Serial Killers are more Dangerous than Military Dictators

Definitions provided by dictionary.com and Wikipedia:
Serial Killer - A person who attacks and kills victims one by one in a series of incidents
Military Dictators - a form of government wherein the political power resides with the military; it is similar but not identical to a stratocracy, a state ruled directly by the military.
Dangerous - able or likely to cause physical injury

As Pro, I will be defending that Serial killers are more dangerous than military dictators; thus the polar opposite of my stance that my opponent will have to defend is that Military dictators are more dangerous than serial killers.

When one says 'evil person', more often that not (or at least within my personal experiences) the first names that come up are usually along the lines of Hitler, Stalin, and/or Saddam. Secondly, if at all, one will think of someone like Charles Mason or Ted Bundy. However, which one is really more dangerous? I propose that serial killers are. Why? Because they actually get their hands dirty. A dictator, for all their self awarded medals and the pistol they carry around, how often do they actually go out and kill? When one thinks who was at fault for the 5.7 millions deaths, people usually point the finger at Hitler, but he certainly didn't personally pull the gas chamber levers or fire the machine guns that caused the deaths. Rather, that job was left to the members of the SS and Nazi army. Hitler's words caused others to act, but he himself didn't actually kill anyone. But serial killers do.

They physically face their victims and kill them, however they do choose. There is actually the personal touch. They intended to kill them, they wanted to. They went out of their way to find their next victim, capture, and commit the murder. A dictator doesn't kill anyone, its his cronies that do the deed. Its those people everyone fears because they're the ones who are going to come and get you. Kim Jong-il isn't going to come out of his palace to personally cause strife among his subjects. It's the grunts. The killers. They are the dangerous ones, the dictators only a figure head. A face to put with mass murder. But a face doesn't kill, the gun or knife does. The person who pulls the trigger or does the stabbing is the real holder of power. They are the dangerous ones. And that is what the serial killer does. So, for the reason that the killer really kills, and the dictator only dictates, the former is infinitely more dangerous than the latter.

Darth_Grievous_42, Thank you for creating this debate. I find it very interesting. Before I begin, I would like to wish you the best of luck in your rounds.

The core issue I see here is the definition of Dangerous. I will define it here to avoid confusion.

dan·ger·ous Listen to the pronunciation of dangerous
Pronunciation:
\ˈdān-jə-rəs; ˈdān-jərs, -zhrəs\
Function:
adjective
Date:
15th century

1 : exposing to or involving danger <a dangerous job> 2 : able or likely to inflict injury or harm <a dangerous man>
— dan·ger·ous·ly adverb
— dan·ger·ous·ness noun

WHEN

DANGER IS

Main Entry:
1dan·ger Listen to the pronunciation of 1danger
Pronunciation:
\&#712;d&#257;n-j&#601;r\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English daunger, from Anglo-French dangier, dongier, from Vulgar Latin *dominiarium, from Latin dominium ownership
Date:
13th century

1 aarchaic : jurisdiction bobsolete : reach, range2obsolete : harm, damage3: exposure or liability to injury, pain, harm, or loss <a place where children could play without danger>4: a case or cause of danger <the dangers of mining>

SO, which group of people, Dictators or serial killers is most likely to "likely inflict harm" or "exposure or liability to injury, pain, harm, or loss"? The clear answer is dictators.

The direct actions of dictators have killed hundrends of millions of people, from those in rule of the USSR, to Mao, to the dictators in charge of North Korea, and Nazi Germany. They did not do this in a directly personal way, they did not personally kill every person, however, they did directly cause their deaths. Without these dictators ordering others to kill them, they would not have died.

While it may appear that serial killers are more dangerous because they are more personal, this is an illusion. There is absolutely no relation between how "personal" somebody is and how "dangerous" they are. They are dangerous if they simply cause more death, or are more likely to cause the death of another. Are you more likely to die under a tyrannical dictatorship than in country which happens to house serial killers? Of course.

Since your chances of death, or harm (by definition, danger, or dangerous living) are much higher with dictators than serial killers, dictators are the most dangerous individuals.

And thank you DucoNihilum for accepting. Now onto the debate. By your own definition, dictators are less likely to "inflict harm" than serial killers. Here are some kill-count statistics:

BTK Killer - 6
Charles Mason - 9
Ted Bundy - 36
Jack the Ripper - 5 confirmed, possibly up to 18
Albert DeSalvo (the Boston Strangler) - 13
Cho Seung-Hui - 32
Dexter Morgan - 46<*
Hitler - 2 (one of which was himself, the other his wife)

As you can see, Hitler was more a danger to himself than to others. What people really fear and die from is the army they control. The jews, when stuck inside attics and behind hidden walls, they didn't fear Hitler. He certainly wasn't going to come looking for them with a pistol. No, what they feared was the Nazi army. All of which are serial killers. Dictators don't kill anyone. Except themselves, when they're about to be caught. So by your logic, it seems serial killers are the more dangerous. Hitlers about as dangerous as my shoe. Its the ones who wield the weapons, the real killers, that are more likely to inflict pain on another. Your chances of dying when in a room with Ed Gein are staggeringly higher than if your in a room with Hitler. So, logic dictates that dictators are more docile than a dangerous, deranged... killer.

Sources: [http://www.allserialkillers.com...]
*Just a joke

Dictators are far more likely to cause the infliction of harm as compared to serial killers. Please explain how being more personal is somehow inflicting more harm. Hitler CAUSED the death of millions, the USSR directly caused the death of millions, and the serial killers you listed killed just over a few hundred.

If you can not prove that serial killers are more DANGEROUS than dictators, rather than just more personal, then you have failed to meet the standards of your own proposition.

Ahh, but your mistaken. See, it's not the dictatorSHIP's we are arguing about, but the dictators themselves. This has been a personal argument all along. You'll notice that the title doesn't say "Serial Killers are more Dangerous than a Military Dictators Regime", but states simply "Military Dictators". My first argument specifically stated that it was your job to defend the dictator. It is their army that is dangerous, not themselves. Hitler's ARMY caused the deaths of millions, not Hitler himself. You have failed to meet the standards of the proposition as a whole. If you cannot prove that a dictator himself is more dangerous than a serial killer within this last round, then I have won this debate. Darth_Grievous_42 out.