Voting rights ought to be reserved to veterans of the Military.

Very well organized opening from Pro, I'm happy to see that.I. Cross-ExaminationSection (I)Here my opponent defines a democracy. I have to agree that the initial definition of majority opinion determining desirable action is spot on, however the next line is where I feel his interpretation of democracy starts to falter.The goal of majority rule is not to promote social good, but rather to make sure that the majority of people get what they want from their government. If social good is what the majority desires, that's what they'll get. As my opponent pointed out, social well-being is hardly the concern of most voters, but instead their own personal wants and needs. Now, there is absolutely no problem with this, as the point of democratic voting is to determine how those wants and needs spread through the society. A full democracy is solely interested in pleasing the most people. Whether it be through compromise or decision. So, when my opponent starts to go on about how total democracy is hurting others while pleasing more, he is getting it right. However I have to disagree that this is incorrect for a few reasons, but I'll get to those momentarily. First I would like to address Pro's substitute for a total democracy. That being a selective democracy. The selection of course being those who have served in the military. The problem with a selective democracy is that it's basis negates it being a democracy. Instead of the majority of people's voice being considered, only those willing to risk their live in an effort to harm others are given power. No disrespect to anyone who has served in the military, but you cannot deny that the reason it exists is to hurt others, whether by means of protection or offense. The issue with this being that joining the military requires a certain type of person, said person not being everybody. Otherwise everybody would join.Now I get to my main point. That you're only drawing input from a select few individuals that have their own separate interest in mind, but now they have more power. My opponent tries to justify this by saying that veterans have a sort of selflessness to them, that they would sacrifice themselves and their interests for the sake of benefiting society. Here's some issues with this.1. Serving in the military is not a means of self-sacrifice. Everyone has a reason for doing it, none have the intention of sacrificing for something they don't care about.2. Why is a means of self-sacrifice a good foundation for society? If everybody is giving up their wants and desires to fulfill eachother, then why not save the hassle and let everyone fulfill their own desires by voting for what they want?3. Simply having been in the military will not always instill this mindset. This will cause people who do not follow the self-sacrifice conventions to be allowed to vote, except now they have more power because the sample is significantly smaller.Basically, the point is that this selfless mindset isn't reliable nor in the best interest of everyone. At least with total democracy, everyone gets a say. A chance to pursue happiness while not having to rely on a veteran to hand them that happiness. Or not hand it to them, depending on the veteran's opinion on societal needs. Which might I add is not always correct.Section (II)Pro's point here is hypocritical. If the basis of a good democracy is education, then why not instead require political education to vote? The military is only intended to prepare for conflict, not political understanding. So the condition for a correct democracy is unfulfilled by Pro's claim.Section (III)This section brings up an issue in it's last statement. I addressed everything before it.The fact that the only people allowed to vote, are the ones who fully commit to forcefully carrying out orders of the government. Unconditionally to boot. I fail to understand how complete obedience is the correct answer to prosperity. Our country was built on people escaping corrupt government to build a better homeland. Now then it would make little sense to say that the ones who do not engage in this rebellious attitude are solely allowed to vote. These rebels are what keep our country in check. If you have nobody questioning someone's actions, then that someone has all the more power to perform more unwanted actions. Section (IV)My opponent starts making a lot of assumptions in this section. For example, assuming that veterans have any less intention on voting for unjust war. Not every military officer has served in combat, even less in an actual war. Therefore their knowledge on the subject is about as good as any other regular Joe.Pro then goes on to assume that a veteran is more likely to go and get further educated. Without and statistics or sources we cannot confirm this as true.Now, allow me to throw this point back at Pro. Not all veterans understand the nature of society. So how can we expect someone who has spent a year or more away from it to be any more wiser on the requirements of it? Once again, the military does not school soldiers on the importance of education and economy. So a veteran would have no better knowledge of it than any other voter. So it wouldn't make sense to give them more power over any other voter. II. Closing remarksAll of my construct points found their way into the cross, so I won't have a section dedicated to it.Anyway, my opponent brought up some points that hinted at veterans being better equipped to sacrifice and vote for 'just' wars, however he shot himself in the foot by defining the needs of a democracy and not showing how a veteran would have those qualities in any greater measure than a civilian.