Return to CreateDebate.comhunter8g • Join this debate community

Hunter 8G



Welcome to Hunter 8G!

Hunter 8G is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.



Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.


Twitter
Twitter addict? Follow us and be the first to find out when debates become popular!


pic
Report This User
Permanent Delete

Allies
View All
None

Enemies
View All
None

Hostiles
View All
None

RSS BellaP

Reward Points:5
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
72%
Arguments:11
Debates:0
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
1 point

CLOSING SENTENCE: For the reasons stated, to conclude, a dictator could work better than a democracy. While the democratic theory sounds favorable, many facts about dictatorships remain hidden behind the news of the terrible dictators that cause havoc to the world. However, this does not mean that a dictatorship cannot work better than a democracy within the country itself.

0 points

"A government, no matter which kind, can surely make good or bad decisions. But there are things that can stifle, dilute and postpone any good idea. It will have a tendency to get better in direct relation to the quality and merits of people thinking about it. In some instances the ideas have to be implemented swiftly.

Dictatorships fare better when these factors are taken into account. They are superior to democracies in the expediency in which they can arrive to policies and implement laws that could resolve problems. They can easily calibrate the institutional and legal framework, since they don't need a political coalition for passing or repealing acts. This framework can be efficiently managed, ignoring the special interests that need to be relatively reconciled in democracies, through a time consuming process. So a pro-development government has greater capacity to modernize a society with a dictatorship than under a democracy.

After the 1936 Spanish elections, the Republican coalition, was formed out of more than ten parties including anarchists, socialists, and social democrats. Supported by Basque nationalists, and other separatist movements, they seized power. Reaching agreement among them was nearly impossible. Under Francisco Franco, all rightist factions were unified. His uncontested leadership managed to take the necessary step to maintain a unified Spain, survive a blockade, and start the so called "Spanish Miracle". [[http://countrystudies.us/spain/22.htm De Menses, Filipe Ribeiro Franco and the Spanish Civil War, p. 87, Routledge]]

Because the can do as they please, dictators can surround themselves and employ technocrats instead of popular personalities, which is helpful in modernizing the nation even when the majority of the population are reluctant to abandon their traditional ways. Dictators do not need to ensure the support of or appeal to a specific constituency by including them (for example by picking a Latino for the supreme court)[[http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009/aug/07/risking-hispanic-vote/]]. In that sense, a dictator's decisions will have a tendency to represent his own economic interest in development, rather than the popularity or political affiliation of the decision.

To do the latter is an inefficiency displayed widely in democracies. Here, the head of government must surround himself with a cabinet composed of fellow party members and allies, regardless of their credentials, in order to secure parliamentary and electoral support, which means he cannot go against the views of the people, who sometimes elect a candidate because they espouse their own views, because they belong to the same clan, or even because they are simply popular and charismatic.

We want to contrast examples of two Latin American countries. The first is Chile, a dictatorship where Pinochet, helped by the Chicago Boys (advisors) applied a plan consisting in privatizations. The consequence was known as the Chilean Miracle. [[http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/spanish/latin america/newsid3192000/3192145.stm]]

The second, Venezuela, was a consolidated democracy in 1989 when the President, Carlos Andrés Pérez, employed a cabinet full of technocrats from the venezuelan Institute IESA (the IESA boys) who, just like the Chicago boys prescribed a treatment of free market and privatizations. But the preside This special states are very similar to dictatorships, but they are justified because, these are the largest threats to the well-being of their citizens, and swift decisions have to be made to solve them. For developing nations their lack of development is a very big threat to the well-being of their citizens, and so swift decision making is crucial to solve this as well. All the countries that have it and have resolved crisis with that:"

1 point

Actually, many dictatorships have lasted much longer than the past democracies have lasted. I would like to see proof of the Guatemala information that you have found.

1 point

For saying what has happened in the past is not supporting it's just explaining what has happened. The past has happened and yes there has been failures but Hitler was not actually a failure. He was just a bad guy. He treated his country very fairly. Him killing jews had nothing to do with him being a dictator. He was elected by the parliament because the people wanted him to be the leader. So what your saying proves you wrong. About being hypocritical, you are by not letting them be free.

1 point

What you are saying is all the flaws of a dictatorship but you have nothing to say that enhances a democracy. This is because there is nothing good to say about it.

0 points

ARGUMENT NUMBER 2: The meaning of dictatorship is not a bad system of government, it is the rule, control, or leadership by one person with total power.

This meaning says nothing wrong about having a dictatorship. It is just that in the past centuries the technique of having one person in control has not always worked out. This technique may not have worked well for 3 people but everyone is different and should be themselves, isn’t this what a democracy is all about? So we should give the dictators a chance before judging them right away. A democracy is all about, giving everyone their own say in what they believe. So you are being hypocritical for saying this against dictators.

Supporting Evidence: Definition (www.merriam-webster.com)
1 point

If forcing oneself into power into the government is considered dictatorship then a democracy is pretty close to one. Here is a link of showing how a democracy can fail. http://www.cfr.org/thailand/thailand-democratic-failure-its-lessons- middle-east/p24485

0 points

yes, this true with some of the what has happened in the past history. But studies show that there are great dictatorships that have worked even to this day.

1 point

Kemal pasha ataturk was the man who completely changed the meaning of a dictatorship to turkey.

He was so benevolent that the people of the country lovingly call him 'father' and even today, any comment that goes against his name or character is considered to be a criminal offence.

No other dictator has such a lasting social and political impact on the people even today as him.

He was a military officer during WW1 and was part of the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in WW1.

He also established a provisional government in Ankara and won the Turkish War of Independence.

1 point

Mussolini, Hitler, and Franco were some of the worst dictators and they all had one thing in common and that was to have all the power to themselves so that they would be the one ruler with that would have everything their way.

They also were after one group in their country.

These names were so closely associated with the word “dictator” that now when we hear this word it automatically goes into our heads as the worst thing possible

BellaP has not yet created any debates.

About Me


I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know!


Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here