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

My opponent has grossly mis-represented my argument. Additionally, he has resorted to cheap tricks as a means of attempting to win this debate. As he has noted, I am bound by the terms of service not to include any additional arguments in my final round. Therefore, I will limit myself only to rebuttals and defense of my own argument. Pro's claims: 1. No Republican form of government with universal suffrage exists because infants do not have the right to vote. 2. The will of the majority is more important than the rights of the minority. 3. To say otherwise results in oppression of the majority. 4. A Democratic form of government has checks and balances to protect the minority. 5. The United States of America is an example of a democracy, as defined by Pro's 'modern democracy.' Rebuttals: 1. My opponent has deliberately mis-characterized my position in an effort to trick the reader. Clearly he knew what was meant by 'universal suffrage.' 2. This is clearly not the case. If this were the case then at any moment the will of the majority could decide to take away all of Bill Gates's money. Since Pro has already insinuated that this is an undesirable outcome, he unknowingly has conceded that a modern democracy, as he defined it, is not preferable to a Republican form of government with democratic principles. Remember that his definition of a 'modern democracy' is "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly." To say that the supreme power of government is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly is to say that a modern democracy is one based on 'majority rule.' 3. To protect the rights of the minority against the will of the majority most certainly does not oppress the majority. Protecting the minority in no way infringes upon the rights of the majority. No one has the right to take away the natural rights of another. Therefore, no rights are taken away from the majority when a government stops them from taking away the rights of the minority. 4. This is clearly not true. What my opponent describes in defending this claim is a Republican form of government with democratic principles. A modern democracy, as defined by Pro, is majority rule (as is discussed above). His definition entails no checks and balances, and no protections for the minority. In fact, to say that a modern democracy has checks and balances is a direct contradiction to his third claim, that protecting the rights of the minority is to infringe upon the rights of the majority. 5. The United States of America is not a modern democracy, as defined by Pro. The U.S. more closely resembles a Republic with democratic principles. The U.S. government is made up of representatives who are not required to reflect the direct will of their constituency. The fact that they are elected at all disqualifies the U.S. from the 'direct' clause in Pro's definition. That the representatives are not required to reflect the will of the people disqualifies it from the clause in the definition claiming that "supreme power is vested in the people and exercised... by them indirectly." More importantly, the U.S. is more commonly refered to as being a 'Republic with democratic principles." ------------------- CONCLUSION My opponent has attempted to us the LD format to discredit my argument without actually addressing it for its merit. He has attempted to trick you, the reader, into ignoring the merits of both arguments. Why would he do this? Perhaps as a way to mask the limitations in his own argument. I ask the reader to vote based on the merit of the arguments presented.