Democracy Through Fallacies

1716 Words7 Pages
Adapted by many countries around the world, the system of democracy continues to be an evolving subject of argument due to its requirement of the mass population to vote for a leader based on their personal choices and their understanding of who will help society progress further with his or her rationalities and strengths in different sectors of the country such as politics, social sectors, and economics. Amongst various individuals who argue against democracy is Fred Ptarmigan Winkles, Sr. who does not trust democracy. He chooses to focus on how our chosen political representatives manipulate us (the mass majority) and trick us rather than put forth the truth of our progressions and problems as a society. In addition, he targets the implications corrupt and careless leaders can have on society; poverty and starvation are amongst these implications. Furthermore, Fred Ptarmigan Winkles, Sr. emphasizes the results of a dishonest leader who can create a chain effect by using all of society's resources for him/herself and leaving us citizens deprived of resources that we have created ourselves and have lost control of. Although he places his arguments with thoughtful articulation, mistakes are detected through the use of fallacies as these help us see through the faulty evidence that Fred Ptarmigan Winkles, Sr. has failed to identify while presenting his arguments. Winkles begins his essay by describing the good things the media has told us about democracy and drifts into what President Bush had once said about democracy. He had said that "everyone on earth is pretty much the same, and all of us just want to be free" which brings us to the first fallacy in Winkle's essay. How can he say that everyone on earth is the same and th... ... middle of paper ... ... which make his essay weak in various ways, such as his lack of consideration of the positive effects of democracy. Winkle solely focuses on the negative implications that democracy has on a few countries (North Korea and Congo to be specific) and does not mention the other various countries that have perfectly adjusted to democracy and continue to develop in all major sectors. As a result of weak arguments, no credible evidence, emphasis on only negative effects, and lack faulty judgements, Winkle does not succeed in proving his main conclusion to be true, although he establishes that he is clearly rejecting the idea of democracy. He fails to establish why democracy is an insufficient system as fallacies are constantly exhibited in his arguments. Therefore, I am directly opposing his rejection towards democracy as he fails to provide rationale for his judgements.
Open Document