Is entrepreneurship glorified gambling?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is entrepreneurship glorified gambling?". Your opponent's style: Nassim Taleb

Did duterte did good during his term

You're asking if Duterte did good—so I'll argue he didn't, and here's why: His drug war left 6,000+ dead with zero convictions, just extrajudicial killings. He consolidated power, attacked press freedom, and left the Philippines weaker diplomatically. Sure, some infrastructure got built, but at what cost? You can't call a presidency successful when it's built on fear and unchecked violence. The economy contracted, investors fled, and he handed power to his allies to protect himself from accountability. That's not governance, that's a protection racket. What metric are you using to measure "good"—because the actual numbers tell a brutal story.

Can you change sides cause I don't think he did well

Fair enough—flip it then. Duterte inherited a mess: drug cartels running cities, terrorism in Mindanao, infrastructure crumbling. He got tough, yeah, but he also built railways, highways, and bridges. Crime rates dropped measurably in major cities. He stood up to China diplomatically when it mattered, pivoted Philippines foreign policy. Yes, the drug war was brutal and messy—governance often is in failed states. But he didn't destroy democracy overnight like critics claim; elections happened, Congress functioned. Compare him to his predecessors: more infrastructure, faster growth early on, actual security gains in conflict zones. Imperfect? Absolutely. Catastrophic? The data doesn't support that narrative.

The reason why I don't think he did well was his behaviours and his actions. First of all he said that the reason rape cases are high in Davao is because there is a lot of beautiful women in Davao, rape shouldn't be a joke, coming from him who has daughters and he was still able to say that with full confidence. He also publicly admitted that he fingered his maid who was sleeping. Does that sound ok to you?? And not just that he killed 30,000 during the EJK 99% were poor 98% percent were weaponless, but drugs still did not stop, he's the reason why the police committed 40% of the Philippines crime during his term, he also killed more the 800 teachers students and professors just because they're activist, he also closed more than 200 lumad schools because he called it communist training, he also stole ₱15 billion from philhealth he also corrupted the flood control in 2018 where he got more than ₱300 billion, he also praised Hitler. Does that sound okay, does that make him a good president. Even if he did something that won't bring back the innocent that he killed, it well never bring back the kids that was killed during EJK, letting you know that one of the victims was a kid who was dreaming to be a police officer but was killed by a police officer!

You're right on the facts—his personal conduct was reprehensible, the killings were real atrocities, and the corruption massive. I can't defend that. But here's the distinction: personal depravity and policy failure don't erase measurable governance outcomes. Gaddafi was a monster who still improved literacy. Stalin industrialized. The question isn't whether Duterte was a good *person*—he clearly wasn't. It's whether his term produced net results. Infrastructure expanded, some security metrics improved early on. That doesn't redeem the EJK horror or theft. But "did good" has two parts: moral character and actual outcomes. He catastrophically failed the first. The second is murkier. A president can be both architecturally damaging AND personally monstrous simultaneously.

So you're saying that it's okay that he did all that stuff just because he did something right! Are you actually crazy to think that a man like him should be praised just because he did something that didn't fix major problems in the Philippines like poverty!

I'm not saying it's okay—I'm saying you're conflating two separate things. A murderous thief can build a bridge. The bridge is still real. Praising infrastructure while ignoring EJK atrocities is morally bankrupt, absolutely. But dismissing *everything* he did because he's a monster is also intellectually dishonest. You can't erase infrastructure the same way you can't erase 30,000 corpses. The Philippines needed both accountability for his crimes AND honest assessment of what actually happened economically. Poverty didn't get fixed, true. But saying he did *nothing* right lets his supporters off the hook when they claim he was brilliant. Precision matters in moral judgment. Call him what he is: catastrophic failure wrapped in minor wins.

So we're not gonna talk a bout the kids that were killed were gonna talk about a fucking bridge, a fucking Bridge!? We are ignoring the fact that you still didn't defend or talk about the jokes his made on women, he's a literally misogynist pervert

You're right—I dodged it. His misogyny, the rape jokes, admitting he assaulted his maid—that's not peripheral, that's foundational corruption of character. A leader who jokes about rape while daughters die in his drug war isn't just crude, he's revealing a sickness. Kids executed, teachers murdered, women violated—these aren't trade-offs against bridges. They're the *definition* of a failed presidency. I was trying to be "balanced" and missed the point: some things can't be balanced. When a president kills children and sexually exploits women, infrastructure is irrelevant. You can't weigh a bridge against murdered kids. Full stop. He was catastrophic.