A Modern Form of Democracy is Preferable to Other Existing Forms of Government

I wish you good luck in the final round. I will begin to refute my opponents case, and then go on to defend my own [Opponent Value] --> He does not present one, thus mine is superior and the 'higher standard'. Whomever upholds democracy throughout this debate the best will win the round [Opponent Value Criteria] --> He does not present one, so mine is superior [His Contentions/Definitions] Although my opponent did not present his case in an easily-read format, I will make do with what I have (1) He accepts my definition of a modern democracy (2) My opponent then goes on to say that a constitutional republic with universal suffrage would be better than a democracy. I have one response --> This is not resolutional. Referring back to the resolution, it clearly states". .. other EXISTING forms of government". Because no government that has had a constitution, a form of republic, and universal suffrage has existed/ is existing, this argument can be dropped. For example, no country has had a government in which babies were allowed to vote (part of universal suffrage) Now onto my case [Value] My opponent did not attack my value of democracy, so you can extend it through the round [Value Criterion] My opponent attacks my value criterion of the consent of the governed because he thinks that democracy, although it is the best depiction of the true will of the people, eventually leads to the tyranny of the majority. I have two responses --> All governmental rulings do not please everyone. If you do believe in what my opponent believes, than you must trample on the rights of the majority (say, 95%) versus the minority (say, 5%). All rulings inevitably make people happy and mad, so I ask my opponent: Who should get the rights, the 95% or the 5%? (Both cannot, for there is not one form of government that exists which pleases every single constituent of society) --> Also entailed in the democratic form of government is a system of checks and balances, all to ensure the rights of the minority are not being infringed upon. For example, let's take America (it complies with my definition of a modern democracy, which, by the way, my opponent accepted). In America, there would NEVER be elections that directly trampled on the rights of the minority. There would NEVER be elections where the majority of the people would vote whether or not to take all of Bill Gate's money. The government obviously knows that the majority of the people would want his billions of dollars, but that doesn't make it right. Democracy is not a strict majorital rule. Entailed in the democratic process of making legislation is a system of checks and balances. [Contentions] Contention I: Protection of Rights --> Simple. He does not argue this, for it can be extended through to the final round Contention II: Democratic Peace Theory --> Simple. He did not argue this, for it can be extended through to the final round [Voting Issues] (1) My opponent did not attack my value, which, in LD (which I made clear this format was to be in) means that the value is extended for both parties. Because my case better upholds democracy (my opponents case was based purely on a 'republican constitutional universal suffrage government), I should win (2) My opponent did not attack my only two contentions (3) My opponent failed to prove the resolution categorically false by providing one society better off not under democratic rule. Instead, he simply gave a fake government that does not exist (there has not/is not one government that allows every single person to vote--> 'universal suffrage') Please note, just because my opponent speaks last he cannot make new arguments; he may only attack that which I have defended and defend that which I have attacked Thank you ladies and gentlemen