Americais is a polity, not a democracy

It was fairly implied you where to argue we where democracy......... Well the show must go on!C1: Republic and Oligarchy – stark differences Before we can argue whether or not America is either of these two political ideologies, we must ask what are the differences of the two. An oligarchy is defined as rule of a few, usually related to family ties or political parties. "These people could be distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, education, corporate, or military control. Such states are often controlled by a few prominent families who pass their influence from one generation to the next."[1]A republic, however, is run by elected officials (on oligarchy there are no elected officials, and if there are they are generally powerless). These elected officials are legislating to help the people, and are bonded by constitutional bounds. "A constitutional republic is a state in which the head of state and other officials are representatives of the people and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over all of its citizens. Because the head of the state is elected, it is a republic and not a monarchy. ... The fact that a constitution exists that limits the government's power makes the state constitutional. That the head(s) of state and other officials are chosen by election, rather than inheriting their positions, and that their decisions are subject to judicial review makes the state a republic."[2] In a oligarchy however, they have no checks and balances or elections like the ones republics like ours have. Here are some examples that readers can understand the point: "Some other examples include the former Soviet Union where only members of the Communist Party were allowed to vote or hold office; the French First Republic government under the Directory; and the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (only the nobility could vote)."[1]Note the section of vote. It shows only nobles could vote. This implies oligarchy's are very restrictive of voting powers. In america, though, we are not. As the federalist papers state: "The true distinction between these forms was also adverted to on a former occasion. It is, that in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents."[3] Note this states in a republic people come to vote for representatives, much like we do today. "The United States has a federal government, with elected officials at the federal (national), state and local levels."[4] So the run down:Oligarchy - Run by a few non elected officials generally run by political parties (i.e. USSR with communism) or families. Generally dont have a consitution, or follow one. Republic - In this political system, people come to vote and elect their officials which are bound by constitution. As we can see the two systems are far from similar, and the US lies under the republic category. C2: A republicWhen the founders created our country, we (and still can/do) hold our government accountable for our actions, and elect them to offices. But what I am looking into is the consitutional aspect of the debate. "The Constitution guides American society in law and political culture."[5] Note the bolded word. This word means it forms guidelines of things our representatives must go through. They have rules, are boxed in. Now to bring upon a quote already mentioned:"A constitutional republic is a state in which the head of state and other officials are representatives of the people and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over all of its citizens. Because the head of the state is elected, it is a republic and not a monarchy"[2]As we can see this aspect of America is indeed a republic, something oligarchies can not do (as they want maximum power, not rules). C3: ElectionsNow if this was 1840 I might agree with you, then only white men who owned land where able to vote. Suffrage is a word meaning the right to vote. Now in oligarchies, there is no right to vote. As states above, most oligharchies had no elections (only the leaders nominated themselves) or the elections where lowerd from the few down one step: the nobles. So in an oligarchy, there is little to no free voting. But in the US: "Today, partially due to the Twenty-sixth Amendment, U.S. citizens have almost universal suffrage from the age of 18, regardless of race, gender, or wealth, and both Houses of Congress are directly elected."[6]Its a farily basic concept. Further, the point of law is another point here. A constitution is the law of the land, the order of the government. As aristotle argued: "But the government which seems to him to best assure the reign of the law is the republic"[7] Its a basic concept, the constitution and elections mean that the law is kept, unlike in oligarchy. C4: LibertiesNow this is fairly easy to argue. A monarchy never exists, he always has his nobles, advisors, generals, armies. It is always aligarchy when looking into monarchy. So any monarch that takes freedoms is an oligarch that takes freedoms. And oligarchies and monarchies always take away freedoms. A perfect example: USSR. USSR was based in a one party rule, the communists. In the USSR, priviate ownership was actually non existant, and the government owned it all. (no property rights). In the economy, the priviate industry was almost non existant. (government controlled, no freedom). Many people where killed by famines, as stalin got mad at them stole food or taxed them. Others where sent to work camps. An average of 1000 executions per day, no trial. [8] No elections to an extent.Now in america there is ownership. The priviate industry dominates the economy. Most people are not starving because the government is taking their food or taxing it so high no one can buy it. And no one is sent to work camps. Now my opponent will likley argue we have capial punishment here too, but to a lesser extent. But we have the due process clause. In oligarchy, you have no right to trial. In the US, you do. "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."[9]As we can see, the US and oligarchies are not the same. Conclusion:Oligarchy- Less freedoms, see USSR No right to vote nor any fair elections No consitution governing body, no law of the land, cant hold government responsible on legal basis Huge differences with a republic Republic - Not unlimited freedoms, but many freedoms exist and are protected by the constitution Nearly universal right to vote, generally fair elections Has a constiution, can hold government accountable in court, and it is our right to do so Huge differences with oligarchy My opponent also perverted the meaning of this debate. "America is a polity, not a democracy" = resolution, its implied he argues democracy. As he is arguing dfferent, this either lies on him trying to change the resolution or troll. One breaks the rules auto FF, the other means he never argued the resolution. I have argued in this we are a republic, hence I still fit the resolution. My opponent has not, so his different topic of argunmentation means he loses. Sources:[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] - Federalist, No.14[4] - http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] - http://en.wikipedia.org...[6] - http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] - http://www.econlib.org... [8] - http://en.wikipedia.org... [9] - http://www.law.cornell.edu...