Vote on Democracy Vs. Dictators

I’m not swayed by graphics but im gonna go with Tab cus i thought there were a few points in Stoic’s last post Tab would have leapt on
but kudos both - great debating

Tab: 2
Stoic: 1

Lol, the quality of judging is setting new records for ILP. I expect Sam Harris will turn up next and say “tab ur gr8t” then disappear again.

Thanks for the vote B.

Nice debate.

1. I liked Tab’s approach from the process/game theory angle; I think it’s the perfect subject to illustrate the concept of efficient & brittle systems vs. inefficient & robust ones. And as economies become larger and more complex, having a one-man bottleneck pushes things more into the disastrously-brittle system end of things.

2. I don’t agree that violence is a past-tense response to dictatorship; dictators rely on popular support/consent today. The differences between Egypt and Syria are not in the technological sophistication of the weapons available to the government, but in the willingness of the leadership to continue to kill its own people, the strength of conservative support, the politics of neighbouring countries and covert or overt international pressures and incentives, that sort of thing. All of which are good old-fashioned political considerations going right back to the dawn of States.

3. What is different now is the knowledge and effectiveness of psychological conditioning techniques. Although democracies are as free to use them as dictatorships, as long as they’re clever about them.

4. I’m not sure how dictatorships have as much freedom and liberty as democracies, unless the implicit message is that there is no real choice in democracies. Most dictatorships are considerably tetchier about border controls, and you at least lose the freedom to vote.

5. Overall, I found Stoic’s arguments to be less focussed. There was often an air of “well, dictatorships aren’t always worse than democracies”, which isn’t so much a merit as a lack of demerit. And many of Tab’s points went unaddressed - possibly due to time constraints. Tab writes a lot As an example - dictatorships may fall and are replaced faster, but the point had already been made that democracies ensure a pool of people who are familiar with institutional government, which would be lacking in a replacement for a dictatorship.

6. Both sides had spiffy pictures.

On balance, my vote: Tab.

Late vote, just come in:

Cheers OH.

Tab: 3
Stoic: 1

Plus a vote from special guest star [size=200]Sam Harris[/size] . Who’d a thunk it…? Thanks Sam, but since you fall outside of the 100 post minimum requirement, I cannot in all conscience accept your judgement.

I shall vote tomorrow.

Tab has to win the vote, but more because stoic failed to press his case. There are many examples of benevolent dictatorship that weren’t mentioned. Both democracy and dictatorship have their strengths and weaknesses.

Tab, your argument boils down to: Quick death = dictatorship
Slow death = democracy

All governmental systems eventually fail because humans refuse to pay attention. The only choice seems to be hung or decapitated -vs- being nibbled to death by rats…

Cheers JT.

Tab 4
Stoic 1

barcelonic doesn’t have the 100 post minimum, so his vote doesn’t count.

It looks like Tab’s friends have come into the thread, voting for him subjectively, not based on any actual content of argument. The votes are based on loyalty and subjective bias, nothing more.

You don’t even need to read the arguments of the debate, to know the outcome of this mockery of a “vote”. Where is the eye roll smiley?

Stoic, let this become a lesson to you, that no matter how well you make a point, or argue, that popularity wins in the end. Get some “friends” to come vote for you, if you want to participate in any “philosophy” here.

Were the arguments even necessary? Should have just skipped the thread, and went straight to voting. The same results would have transpired.

This from the guy with the joke-vote.

Fuck off Tragic, everyone who’s voted for me on this debate has also voted against me in past debates. It’s called integrity.

The eye-roll smiley’s right here:

Here’s how we’re going to do this. People with biases don’t count. That means OH, tentative, and Pav are all out. They’re all going to vote for Tab anyway, so none of their votes count.

My vote doesn’t count either, because I am biased against Tab. I don’t like him. And even if he presented a compelling argument, I still would vote for the other guy.

That means the debate is scored 1 to 0, because uglypeoplefucking has a non biased vote.

Now THIS is how you run a debate people, OBJECTIVELY not subjectively. You people are too predictable.

Nah, UPF likes me too. You’re also implying Stoic has no friends.

How about this, tragic, go troll somewhere else, unless you’d like to debate something with me maybe…?

Tragic,

To put it mildly, you are full of shit. either you can’t read or you choose not to read. My vote for Tab was a left-handed compliment and he knows it. Stoic voted for Tab as well given that he simply didn’t press his case. There may be all sorts of reasons why he didn’t come to the party, but to suggest that I or anyone else voted for Tab as some sort of favoritism is bullshit. But you’re right about one thing: I’d vote against you on any subject because you act like a trolling dickhead way too much of the time.

I have voted against Tab previously.

I know, that’s why we need to think about FAIRNESS, JUSTICE, and OBJECTIVITY, which you are clearly much too emotional to value such a thing, tent. I, however, do value Justice, which is why I’m pointing out these inconsistencies. I admit my bias and subjective nature, against Tab and your little possee, which is why I am objective, and you are not. By exposing this bias, we can better understand the nature of this debate, its outcome, and who deserves to “win” it.

I believe uglypeoplefucking counts as the only “objective” vote so far, and that puts the score at 1-0 for Tab. Pavolvianmodel, faust, tentative, anitas, any moderator on ILP in general, should not count as votes to Tab, due to bias. And as far as pav goes, voting one time against Tab, compared to the other 9 times you voted for him in other debates, does not constitute an “objective” position. Your fairness is compromised, as, you are also a moderator on this website.

You people should seriously consider securing IMPARTIAL, OBJECTIVE voters ===BEFORE=== you start the debate. Or, start and complete the debate, and then go to other philosophy websites and politely request for some philosophers from OTHER WEBSITES to come here, and vote in the thread. That way we know that they don’t have a stake in either PERSON, SUBJECTIVELY or BIAS, but will give honest and objective opinions.

Don’t hate me because I’m objective.

It’s not easy becoming objective and as SELFLESS as I am, you know!!!

Well it’s a good example of why I don’t like democracy if nothing else

But I wouldnt say the bias is that clear cut, I didn’t press my case like tentative said (which is one reason I was asking for more posts).

I infact did mention benevolent dictatorships, perhaps I should of mentioned more, one thing I was conflicted on was whether or not Kings and Emperors should be considered dictators, eventually I did start subscribing to that notion though.

Also i agree with that anlogy above but am confused on how he decided to go with it, so are you saying you’d rather die a slow death than a quick death?

Jesus Tragic, you spelt “BIG AN ASSHOLE” completely wrong.