A debate session on whether a philosophical king or a tyrant democrat a country should need

1. THIS HOUSE PREFERS
A PHILOSOPHICAL
KING TO A TYRANT
DEMOCRAT
International Inter-University Debating
Festival
Featuring the best debaters from Oxford, Cambridge , Harvard
Universities and Central Florida University with the Kolkata
Universities
19TH
Dec
2017
Event Scripter: Apurba Lahiri
Heritage College
12/19/2017

2. FOR THE MOTION AGAINST THE MOTION
1st Speaker :
A ship wrecked at sea where all people are
in a danger to reach the destination , at that
time will the people elect a leader better
among them to follow him or select a person
who will with his knowledge and abilities
can help them at that time . Obviously,
select the person with knowledge. Having
we require a logical & unpopular figure (
philosopher king) or historical & popular
figure ( a tyrant democrat ) In monarchy v/s
democracy , monarchy always wins .In a
democracy , there is a big gap in rich and
poor , where poor people revolt & their
desire to freedom lead to chaos , forming
groups for power . It gives opportunity for
someone to lead to a status . In order to
become a leader , you have to go for a big
fraction of good /evil . Thus , democracy is a
flaw system , electing the person to lead
them may be evil . In 2017 ,presently a
tyrant can be abusive towards women ,
create huge buildings putting names in
them . A tyrant rules over all but fails to
rule over himself . The oldest democracy we
have seen in USA . Now who is a
philosopher king ? Plato described him as a
person of knowledge, wisdom , virtue which
makes him a leader . It is not necessary that
every philosopher should be a king ,however
it is compulsory every king philosophies to
be a good leader . For e.g. In one side , the
biblical story of King Solomon , where we
heard how he saved two women claiming to
be mothers fighting for a baby with his wit
and knowledge. He saved a baby‟s life
through wise judgment. Also there is this
story of Joseph Stalin , a Georgian born
Soviet revolutionary and political leader who
had 3 sons and a daughter whom he loved
1st Speaker :
Here the tyrant democrat is a representative
of majority of people . Democracy is
necessary for growth . It is compulsory . In
today‟s generation , people are not equal , no
empowerment of women , every individual
not supporting anyone .Philosophy will not
work .While the philosopher king you choose
may be a tyrant democrat to others . Your
philosopher king may not be a philosopher
king to all , he may be a tyrant democrat to
others . Just like that , a tyrant democrat‟s
rule may affect some and benefit others .
People choose leaders as they want that
leader to decide upon important matters , as
they themselves can‟t decide all . The
concept of feeling empowered for people is
necessary . Democracy gives empowerment
to rights . While , a philosopher king
philosophizing beyond his people he
represent , can be dangerous . As he may
put rules to independence . What a
philosopher king thinks as philosophy may
be a restriction in someone else‟s freedom .
If philosopher king is a father in 2017, he
may not allow his girls to step out of house
at night , as it may be out of his philosophy .
What may be philosophy to him , it may not
be to others . Philosophy changes and differs
. Moreover a leader needs a balance. A
philosopher king will have a simplistic mind
set , love and interest for knowledge but a
tyrant will have a shrewd mind , a greater
thirst to thrive for betterment of nation and
will give more fruitful results than king .
The ship example has no application here ,
as either you are selecting or electing , both
means voting for the person . Through
democracy , we try to achieve a better
representative by electing .

3. the most . He certainly didn‟t harbour
particularly „warm feelings‟ for his eldest
son, Yakov . Deprived of his father‟s
affections and upset by a failed romance,
Yakov once tried to shoot himself. As he lay
bleeding, his father scathingly remarked,
„He can‟t even shoot straight‟.
2nd Speaker :
A tyrant democrat expresses tyranny for
majority , a weak at heart and in such
democracy the majority keep interest higher
than minors . There is always some checks
on democracy . Why ? In the 22ND
amendment of USA Constitution , a
president can‟t be elected to more than 2
terms . In India , the prime minister also
can‟t act according to his will . He has
certain limitations to his power to , although
being elected. Why this ? As democracy
leads to tyranny as said by Plato . So there
are some checks on the power to prevent
tyrannical actions in future . Adolf Hitler (
the foster child of inflation ) ruling in
Germany is a great example of gross
economic management . Zimbabwe
President , also made the country go
through a high inflation strike . However , a
philosopher king function efficiently with
intelligence , reliability and knowledge of
situation . Spain was a democrat public
having a lot of financial problems The
democracy lived for 11 months , failing
which the King of Spain regained his
kingdom to remove the losses .
2nd Speaker :
Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall
All the king's horses and all the king's men.
Couldn't put Humpty together again.
We can see that a king‟s men leaded by the
king failed to put the two parts of an egg
together , so how a country can be run by
such a king ? Plato‟s theory dates back
centuries ago where the occupation ,
economic status , distribution of income and
wealth was same in the society . However ,
times changed and presently , having a
philosopher king today is like an utopian
dream . Philippine‟s president raged a brutal
war against drugs but it helped in
controlling the crimes and lessened the drug
abuse from before . We need a tyrant
democrat to control the nation . You say , a
tyrant is a person with abnormal personality
. So who is normal ? Again who decides that
who is normal and who is abnormal ? It is
just a difference in our perception . King
Marcus Aurelius of Rome , called to be the
noblest emperor believe in endurance of pain
for patience and letting things go, so much
that he allowed his enemy in war to cause
pain at the expense of his citizens . Also , a
philosopher king may preach his
philosophical policies but there is no
guarantee that the people under his rule will
follow the same philosophy . In Zimbabwe,
there is a lot of restrictions ( penalty in litter
, spitting & urination in public ) which is
very essential to put citizens into discipline ,
that‟s why a tyrant democrat is needed to
place policies , to bring chord in a society
with dis -chord . The declaration of national

4. emergency across India in 1975 by then
Prime Minister of India , Indira Gandhi who
is although being addressed by some as a
tyrant democrat for such a move and a huge
death rate of masses going unreported yet
she was chosen as the prime minister again
twice. Now why would a tyrant be
democratically be elected again ? Every
action are to be viewed from 2 sides . A
tyrant democrat after all performs actions
for the sake of good of nation only .
3rd Speaker :
A tyrant democrat changes the democratic
system, demoralize it and delays actions to
be taken at necessary times . Once in power
, it is easy to hold on & shut down
journalists . While monarchy is much more
politically free . Regarding the nursery poem
, Humpty Dumpty no one can put a broken
egg together ..that is next to impossible and
is inapplicable here . Moreover if a
philosopher king can‟t put it back together ,
a tyrant democrat would never actually
want to get it back together , it will rather
push Humpty Dumpty off the wall for the
sake of own interests . We are in a
democracy , where more than 200 billion of
money going from corporate houses to fund
poor children but nobody has any guarantee
that where it reaches it‟s destination . A
tyrant democrat brings corruption in the
system . We have elected so many outsiders
to lead us and guide us but how many of
them have actually met our needs ? The
word „tyrant‟ is associated with the word
democrat , which tells us that a tyrant is one
who is obsessed with power and surround
themselves with people to appreciate their
actions for the sake of maintaining a good
image . A philosophical king seek goals for
long term future of the nation and also go to
the extent to sacrifice for his country too
whether be it‟s throne or himself . On the
other side , a tyrant democrat seeks goals
more for himself and less for the nation .
Such type of a leader is not good for a
3rd Speaker :
We value democracy because we have the
power to push a tyrant off the throne. No
systematic analysis has been proved in
history regarding leadership and guidance of
a philosopher king . A tyrant may be
depicted as bad to a lot of people but he too
has some capabilities and skills to guide a
nation be that influencing a mob or
manipulating citizens with charisma .
Democracy is not perfect . It can‟t be with a
country of massive population . If people are
electing a leader , we can‟t have good
consequences from both ends . A tyrant
democrat may take some decisions for the
sake of nation , whether be rational or
irrational ..it is important to consider the
reason behind such decisions . He can be a
tyrant but at the end of the day he is elected
to be the representative on behalf of the
nation . There is bad in good and good in bad
just like in the Chinese philosophy yin and
yang . Democracy can be seen from 2 levels :
The Principle Level - All the licenses ,
regulations , policies and standards in
democracy are a recognition of proper
mechanism of justice, organization and
distribution of rights among people of
nation.
The Consequence Level - It gives
accountability , duties and establish
preferences by people .
Moreover , democracy is short-term as
people have a say over the reign of their
leader . The leaders who don‟t perform good

5. country as it may boost public satisfaction
temporarily . An unelected official ( a
philosopher king ) has no need to pay and
keep people beside for appreciation , as he
already will have a god reputation for the
work and ideals carried out by him .
and fail to fulfill the demands of people who
elected them, the leader gets to failed to be
elected the next time . Whereas in terms of
monarchy, you don‟t have a say in the reign
of the king whether he be philosophical or a
tyrant .
4th Speaker :
Do we all are in own capacities living in an
ideal democratic society ? The two countries
( South Africa and Singapore) dragging
people to poverty with low economic
prosperity is under the dysfunctional
democracy of a tyrant leader elected by it‟s
own nation . On the other sides there is two
countries , Vietnam & China making
economic decisions on technology and
knowledge with a philosophy . Now , who
does India need ? A leader with knowledge ,
long-term vision of economic policies , it‟s
consequences and understanding of
humanity. Or a leader who promise to give
them all just to get votes but perform
nothing after being elected . We live in a
state order where there are several cuts in a
movie, restrictions over what we eat , wear
and see . Why democracy don‟t work out? As
a tyrant democrat after grabbing the seat
provides or take bribes for being in the
position and also enrich themselves in
ridiculous things. A lot of leaders have been
democratically chosen by nation who just to
protect their own values and beliefs put
restrictions on certain matters limiting the
growth of nation . Whether be it Gandhi in
India restricting money for education &
western languages to preserve culture or
USA‟s President , Donald Trump restricting
policies over immigration to increase &
employment of USA citizens .
It is not that people can‟t take certain
decisions over important matters so they
choose a leader to represent them and act
upon such decisions . All the people of a
nation whether be literate or illiterate want
2 things : Prosperity and Security of family
and self . The various popular policies
4th Speaker:
Where was this philosophical king when
refugees where seeking home ? Immigrants
were leaving ? Children died out of poverty ?
Women facing torture and abuse ?
It is easy for a tyrant to corrupt a billion
people, influence a billion . Then how easy it
is to corrupt a king ruling them too !!
Master Oogway, an elderly tortoise highly
venerated for his wisdom , knowledge and
experience in Kung Fu Panda movie said
“ Yesterday is history , tomorrow is a
mystery but today is a gift” . Then why we
should talk about philosophical kings who
resided only in past . There is not a single
philosophical king to be found in today‟s
time . That‟s why democracy is the only
option . An option for choice and an option
for voice . If the leader we choose , we
possess the option to remove him if he‟s a
tyrant rather not stay silent in the reign of
king . The philosopher king will want
wisdom . Philosophies will change . Every
philosophy can be interpreted . A
philosopher king too can interpret his
philosophies in his own way . We prefer
neither a philosophical king nor a tyrant
democrat , but only a benevolent
dictatorship . For e.g. King Ashoka, emperor
of Maurya Dynansty was a prince popular
among masses . He converted into Buddhism
after the fighting the bloodiest battle -
Kalinga war where he was moved by the
massacre of the war . He was neither a
philosophical king nor a tyrant democrat .
Would we call Alexander –the Great , a
tyrant democrat ?
Philosophy finds no places in our present
world when there is such injustice , crimes
and violence.

6. studied by students in colleges and
universities are economically disastrous by
the law of democracy. More than the election
and democracy , people should be taught
philosophy . Philosophy itself is a part of
sociology and ecology which is mostly needed
by our generation . The love of knowledge
and ethics is what will lead us to be
philosophical , thus there will be more
philosophical kings rather than tyrant
democrats ruling our country.
If we want philosopher kings , would we
prefer a World War 3 ?
Rebuttal Round :
FOR THE MOTION AGAINST THE MOTION
A tyrant is just a tyrant . He is selfish ,
wants power to be in power .
A democracy is a flaw system that checks on
powers allotted to the leaders , in order to
balance their actions and consequences .
Robert James Buckland , A Conservative
Party politician resided in a democratic
country USA , but ruled the nation in
tyranny for a long time .
The house is not containing children , where
the philosophical king is lie an overbearing
father . The house must grow up , get
involved , put forward their rights . They
have a freedom of speech and expression .
They have the freedom to elect a leader who
represents them , rather than stay under
the guardianship of a king .
MODERATOR VIEWS
 King Solomon never existed .
 Neither was Joseph Stalin been elected .
 Hitler was the monstrous tyrant among all , the best example .
 History is filled with tyrant democrats , very few philosopher kings .