving is not the dictators fault. Is the Dictator some sort of god that he should have control over crops and rain? no. then you should think through what you say before you say it. "The people" are simply stupid fools who do nothing but look for a scapegoat to blame their problems on and unfortunately this scapegoat usually ends up being the dictator.
Nemiroff, the king of france earned what he had so what right do those bullies have over where his money goes? youre not a communist are you?Then you should believe that people have every right to spend their money on what they like. Also even if he was greedy, youre saying he deserves to be BEHEADED over it? how barbaric of you.
If the people are suffering enough that they are willing to die to overthrow the dictators, they were not great leaders. They may have done some great things, but if your population is in such terrible conditions that they would rather rebel or die trying, you have to be doing something wrong.
lmao. the king of France was throwing lavish parties while his citizens starved. maybe if they were good leaders it would be a different story, but they were greedy and selfish and got what they deserved.
Because the dictator IS the innocent victim. I do like how you act as though the dictator forcibly made his army follow him, as though didnt follow him out of choice due to his good leadership skills. There are many times in history when the dictators have been slaughtered inhumanely by savage civilians, for example during the french revolution where the king did not get a fair trial; in libya where gaddafi was killed with no trial; in fascist italy where Mussolini created so many jobs for italians and was loved by his people but then in the end they savagely murdered one of theur greatest leaders. The "people" you speak of are bullies which must be condemned. dictators must be allowed to live in peace without terror.
it's not millions against 1 man.
it's millions against 1 man, his army, his secret police, his helicopters with barrel bombs.
I do love how you make the dictator out to be the innocent victim.
So you are saying if a gang tries to extort an innocent person, they should be allowed to because "its the people that matter not one man"? And who said the people have more value than that one man? is he not also a human being? why should the bullies be allowed to ruin his livelihood?
because it's the people that matter. not one man.
or you could just let him do what he wants, so what if he is making a pot of money? why should the people be allowed to stop him? thats a bullying tactic, millions of people against 1 man.
because if the leader doesnt do good things for country he can be kicked out in next polls if its a democracy, in case of dictatorship u have 2 options-wait him to complete his tenure of 50 years and die or have a revolt and civil war.
There was republic that existed just before the dark ages called the "Roman Republic". Remember how much "positive" change that brought about? Exactly. Its not about whether it is a dictatorship or a democracy, its about the values that the leader holds. And what do you mean dictatorships never bring about positive change? what about libya? Under Gaddafi, the Libyan people were employed and one of the wealthiest countries in the arab world. What about Saudi Arabia? they probably ARE the wealthiest country in the arab world.
dictatorships might allow for change but they almost never actually bring such change.
think about it. if the system that is currently in place allowed you to gain dictatorial power, why would you change it? why do you think virtually every monarchy in the world resisted change? the dark ages and middle ages had tons of dictators. they were not known for their advancements.
Absolute power allows for changes which an oligarchy doesnt allow. Realistically, most democracies end up becoming oligarchies in practice.
Sometimes the people need one man who knows what is good for the people regardless of what the people want.
have you heard the phrase absolute power corrupts absolutely?
giving one man total control is a recipe for corruption and bad decisions. there have been very successful dictatorial regimes that have been, by comparison to their contemporaries, good for the people.
but without the people having repression it is far too easy to ignore the good of the people in favor of the good of one man.