Direct popular vote should replace the electoral college in U.S. presidential elections.

First of all, I would like to apologize, I should have declared if one of my questions was a clarification question. It seems that by me not declaring what questions were clarification questions my opponent got confused about what I was asking. In response to my second question he said that America is a Democratic Republic, which is a type of Republic which means that America is in fact a Republic. However in response to question 2a he says that it is not applicable since america isnt a Republic but in the previous question he confirmed that America is a Republic. In response to my third question he agreed that popular vote represents the popular majority which was a clarification question. In 3a he says that the Senate should not be ablolished because it serves the states. However, if you apply his answer of 3a to the question of 3b it would say that since the Senate should not be abolished because it protects states rights shouldnt the electoral college not be abolished because it protects state rights? And finally in response to question 3c he simply asks for me to define sentimental attachment instead of answering the question which I will do. The sentimental attachment to popular majorities only in relation to the Electoral College basically means that if you have no reason to abolish the Senate even though it doesnt represent popular majority, then why only apply rights of the popular majority in attacking the electoral college? And now I ask my opponent to answer this question now that it has been clarified. In response to my fourth question he accuses me of not reading his case; however, this is a clarification question that AGREES with him. It simply asks if the burden of proof is on PRO which as he displayed throughout his entire case he agrees with that question. 4a is another clarification question...it is asking that since the burden of proof is on PRO then if one of his contentions doesnt prove that direct popular vote fixes the problem should the contention be void? I am asssuming he affirms this question considering he says that it is in his case. And finally in 4b he doesnt respond at all he simply says that I didnt read his case. However, since he agreed to question 4 and 4a in his case which means that if he doesnt prove that one of his contention fixes one of the problems proposed in that contention, it is void. Question 4b is questioning the validity of his third contention since he admitted that "the Electoral College ALSO has integral flaws" which means that he is implying that direct popular vote has integral flaws which means that it DOESNT fix the problem proposed by PRO in his third contention which makes his third contention void. In response to question 5 he only answers the second part of the question which was that the Supreme Court is still applicable. He also asks where this question came from. It came from my opponent's entire rebuttal to my first contention which is basically saying that the Founders werent always right and the electoral college is in a different situation now than back then. My fifth question is simply asking, if the Constitution is still applicable today (for example the Supreme Courts ruling of the Constitutionaliy of laws), then why is the Constitution not applicable only for the Electoral College? I would like to ask my opponent to briefly answer this question now that it has been clarified along with question 3c. Defenses: Founding Fathers could have seen distortion since they purposefully placed it there. Electoral College is no longer applicable, but the rest of the Constitution is? How is the Electoral College no longer applicable, we still have citizens, states and a Federal government dont we? Impact is the harmful effects of democracy. Democracy is as harmful now as it was in the 1770s. Refutations: Contention 1: Distorts our democratic process We are a republic not a democracy. a) Imbalance of power voting was purposefully placed to protect small states. b) Distortion must not be solved since it will result in the loss of small states influence in presidential elections. Contention2: The Electoral College is subject to the whims of the few rather than the public as a whole. That is the purpose of a Republic. 99% of electors vote accordingly to how they pledged. (U.S. Electoral College FAQ's) a) If it aint broke dont fix it. Faithless electors have never decided an election. Contention 3: The Electoral College forces candidates to ignore the majority of states and focus on a few closely contested battleground states, instead of the nation. I agree that this is a negative impact of the electoral college; however, as stated in my second contention, direct popular vote wouldn't be able to fix this problem either which he admits to be saying "the Electoral College ALSO has integral flaws." Therefore, his third contention is void. I can only see a negative ballot for today's debate.