'Chaos' (afirmatori) vs 'Democratic Girl' (negatori)
A1 (Ayyam Alasaad)
This house believes western democracies have a moral duty to spread democracy across the world, should be applied in Europe and Middle East as a first step and second step Russia and far eastern countries.
The definition of Democracy has a various definitions, and it changes from society to other society, importantly, democracy supposedly serves to check unaccountable power and manipulation by the few at the expense of the many, because fundamentally democracy is seen as a form of governance by the people, for the people. This is often implemented through elected representatives, which therefore requires free, transparent, and fair elections, in order to achieve legitimacy.
Similarly, as democracy means rule of people, that is of the people for the people and by the people. Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens participate equally either directly or through elected representatives. Democracy is the best form of government simply because no other form of government is known to work well. Democracy may have its flaws but all in all it works very fluidly. Some plus points of having a democratic form of government: freedom, democracy represents the views and notions of all the citizens of the country, whether majorities or minorities, It helps in solving conflicts and quarrels in a better way, It provides a dignity to the people, democracy allows various people to rule the country through the representatives, It also allows people to express themselves clearly and freely, It respects and promotes human rights, In this form of government all people are equal before the law, democracy is the only form of government where the people can voice their opinion, In my view there is no other alternative form of government better than a democracy.
Furthermore, based on an article was written on The New York Times in 2012, religions specifically “Islam” and democracy works well, and it is proven to work The 5 most populous Muslim countries in the world are democracies. This shows people must understand that the “Shariah” can work with democracy, because it is the commitment to Islam. It is good, and my opinion as a Christian is that it could work. Because of too many dictators in the Arab world, there is currently an Arab spring going on. The Arab spring would not happen if there was democracy, which would allow people to regulate the amount of time leaders stay in power.
Consequently, Turkish Republic Turkey is a vastly Muslim nation. But also Turkey had democracy before most of the Western countries did. Also we had the right to vote for women in 1930's , it's before than most of the countries. There were lot of female MPs. UK had a women PM once like Turkey did. Tansu Çiller was a great leader in Turkish political history. Did the religion made some behaviors against democracy? Yes , like it did in Western countries. And now in Turkey a Muslim-Conservative party is in the lead , their first slogan is 'Higher Democracy'. Now , some of the people think the people who think Turkey should be Westernized ( not modernized ) is anti-democratic.
Democracy, keeps consistency.
N1 (Anamaria Dorofte)
This house does not believe that Western democracies have a moral duty to spread democracy across the world, much less if this involves using force.
Regarding the provided definition, we do not believe that the definition of democracy changes from society to society, as a definition provides a relevant general description of its subject. We agree that democracy is all-inclusive, defending the interests of people through free elections. We would add to the affirmators’ definition that democracy defends human rights such as legal equality, the rule of law and freedom (of speech, press, etc). Other fundamental elements of democracy are the separation of statal powers and the separation of church and state (to different extents ). Also, the self- governance principle summarizes another quintessential characteristic: people must willingly participate in the democratic process.
The rule of the people must emanate from the people
The affirmative speech sustains that democracy should be applied in areas such as the Middle East, Asia (we do not see how democracy could be implemented in already democratic Europe). However, the affirmative team does not acknowledge that this approach might leave room to forcedly impose democracy upon countries, which would not only defy the very principles of respecting human rights and free participation, but has also been proven not to work. Firstly, it seems contradictory to promote rights which first need to be broken in order to be instituted. Secondly, imposing democracy upon other countries has been demonstrated to have disastrous consequences. The situations in Iraq and Afghanistan, countries which have undergone a process of forced democratization, are characterized by political instability, violence, numerous civilian deaths  and an overall negative effect on the people of the aforementioned countries. This situation proves that forcing democracy on a country is harmful, as it disregards an essential element of its definition: its emanation from the people. Furthermore, even if democracy may eventually come to function  in the aforementioned countries, we think that the loss of human lives which resulted from the use of force is too high a price to pay. We are not convinced that the affirmative team’s speech illustration of the Arab Spring proves their case, but that it indicates that the change for democracy must come from within the nation, rather than externally. As such, while not upholding that democracy is unfit for these countries, we conclude that the enforcement of democracy is morally wrong and potentially harmful.
The affirmative team state that „democracy is the best form of government simply because no other form of government is known to work well”. They continue by offering unconvincing arguments for democracy’s universality. The fact that 5 unmentioned populous Muslim countries are democracies does not demonstrate that Islam religion might work with democracy, because those democracies might be dysfunctional. Also, there is no direct correlation which proves that Shariah law is compatible with democracy. Turkey’s example doesn’t demonstrate the compatibility between religion and democracy, as some of president Erdogan’s religiously motivated decisions are a menace to democratic values .
Furthermore, China’s economic success and its increasingly prosperous citizens provide proof that governance alternatives do exist. The Chinese communist system is criticized for violating human rights such as the freedom of speech, but it also has powerful positive sides: the lives of 400 million Chinese people have improved, rising from abject poverty as a direct result of this governance.  Also, the communist government has shown signs of self-adjustment, the change of the one-child policy and the economic opening of the country demonstrating its responsiveness to people’s needs. While there are negative parts, there are advantages to this governance that challenge the view that only democracy works well.
It also seems to us that democracy does not work quite that well. As studies illustrate,  there has recently been a decrease in the democratic scores of seven European countries, indicating the erosion of democracy. We do not believe that despite its flaws, democracy “works very fluidly”. On the contrary, the democratic index  demonstrates that civil liberties are increasingly disrespected (as shown by the increase in the violation of freedom of press and other human rights in the West), in a context of decline in political participation and dysfunctional governments. Thus, the affirmative team’s argument that democracy unquestionably grants the human rights they mention seems false. As such, if there is a lot of room for improvement in the Western societies, wouldn’t it be right to try to develop our own democracy before spreading it?
To conclude, we believe that the West shouldn’t spread a form of government which is flawed, much less imposing it by denying the principle that it must emanate from the people, in a context in which there are viable alternative forms of government.
 recovered on 30.03.2014 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state
 Kerry Sheridan, 2013, Iraq Death Toll Reaches 500,000 Since Start Of U.S.-Led Invasion, New Study Says, recovered on 30.03.2014 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/15/iraq-death-toll_n_4102855.html
Larry Diamond, 2004, The Long Haul for Democracy in Iraq, recovered on 30.03.2014 http://www.stanford.edu/~ldiamond/iraq/WSJ021904oped.htm
 Aslan Amani, 2012, Turkey’s Democratic Shortfall , recovered on 30.03.2014 http://www.opendemocracy.net/aslan-amani/turkeys-democratic-shortfall-is-prime-minister-erdogan-main-problem
 the Economist intelligence unit, 2011, Democracy index 2011, recovered on 30.03.2014 closer2oxford.ro/uploads/2012/06/12/Democracy_Index_2011.5yjahi.pdf
 Tom Watkins, 2013, China’s Long Road to Prosperity, recovered on 30.03.2014 http://www.chinausfocus.com/culture-history/chinas-long-road-to-prosperity/
A1. This was a pretty good opening speech, but there are some things you need to improve. First of all, while I appreciate the fact that you tried to define the important terms, your definitions need to be a little more clear. You set out to define Democracy, but ended up showing us what its purpose is before actually defining it. Also, please try to avoid any unnecessary repetitions. The concept of democracy can indeed have many definitions, but its definition can’t.
Regarding the argumentative part of the speech, it would be great if you’d tag (give a title) and flag (announce your transition) your arguments. Your speech would have a better flow if your arguments are clearly marked and we know exactly what you’re talking about at all times. Also, keep in mind that arguments need to follow a certain structure in order to be as convincing as possible (mayeb you are familiar with PEEL structure - Point, Explanation, Evidence, Link to motion). While you did have the arguments Pointed/Stated correctly, you didn’t put enough emphasis on Explaining your arguments or on bringing enough Evidence/Examples. Also, you need to make the Link between your rgument and the motion more obvious. The arguments themselves were good, but you need to make them more credible, otherwise they’re easy pickings for the opposition. Also, you didn’t tackle the second half of the motion, regarding the use of force in order to spread democracy. You discuss why democracy seems to be the best option - but is it legitimate/fair/ethical/moral to spread democracy *using force*? The motion asks you tp prove this aspect.
Marks: 19 (content: 9, strategy 7, style 3)
N1. A good speech. I appreciated that you went on to clarify the definitions, this would have helped the debate had it reached its conclusion.
You should try to make it more clear when exactly you’re refuting the government’s arguments and when you’re bringing your own. It’s good that you tried to integrate everything into a fluent speech, but it’s even better if you point out exactly when you’re referring to the opposing teams’ points.
Regarding the idea that intervention brings, as you say: "disastrous consequences. The situations in Iraq and Afghanistan, countries which have undergone a process of forced democratization, are characterized by political instability, violence, numerous civilian deaths  and an overall negative effect on the people of the aforementioned countries." You then go on to claim that democracy needs to "emanate" from the people - but you don't really analyze is this is possible, in a dictatorial regime? How can people ask for their reights if they are not given to voice to express their needs and desires? How do you know that a revolution that ignites in a country, started by the people, has less desastruous consequences? This clarification was not needed, as you opponents abandoned the debate, but ina different debate this would most probably have arisen.
You raise some interesting points about alternative regimes which seem to have their own up and downsides, and also about the drawbacks of some so called democracies. However, you do not make a complete analysis - if some democracies are become weakers, is this reaason to give up on thema ltogether? Also, a comparison between democracies and alternatives would be useful, you need to balance them against each other to prove that, overall, the world would be a better place if gave up on the idea of demoracy.
Again, these observations I'm making are to highlight the potential weaknesses in your case, that could have been picked on by a stronger opponent. Unfortunately, this debate ended halfway through.
As a last comment, I appreciate your documentation and encourage you to do even more extensive research in your future debates.
Marks: 24 (content 11, strategy 8, style 5)
N1 -> 24 puncte
A2 -> 0 puncte
N2 -> 0 puncte