Americais is a polity, not a democracy

Republic vs oligarchy My opponents main claim is investors have no power (or) they do not represent the will of the people. But this fails for many reasons, which I outlined last round. The consumers AND investors hold the influence, therefore, well, everyone holds the influence. If the consumer is bad at the banks or store, they will just discontinue business with them and move to other stores. If they have no shareholders, they are fairly worthless. and as argued last round, already 44% of america has influence based on mutual funds, most of america owns stocks, and over 99% of the people are consumers in some way shape or form. So based on the study that 150 companies rule the world fail as those 150 are, when getting a good look at it, controlled by YOU. Then he brings forth the next company, CVR energy. I would like to also note empiracel evidence shareholders have a huge influence on the company. The shareholders where actually where the decision happened, and they approved. [1] So yes, they own the company, not the CEO. Shareholders = 44% of america as stated last round, that is NOT rule by a few.My opponents full analysis fails this round as I have proven all of his examples last round are driven by popular support, as is this one influenced by shareholders. Sopa/Pipa/CispaNo ones doubting the super rich has an influence, if they did not it would be quite unfair, but the point is the majority (the average people) if they where truly opposed to a bill they can stop it. This does a few things:- The people override the companies- If they where truly against it, they would stop it, as they are active/idle they are still run by the people hence still have the opportunity and we are theretofore a republic. My opponent on his point two falls under a fallacy, as he is arguing something that is likely to happen will happen. [2] (appeal to probability) and again under the base rate fallacy. He has failed to look at prior possibilities and fails to prove that a likely event leads to the actual one. His point two are formal fallacies hence are dis proven. NRAMy opponent claims the 68% number never was said, yes it was: "68 pct of Americans have favorable view of NRA"[3] I encourage all voters to look into the source if needed. My opponent then argues the members point is unfavorable. This argument was coupled with the 68% poll, it is not invalid. Electoral collegeMy opponent cites undemocratic, but as shown already in round two we are a republic based on the federalist paper analysis. It proved that we are a republic based on the stark differences, and we fit under a republic. My opponent ONLY argument is some states need to be in control. But this in itself is not "democratic", as this means only a few areas will actually be in control therefore in and of itself undermines the system. "A purely popular vote would encourage some states (particularly one-party states) to change their voting requirements to increase that state’s influence nationwide. For example, a state could drop the voting age to 17 or 16, because more people voting would allow that state affect the national vote, not just the electoral vote."[4]This means a few minority states will be at an advantage, so this means the EC actually makes it more of a republic. Also as proved last round the EC helps the minorities, but still gives the majority the most power. And in a republic a majority is not needed, only a large minority. (unilike oligarchy as this is like 15 people and the army rule). Two partyThis makes no sense! Having two political parties are not something to be frowned upon, as it does not hurt the election/republuc system. Having two parties also does not prove anything, as it fails to prove that few people run the country. As this is the case, his argunment is a red herring. Further having 3 or more main parties would stiffle political action, and be detrimental to the society as society wants change, progress, nothing, or backwards, and tradition etc. If you ahev 60 parties, all with different views, then none of these ideas can really surface. So still, the two party system is a republican like system. AccountabilityMy opponents argunments fail on facts. Who held the 2008 problem to the feds? Austrian and conservative politicians and economicsts. Who held eric holder responsible for the guns? All of the republican party and informed independanrs. If anything, my opponents argunemnts are FALSE. And he brings up lobbying... again... this was refuted this round and last round, he is bringing up debunked points. The people run the lobbies. Liberties1.) My opponent uses hitler. This is irrelevant, as this is constitutional law, but the basis of the interest must be great enough to trouble the people. Also this analogy fails as we have the right to overthrow government, in germany they did not, hence this analogy fails (and again the right to overthrow government mkes us a republic.) Ok hack to states interests. It is basic cosntitutional law that a strong states interests and a strong socetal interest can overide the constitution. My opponent makes a security statemnt with no support or logic, just claims security. This makes no sense as oligarchy is rule by a few, we can even assume this argunment itself (for both of us) is a red herring, and mainly the first contention is the debate, but whatever :P As it is a conduct violation to introduce new agunments last round, it is impossible to argue this indefensible statement. 2.) My opponent just says it is stoll wrong. This fails as according to you above popular support needs to control everything (or most things). Preserving liberty is a minority opinion hence would be oligarchic. So you contradicted yourself. Further, states interest as well as societies wants/needs/well being/security/interests can trump liberty. And it has, hence we are still a republic. CONCLUSION:Oligarchy - a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few. [5]- People elect government- People control wealth and lobbyists- People have the right to overthrow government- In the US, the people control everything The US is not an oligarchy. All of my opponents argunments lie on false data, fallacies, contradictions, or the logic was attacked by me. All of his points have been thorughly refuted, and in the main core of this debate (C1) he ignored much of my case on investors and consumers controlling everything. And those investors and consumers are, well, most everyone. My opponent has not fufilled his BOP (it was assumed even, and he still never met it) Vote Pro. [1] http://www.gurufocus.com...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[4] http://www.cato.org...[5] http://dictionary.reference.com...