Democratic elections are validated by the use of terrorism

I'll do my best to try to parse what my opponent is saying, but I don't know for sure what he's arguing. It's mostly an exercise in abstract ideology. For example, Pro says "It is impossible to install a democratic government from an anarchic society (from which all human societies are derived) without resorting to terrorism." Anarchist ideologues probably knows "anarchic society" means, but I don't. The most primitive tribal societies have rules which are enforced, so there is no ordinary meaning that makes sense. It's for the ideological true believers, and I'm not obliged to know the code.Transition to democracy can be peacefulPro's original contention was that for democratic elections to be held in a region, "an organization must monopolize the right to host elections" and that "cannot be achieved without initially resorting to the unsanctioned use of violence." I gave three methods by which democratic elections can be achieved without any violence whatsoever, and I gave multiple examples of their use. Pro seems to have recognized that his original contention was lost, because he didn't attempt to refute any of my arguments or examples.The basis for civil society is human natureHis new approach is to argue that any sort of authority, including police enforcing basic laws passed democratically, amounts to terrorism. The original premise was that political organizations only achieved democracy through terror. His new premise is that even if one individual doesn't want democracy, that individual is subjugated by terror to accept democracy. His complaint moves from the way in which elections are organized to the existence of government of any kind. I'll debate that, but my opponent is conceding the debate we agreed to and starting a new one.Let's first ask why Pro must make a theoretical case of someone who does not want any form of government. Why are there no significant numbers of people who want anarchy? In principle, a democracy could vote itself out of existence to institute the anarchy that Pro argues for, yet the idea is so unappealing that it gets no traction. The reason that anarchy never catches on is that humans are social animals. This was observed in 350 B.C.“Man is by nature a social animal; an individual who is unsocial naturally and not accidentally is either beneath our notice or more than human. Society is something that precedes the individual. Anyone who either cannot lead the common life or is so self-sufficient as not to need to, and therefore does not partake of society, is either a beast or a god. ” ― Aristotle, Politics http://www.goodreads.com...A modern academic text, The Social Basis of Human Behavior, summarizes:"Humans have the most complex society of any creature on earth, which means we extend self-preservation beyond personal physical survival. We live in extremely complex and interdependent societies, where people band together in groups for mutual aid and protection. Such groups include families, friendships, associations, tribes, clans, states, nations. The members of these groups work together to help each other. Also, since the group enhances the members' chances of survival, group survival means personal survival. The individual benefits by supporting the group, because the group reciprocates by supporting the individual." http://public.wsu.edu...The moral basis for forcing individuals to comply with the rules of society is that human survival as a whole is enhanced by doing so. The reason that anarchy never catches on is that it is an intellectual fantasy contrary to instinct. It is in the same category as the Shakers, http://en.wikipedia.org... who believed in celibacy; they sustained the belief long enough to die out. One reason authoritarian regimes are sustained is that people fear that democracy equates to anarchy. The ruler provides a clear definition of the society, an people may prefer a harsh society to the threat of having no society at all. We hear popular claims like "at least Saddam kept order" http://tinyurl.com... and popular (though false) "Mussolini made the train run on time." http://answers.yahoo.com... Law and order is not terrorEnforcing reasonable laws entails the threat of force, but it is not by any means terror. Demonstrators in Syria are shot down by the authoritarian regime, but demonstrators in the U.S. and Europe are not given severe punishments when they violate health laws, block streets, destroy stores, and prevent commerce. Usually nothing whatsoever is done, and if they are arrested they are quickly released to resume illegal activities. http://tinyurl.com... Public officials even apologize for having temporarily enforced laws, but protesters respond with clear threats of violence. http://blogs.sfweekly.com...So what is the evidence that "terror" is used to maintain democracy? My opponent has given no examples. Terror is used to destroy democracy, not to maintain it. There are plenty of example of that.Pro claims, "if a single person disagreed with the majority's choice of election host and decided to host their own election, the majority would use violence and threats to prevent an alternative democratic election taking place, i.e. unsanctioned majority rule would be used to terrorize the minority." That's nonsense, It a free society you can organize any kind of election you want, but it's solely for you own amusement. What you cannot do is seize power undemocratically. The only way to attempt to seize power is by threatening violence or carrying out terrorist acts.Pro never gave a reason why someone who wanted free and fair elections would refuse to cooperate in bring that about. I gave several mechanism for ensuring that election were fair. I understand that a regime might want to fake elections, but that's not the premise. The premise is that people want democracy. Pro argues that democracy cannot be achieved without terror even if it's a common goal. Pro points to the problem of the tyranny of the majority. In the Middle East, a democratically elected government might, for example, vote democratically to deprive minorities of fundamental rights. That's a problem, but it can be solved, and the solution does not require terrorism. The solution is to have a constitution that guarantees basic rights and an independent judiciary that protects those rights in Court. Of course such a system can fail, and lie all things there will be imperfections. Nonetheless, there is nothing inherent in democracy that requires terrorism to sustain the system.Pro's errors of kind and degreePro makes the fundamental error of equating the exorcise of any type of authority with the extreme violence of terrorism. Thus he implies that if a protester is temporarily detained by an arrest on the way to shutting down bridge that is just like randomly shooting people in the streets. The difference is in the level of fear engendered. Terrorism has the goal of making the population so fearful that they will not resist the imposition of an authoritarian government. Arresting people who block a bridge is done for the purpose of keeping the bridge open. The entire population is not fearful. Even those blocking the bridge are not really fearful. We know that because they casually repeat their acts of intimidation.Terrorism is different from law enforcement because the aim of terrorism is to keep or install authoritarianism, and the aim of law enforcement is to allow people to go about their business. Terrorism is an extreme designed to provoke fear in the general population. Law enforcement is a deterrent only to criminals.SummaryPro has effectively conceded our original debate, and now offers a new debate about an intellectual fantasy. His new contentions do not match reality.