The Democratic Peace Theory is, perhaps, one of the most rudimentary staples for those political scientists examining the effects of democracies and their interaction on a global scale. Proposed in 1795 by Immanuel Kant, the theory has been probed, altered, and expounded upon for centuries by researchers eager to understand the true composition of the relationships between democracies. Today, the theory is heralded by many scholars as something of fact, showing a strong degree of favoritism toward its underpinnings and suppositions; however, the basis of the theory – as well as its modern variant – is far from being immune to shortcomings of substantial degrees. As such, it is important to examine the basis and factors that constitute the Democratic Peace Theory, both from Kant’s perspective and from modern researchers on the issue, in order to discern the instruments that accurately forge its entirety, while exhuming the variables that exemplify its true defects. This may be disinterred by focusing upon a single central question: what factors negate the Democratic Peace Theory, and how do those factors disparage the belief that democracies do not engage in war with one another on the basis that they are, simply, democracies? Ultimately, this research is essential in debunking the myth behind the longstanding theory that has emphatically impinged the political science community.