Most Canadians have been indoctrinated to believe they have a democracy

I want to begin by thanking my opponent for this opportunity to debate. I'll be organizing some voting issues for the readers via his round 5 post: "You consistently refuse to prove your argument that you are not indoctrinated into believing Canada has a democratic government as defined by Blacks law Dictionary. You have not prove Canada is not a Democracy; that leave you to prove that you have documented evidence by Hansard record or a bill passes claiming Canada's independence from British rule, and Documented record and results of a referendum ratified by all the people in Canada by a majority vote in all the provinces." 1. Canada does have a democracy, according to my rounds 1-4 analysis. You haven't addressed any of my arguments, but instead repeated the same unwarranted statements about my apparent Canadian indoctrination in the hopes that it looks like evidence. The Crown is a meaningless figurehead; its around for ceremonial purposes. The Crown doesn't control its own control, much less lord over Canada with a big stick. Although, if all of these conspiracy theories are true, it does manage to walk far more softly than Teddy Roosevelt… 2. The Hansard records you continue to harp on prove absolutely nothing about the state of reality in Canada. You still have not been able to refute my arguments regarding the sound, democratic practices of the Canadian government as they stand. Essentially, you want voters to affirm on your blind assertion that GB is literally falsifying a parliament while undermining the Canadian ability to rule sovereignty with no proof whatsoever. I have cited the basic workings of the Canadian government for you. I can do no more than to lay out the parallelism that the Canadian government has to the democratic government of the US. "The U.S passed a declaration of independence. Post the bill the Canadian government passed declaring it's independence : so that it would satisfy the requirement of independence, freedom and sovereignty,. Post a referendum by all the people of each province ratifying a constitution. That is all you have to do . Everything else you post is just a demonstration of your evasion of proving you have been indoctrinated into believing Canada is a democracy as defined. http://www.sasked.gov.sk.ca...; 3. I take it that, as this is round 5, my opponent is refusing to address any analysis I've given in the past 4 rounds about why national sovereignty is not necessarily a prerequisite to a democratically functioning government. Canadian citizens have control over their own political affairs via the mechanisms of Canadian government and the Canadian Constitution, a constitution that was ratified by Britain. Interesting that such an overlord government would choose to ratify a document that guarantees the rights of Canadians to politically self-govern…why is that? Where's that iron GB fist? 4. As for the link you provide within this quotation, that would be Quebec explaining why they didn't ratify the Canadian Constitution in 1982. As your own link explains, it is because Quebec didn't feel that the draft represented them as their own sovereign culture. They even attempted to become their own nation in 1995. This doesn't prove that the Canadian Constitution isn't being applied across Canada- Quebec is still part of Canada by popular vote, at least since 1995, according to your own source. None of this is offensively viable, unless you had tried to prove that Quebec is being systematically dehumanized, marginalized, or disenfranchised, which MIGHT give you some footing in claiming that the whole of Canada isn't a democracy, but I could easily disprove that AND you never made those links. Also, this source even calls Canada a sovereign nation-state in the first paragraph. However, I need not prove national sovereignty to win, as has been shown. "Where does it say the 1992 referendum was passed? Canada a country without a constitution by Walter F kuhl http://www.detaxcanada.org...; 5. I appreciate the link from my opponent to this supposed book by Walter F. Kuhl finally. I appreciate it because the book was published in 1977, by a man who was in parliament from 1935-1949. Though I will admit that the Canadian Constitution was not ratified in its current form until 1982 (not 1992), it has gone through multiple stages, including the BNA Act. The Canadian Constitution of 1982 subsumed and added on to the BNA Act. Hence, this book was written prior to the ratification of the document that is formally known as the Canadian Constitution. Hence, any of the books points, being made 30 years ago, are most likely outdated and inaccurate, not to mention the work of a political pundit who is most likely highly biased. My sources on the inner workings of the Canadian parliament and its interactions (or lack thereof) with GB are far more neutral. "As presented in parliament The BNA. Act could not be considered a constitution neither in law or in fact." 6. http://laws.justice.gc.ca... A link from the justice department of Canada with the text, in case you don't believe said Constitution exists. The BNA is only one form of the Constitution. It was officially ratified as a constitution, with provisions characterizing it legally and factually as such, in 1982. "Your indoctrination has transcended all facts presented. Canada's and the U.S. constitutions are not the same and their creation are not the same. The American states created a constitution as sovereign states; the Canadian provinces had no say in creating the BNA Act as a constitution as it was a British bill passed as to how the British wanted to govern the colonies they united." 7. I refer you back to my analysis on the Canadian Constitution. Also, this is patently not true. In 1952, the Canadian government began writing and ratifying pieces of the BNA Act all on its own. Canadian parliament enacted another piece in 1952 adjusting the seats available in the Canadian parliament. After 1965, all changes to the BNA Act were being fully and sovereignly enacted by the Canadian parliament. "You have not posted what changed from the government being a colonial government- which is not a democratic government ; to the present government ;but you claim it was because of your indoctrination reasoning as the people still have the same voting ability. post the required documents that are required of you to demonstrate your beliefs are based on facts, not on government propaganda and indoctrination." In summation, I'm really not sure what other facts I can present to you. Rather than belaboring points I've already made, I shall leave the voters with a request to compare the number of arguments that both debaters have presented, and with what logical or empirical evidence the debaters have chosen to back up those arguments. I ask you to vote on the clear, empirical, practical links I have made to working democracies within the world. My opponent asks you to affirm because I have been "indoctrinated by the Queen of England." I remain in firm negation of the resolution.