EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

That extremist political parties should be banned

0 points
0 points
nzlockienzlockie (PRO)

I’d like to start by thanking my opponent for engaging with me in what I trust will be an interesting debate on a topic that Admin apparently loves. My contention as the Pro side in this debate is that “Extremist political parties SHOULD be banned”.

As there are only two debating rounds, I’ll be approaching this debate with a “big picture”, theoretical kind of view, debating the concept of a democratic system banning a politically extremist view from campaigning for government, rather than dwelling on a specific real-life party or view.

In that vein, I’d like to open my case with some pre-emptive qualifiers!

Primary Consideration:

The idea of a democratic system banning an alternative point of view would seem at first glance to be completely counter-intuitive to the ideals of the system itself. To understand how the PRO side of this debate can be reconciled with this, it is critical to establish some of the practicalities would need to be resolved before a section of law could be drafted to this effect.

What constitutes a Political Extreme?

Before creating law that allows Political parties to be banned, the courts need to establish very specific criteria that would indicate when an extreme party was TOO extreme. Judging whether a party meets these criteria must also be a decision for the courts, as we don’t want a case of the government eliminating its competitors.

 Due to the delicate nature of this, these criteria would need to be established long before the fact. To draft a law when such a party exists and is running, is too late and would surely look like the government is targeting a specific party as opposed to targeting the extremist views it holds.

For the same reasons, actually applying the ban would have to be done on a case by case basis.

Political views seen as extreme enough to be banned should therefore be done along the moral guidelines on which democracy itself is founded. Here are some of them:


Right to Freedom

Protection from Harm

Political views running contrary to some or all of the above may be considered “harmfully extremist”. It’s also worthy of noting that acting with these views may also be illegal and inciting others to break fundamental laws protecting these rights in all democratic societies.

How far does a ban extend?

The same system that must ban these political parties from campaigning for government must also be careful to respect the rights of its individuals to hold these views.

It would be against the ideals of democracy to legislate against an individual holding these views so PRO is not advocating for that in this debate.


With these important qualifiers in place to ensure that the ideals of democracy are protected, we can then move to live out these ideals by banning political parties who:

Use of/Incite violence: A political party whose core principles include inflicting physical harm on a section of society based on ethnicity, sex, age and even cultural affiliation – should be banned.

Exclude/Subordinate a section of society: A political party whose core principles include subjugating entire section of society based on race or sex – should be banned.

Flagrant disobedience of the law: A political party whose campaigning, by necessity, results in them repeatedly breaking the law – should be banned.

The prime examples of this are the two previous points. Hate Speech, Violence and Discrimination are all against the law and are against the ideals of democracy. Political parties advocating these will only be able to campaign by breaking the law.

The government has a duty to protect its citizens and allowing the promotion of a party which actively seeks to harm those citizens goes against this duty.

Vote PRO – but wait til after you’ve heard CON’s points. We want this to be a fair debate. 

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-03-13 21:26:39
| Speak Round

View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
hey no worries mate - sorry about the tough week!

I guessed you might have brought up some factors that applied to the USA. Most of my thinking was centred around Europe since that's where all this stuff has traditionally been the most relevant.

Sounds like a good counter.
I'd identified the "define extreme" as a fairly major weak point in my side of the argument but my major problem I reckon was the majority vs minority issue. That was the one I was putting all my efforts into.
I deliberately didn't say anything about driving extremist parties into the shadows because I found a really good paper on that, finding that exactly the opposite was true. I was saving that up for rebuttal in a later round.

All academic now though -I hate political debates so I'm hoping never to see this one again!
Sorry to hear about your week, hopefully things improve!
Posted 2014-03-18 21:37:42
Sorry, stuff happened IRL, and working 60 hrs/week is too damn hard.
I knew I shouldn't have taken a debate :/

My retort would have been along the lines of silencing a group is against freedom of assemply, though that is U.S. oriented.
Further, the slippery slope, as to what defines extremist.
Also, if the party's intentions are hidden, what good does banning them do, if that isn't their platform? Newsflash: politicians lie!!
Hate speech isn't actually illegal, well, in America anyway.
Also, the argument that, in a democracy, if mob rule wants extremism by the majority, who are the minority to say otherwise?
And, in a democracy, if ideas are to be shared and expressed, denying them outright, just forces them into the shadows, thus you have the extremist party usurp an existing party. You can keep both parties pure, and the lessor approved at bay, by not banning them.

I was trying to formulate an essay, but my wife's car broke, then we had to close our business because of it...It's been a rough week.
I apologize.
Posted 2014-03-18 19:04:49
Posted 2014-03-18 18:56:58
I'd be keen for some feedback on where I was heading with this debate, if anyone feels like giving it.
As Pro, I identified democracy being a system that generally encourages all points of view to be expressed as being my side's only big weak spot.
My approach was to
A) point out that this freedom is not without limits
B) point out that a ruling such as this would not dictate to the individual - only to a party.

I was laying the groundwork to identify the logistical issues around the practical workings of a ruling like this, although I wasn't planning on being drawn too far into that.
I was struggling to find a realistic scenario where banning a party would be the only reasonable response. I was happy with when the act of campaigning would cause real harm to citizens, but after that I was stuck. I felt like saying that allowing parties like to run would lend an air of legitimacy to them was a trap - do you think so?
I was prepared to pull it out if i had to, i even wrote a piece for it, but I felt like sticking to harm was the safest initial play.
I also had the Golden Dawn Nazi party in Greece as an example, but I didn't want to use unless I had to, as I found just as much criticism for how Greece handled that as there was praise. I feel like the spirit of what they tried to do was correct but the way they did it had some flaws. I didn't want those flaws to be a distraction to my model.

So, comments? Did I have the right ideas? What should I have done differently?
Posted 2014-03-17 11:04:39
Oh man, that's disappointing! Khaos - what happened bro?
Posted 2014-03-16 21:28:40
Haha no pressure!
Yeah I basically just wanted to see how they'd work, looking forward to it!
Posted 2014-03-12 18:56:56

*calms down*

Good luck both of you.
Posted 2014-03-12 15:05:28
Let's give this a whirl.
Posted 2014-03-12 15:03:17
Let's give this a whirl.
Posted 2014-03-12 15:03:14
Hope this becomes the first debate to actually make good use of CX rounds.
Posted 2014-03-12 04:31:02
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

There are no judgements yet on this debate.

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 2 rounds
  • 8000 characters per round
  • Reply speeches
  • Uses cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds means forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Unrated debate
  • Time to post: 3 days
  • Time to vote: 2 weeks
  • Time to prepare: 1 day