Counterargument: As clearly stated in my last argument, banning extremists from running for office would decrease the amount of support for said party as their views would not be able to be shared with the world and thus recruit supporters. With this decrease in support, such extremist groups will gradually die out.
We have seen in many cases that when extremist groups are allowed to voice their opinions, they have a possibility of gaining control of a country. Let us consider Ado.lf Hitler and other EPPs that came to power. By allowing them to participate in debates, they were able to win over a country and begin implementing their morally flawed ideas. However, by restricting them to demonstrations, these EPPs are villanized in the eyes of the country, and thus their support would shrink to nothing, culminating in the EPPs outright removal.

Simmen/Allen (you two are both arguing con, right?), in Allens example, Allen himself has stated that the party in question won through means of propaganda and appeal to religion. Do you believe that while such means are being practiced, the people can make an informed decision democratically that will be for the best of their country?

I'm not sure about your country, but in Norway most people who is 18 or older know about all the political parties, even the extreme ones, even if they doesn't end up on TV or aren't big enough to join in on all the debates between the parties they are still there, spreading their information. Do you think you can kill someone's opinions by ignoring them?

They will just find a more agressive way to get your attention.

It is not the case. Are you telling me that it is extremist to protest Fidel Castro's government for example, and ask for democracy instead of a dictatorship? Would you consider the Arab Spring movement in Egypt extremist, because it broke conventional norms followed in Egypt for years? What is extremist in one's view may not be extremist but completely justified from another ones point of view.

My first argument pointed out a case from India. India is a multi party democracy. As such, there are 2 parties that are the biggest in India - the BJP and the Congress. The BJP advocates a principle called Hindutva - Hindutva is meant to denote the Hindu characteristic, or Hinduness. The party defines India as a Hindu country. While the constitution defines India as a secular state. Now because Hindus comprise about 80 percent of India's population, they do have a lot of support in India. But then again there are a lot of Hindus that dont like their religious stance. Also there have been instances of religious riots in India, especially in States ruled by the BJP and the BJP has actively supported groups like VHP, RSS etc, who enforce Hindutva. And they are violent groups. So as a non hindu, BJPs stand is extremist for me. But on the other hand, they participate in elections, and they are a major political party in India that cannot be done away with. Their views are widely accepted too by a lot of people. So here you see, that extremism is a matter of perspective.

.

I consider THAT an extremist view. So you shouldnt be allowed to debate on this board

Joking, But still. A democracy and free country should allow for all kinds of opinions. Its freedom of speech. What people choose to identify themselves with is their right. Nothing is perfect, but noone can define extremism. Because it is a matter of perspective.

Firstly, seeing as the prompt is arguing an idea, using non-statistical, generic examples that are always centered around one nation or region are inconclusive in the point the opposition is trying to make. (I don't care really, bc I know were all too lazy to find real evidence. That's jus what I would say in a real debate)

I firmly believe that as attention is not given to political parties, they and their doctrines will die out. Without a sufficient support base upon which their ideals stem from, a political party simply cannot function. For example, Tammany Hall in the United States of America died out because of a lack of support. In fact, the fading of all political parties are in part due to a lack of popular support. Without the primary medium through which political parties can express their views, political debate, people would not be exposed to such views and thus the EPP would slowly fade into obscurity


Typing all this crap on an iPhone is tiring. -.-

Yes, what Allen is saying is very true. What is extreme is very relative. For me communism starts to get fairly extremist. Yet I'm sure the Norwegian government would seem as leftist extrmists in USA since it includes a party called "Socialistic leftist party".

@both of you, define extremist so we don't get into a definition argument tyvm. Debate procedure lol. XD Otherwise this isn't going to go anywhere. Should've done this first post but oh well.

I'm way to lazy to read whatever came before this, but here's my view:

Extreme political parties may not be a welcome addition to certain societies, but they are needed. There has to some controversy in the world, else it would be too boring. Not to mention one other thing... If you don't like what someone is saying, don't listen. It's easy as that. If you don't like a song on the radio, what do you do? You change the station. The same is for these extremists. Just tune them out.

Generally whatever you defined extremism as, holds good. But you gotta take it on a case by case basis and see if it is extremist or not and even then you would have opposing opinions. Therefore, when you just say Extremist political parties, there are none actually. Cuz there are only political parties. Like Matt said, if you dont like them, dont vote for them. But not allowing them to contest elections because of their ideas, is not democratic by any means.

How about: A political party whose views stray from convention of that society and whose messages are commonly laced with racist overtones and violence.
In your case, you seem to be listing extremist actions rather than extremist political parties.
Also, BJP should not be classified as an extremist party unless their "messages are laced with racist overtones and violence", such as the anti immigration British national party.
Simmen, you forget that it is "views that stray from the convention of that society.

Counterargument: The society in question should not have the right to implement ideas that are morally flawed by nature that extremists hold. Firstly, opposition has no contested that 'extremist political parties oppress minorities and have racist overtones in their messages'. Seeing as the opponent cedes this, it would follow that they agree that an election of such a party would be detrimental to a society. Therefore, EPPs should not be allowed to run for political office because of the slight possibility that they would be elected. Once again, "We have seen in many cases that when extremist groups are allowed to voice their opinions, they have a possibility of gaining control of a country. Let us consider Ado.lf Hitler and other EPPs that came to power. By allowing them to participate in debates, they were able to win over a country and begin implementing their morally flawed ideas." Banning the potential election of such parties should happen because it is morally right. Especially when faced with the trademark strategies as described by the opposition, such as propaganda and appeal to religion, the people cannot make an informed decision on their ruling body and thus should not be able to make that decision.
People suggesting that the boredom of one being alleviated by the blood and tears of a people suffering under a extremist regime is saddening and completely violated human morals.

@Allen, why is a blind upholding of a democracy more right than preventing reigns of terror?

You cannot define it specifically like that. For you, views that have racist overtones or views that incite violence are extremist. For me, non secular views are extremist. That is why I said you gotta take it on a case by case basis. I could justify the British National party's anti immigration views as - a solution to improve the condition of the local population? If a country allows uncontrolled immigration, how do you think its gonna sustain everyone? At some point you got to limit immigration. Now I am not saying that the BNP is right, am just arguing for them just to prove that their views may not be extremist after all from say, a BNP point of view.



What is morally flawed, and what is not, is not something that any individual can determine. Just because a view is radical or unconventional does not make it extremist or morally wrong. If the society as such feels that a particular party is extremist, violent and morally wrong, trust me in a democratic framework that party wont get anywhere, even if you let it contest. That is the beauty of democracy. You HAVE to be politically correct, you HAVE to have public opinion going for you. You cannot afford to be morally wrong. Or you will loose your money in the elections. Therefore I dont see any reason for preventing anyone from contesting, especially if they are THAT wrong. Infact, if I was an opposition member, I would very much like to contest against such a party knowing they will lose. It just makes me look better.



Because, its one's constitutional right. Its freedom of expression and speech. One should be able to say anything or speak anything. That is freedom. It is not for you and me or anyone else to limit or control someone's freedom by deeming their views extremist - which makes your views extremist because you are solely judging based on YOUR views alone. That is just undemocratic and wrong.

Taking an example from India - India is extremely diverse when it comes to different cultures and religions. Therefore we have Sikh Extremists, Hindu extremists, Muslim extremists - they have their own newspapers talking trash, we have separatists who want certain states to be seperate countries etc etc., The majority in the country does not agree with these people. Therefore they can keep protesting, but nothing is gonna happen. However, we dont stop them from protesting, because it is their right. We dont stop them from printing newspapers and magazines that spread their views. Again their right.