Democracy is no longer the best form of government.

Rebuttals. Your claim: "It is not at all impossible to have a single person who will never lose integrity in the face of power. I believe it is much more likely to find a person with such a character than it is to vote in thousands of people and to expect all of them to hold true to their word." Rebuttal: its possibility is not in question. The likelihood is. It would be impossible to guarantee somebody would never lose integrity in the face of power. In fact here is an article explaining why a benevolent dictatorship is impractical (http://www.compareafrique.com...). It argues that any kind of dictatorship that ignores the simple truth that power corrupts people. Even good people are at risk. Your claim: " Simply put: If there is a benevolent dictatorship, then there is a benevolent dictator. If there is a dictatorship, then there is a dictator. If there is a malicious dictatorship, then there is a malicious dictator. In this case circular reasoning is not a fallacy, it is the absolute truth." Rebuttal: So basically your logic is that in a benevolent dictatorship, if the dictator suddenly turns evil, it would cease to be a benevolent dictatorship and therefore the wrongdoing is not the fault of the benevolent dictatorship, but the newly created malevolent dictatorship. Fine let's run with that. Assuming this logic is correct wouldn't the risk that was present during a benevolent dictatorship of it changing to something worse anytime in the near future, wouldn't this risk alone make a benevolent dictatorship a dangerous political system to rely on? Certainly more dangerous than a democracy. Your claim: "In my second round argument, I offered an idea for a system of checks and balances. This was merely a response to a question that you raised in your first argument. I tried my best to get the point across that the council that I explained in my example would be working for the dictator, and they would only be against his decisions if they questioned the benevolence of the government"Rebuttal: Interesting claim but I'm not sure how you could insure their integrity or even ability to restrict the dictator given they would be working for the dictator. I also am not sure how you could insure this without voting in the council. You said "Your next argument is about "my system of checks and balances" being the same as the current system of corrupt and lazy politicians who go back on their words. This is hard to argue, as it does not really make much sense in this debate. Politicians are being voted in by the people, and the council in my proposed dictatorship would obviously not be. You then said "They would simply be saying yay or nay to their leader, who picked them to represent him." So basically the people who are supposed to be the checks and balances for the dictator were selected by him? Good luck with that. Final Rebuttal- this one should be fun... Throughout your argument you have made several claims about me... "Your claims that I am anti-American and anti-Democracy" “It seems your mind is having a great difficulty wrapping around my thoughts." "I am still yet to witness any serious effort on your part to promote YOUR beliefs. All have seen thus far is attacks on my own personality and motives, as well as direct challenges to parts of my argument that I have already explained. Since you insist on petty, disabling, and incoherent assertions against ME rather than providing strong warrants for your OWN claim, all in order to garner more votes, I will have to assume that in real life you are a politician!" I never claimed you were anti American or democracy. I promise you I fully comprehend your arguments. I have spent the last two rounds explaining to you my beliefs and the clear faults in yours. As to my direct challenges to your argument that is how a debate works. It is up to the voters whether my assertions are coherent or not and I have never challenged you, simply your claim that Democracy is no longer superior. I am attempting to garner votes as that is how you win a debate. I am not, nor have I ever been a politician. Your claims are unfounded and desperate attempts to salvage your argument. While I have not attacked anyone in my argument you have extensively. “There is only one thing that congressman care about: getting voted into or back into their chair. While campaigning, and while serving, they will do absolutely anything possible to either keep themselves, or their majority in office, even if it is at the expense of the people that they are supposed to be serving.""Ignorance of us Americans"“In reality these people are only voting in people who will then vote for themselves or their seat, not for the betterment of the country. In short, democracy is fair, but not necessarily good for the people. Understand?""How many politicians have promised to do a million things, but as soon as they get comfortable in their Washington chair they digress? They've already been voted in, why would they strain themselves to get their job done? They don't need to hold their promises to get voted in again; all they need is the stupid minds of the average human to believe their recycled lies." Summary: Your arguments do not stand and your logic is nonexistent. By the way congratulations on your first debate and welcome to the website!