- Dictature is better than democracy !

My opponent states that democracy was a political system for the rich when it was first founded. Lets see how true this really is. Democracy was founded in Athens. It is true that slaves were not aloud to vote, but slaves were not seen as citizens. No matter how poor you were, if you were a citizen, you could vote. This meant that even the poor could have political power over the rich if they out numbered them. You say that the majority is not always right. This is true, but the dictator is not always right and the dictator isn't always smarter then the people. At least in a democracy it isn't left up to one man to deiced the fate of everyone. My opponent has come back to argue about Julian Assange. He is in a political asylum, but he's there voluntarily. He's even said that he plans on leaving the embassy soon. My opponent claims that the U.S. made this up to ruin Assange's reputation, but Assange has even openly admitted to the crime. My opponent goes on to talk about Al Capone. Al Capone was arrested on tax evasion, which the police department had plenty of proof, since he had thousands of unclaimed bills hidden. My opponent says" North Korea is proof that people are being manipulated just like in democracy, if you don't fight for your own rights who the hell is going to fight for them?" North Korea manipulating people does not connect to democracy at all, since North Korea in a communist country. North Korea is only an example of how dictatorships manipulate people. My opponent then asks why the U.S. isn't attacking North Korea. Im not sure if my opponent is aware or not, but there U.S. participated in this war know as the Korean War, which the whole purpose was to stop the spread of communism in Korea. Although we were only able to partly stop it. This is what led to the separation that made North and South Korea. Going to war with North Korea now could possibly lead to war with China, since they a sympathetic for North Korea. You say that I offend Mahatma Ghandi, because I mentioned that you would have no guns. I do respect and admire Mahatma Ghandi, but he didn't even accomplish his full goal through peaceful revolution. Ghandi wasn't able to maintain unity between Hindus and Muslims, and was disappointed that Pakistan separated from India. You also mention that the Government wants to take away guns in the U.S. There are a few who want to take away guns, but most of these people are part of the more left wing parties, who are closer to dictatorships then most. I would also like o add that the right to have guns are a constitutional right, meaning that the government doesn't have the power to take them away. You also talk about the U.S. bombing Japan in World War II, but you have to remember that Japan was allies with Germany, who were working on the atomic bomb as well. My opponent asks why do bad polices get changed all the time. A lot of the time polices don't work out how they were predicted too, but this flaw wouldn't be changed in dictatorship. In fact it would be worst, since the only way you can get a bad policy changed in a dictatorship is through revolution. My opponent asks me if those who are poor have there rights protected the same way as the rich, the answer to this is yes. Rich or poor, you have the right to go where ever you want, when you want. You have the right to say what ever you want, work were ever you want, and so on. Both the poor and the rich are still bound by the law as well. My opponent then asks me, how do I know these people like the way they live and how do I know that they don't want to be rich. In the Declaration of Independents it says that one of our rights is the pursuit of happiness. This means that you have the right to work toward and gain happiness, but your happiness is not guaranteed. In other words, everyone has the right to work toward, success, but wether or not you become successful is dependent on the choices you make. My opponent says, "I really think that my opponent believes that George W. Bush is a saint and a democrate." I think George W. Bush was one of the worst modern day presidents we have had, but he didn't break international law, since both the other countries and the UN identified a whole list of UN laws that they were breaking. When talking about Hitler my opponent says "He loved his people too and fought for the german rights to have their better position in the world. Germany had a parliament back then." This isn't completely true. There where jews and other christians that were citizens of Germany at this time, and they were treated with cruelty. Hitler only treated a small portion of his people with brutality. Also the people of germany were being lied too, non of them new about what was going on with the jews. When people found out bout this you, still think people loved Hitler. Going back to Tito, he may have been a good dictator, but he still couldn't stop his own federation from declining. This shows that dictatorships are completely flawed systems. Tito, probably the only good dictator that my opponent can thing of, couldn't stop the decline of his own federation, then imagine, what would happen if you have a bad dictator. My opponent say that the evidence is obvious that the U.S. fakes terrorist attacks, but he still gives no evidence. If its so obvious than why hasn't he said any? He is simply basing it off his own biased opinion. He asks me, where do you think lot of these conspiracy theories come from? A lot of them come from people like him, those that don't like to accept the truth. He is simply denying real world problems. I bet he also thinks that Israel is a peaceful utopia where things like terrorist attacks haven't been hear of and that ISIS is a non violent peace group. My opponent wonders why I didn't use my own county as an example of a perfect democracy. I felt that using my own country wouldn't be as good as using another, since we are talking about democracy in general. In the U.S. you have the ability to go where ever you want, with no reason, to say what ever you want, to own your own property, and to own your own business. These are things that most dictatorships don't offer. If a democracy is a lie and the same as a dictatorships, then why do the countries that have democracy have more economic freedom and human rights then most dictatorships. This isn't lies it's pure observation, something my opponent chooses not to do. My opponent brings up the 0 corruption tolerance policy. It is true that, this can't stop corruption completely, but dictatorships don't need corruptions to be bad. A dictatorship is corrupt by nature, giving one man too much power over everyone. You say that even dictators represent the people, but this isn't always true. Some dictators just want power and dictators don't always know what is best for the people. This can be the same in a democracy, but in a democracy you still have the separation of power. You also say I can only think of historical views of dictatorships. You have yet to give a good modern day example of a dictatorship. The reason you haven't is because there isn't one. I can't think of one dictatorship that exists today, that I would love to live in. You also accuse me of wanting to oppress the poor through capitalism. I don't dream of oppressing the poor, I just want be able reach the highest goal I can set for my self and there is no one to say others can't do the same. Throughout this whole debate my opponent has kept talking about revaluation. Saying this is how people can control there government, but a system the requires you to have a revaluation or civil war, just to get something like one policy changed, is not a good system. Also if you went through a revaluation, why would you want to go back to a dictatorship? It would be clear that it doesn't work. My opponent also hasn't argued about what I said on the one party system. This is because its true, when there is only on party it doesn't matter how hard you work to move up on the social latter, but how loyal you are to the government. He has also not said anything about my argument, that dictatorships doesn't promote competition, which almost gets rid of innovation. My opponent wants a society were everyone is equal in wealth. This means wealth would be distributed by the government, let me tell you why this doesn't work. When the government is in charge of wealth it gets rid of motivation. People will ask themselves, whats the point of working hard or starting a business if I could just sit around, not do much and still make just as much money? This would cause very little wealth to be created and the society, would go into economic collapse. My opponent tells me that I can't think of a real modern day dictatorship where everyone is equal. This is true, I can't, because no such place exists. My opponent is desperately trying to think of o modern day utopia, but a utopia doesn't exists and has never existed, it is simply fiction. He things the government should be dependent on the people and the people should be dependent on the government, this is false. I believe the government should be dependent on the people and the people should be able to be independent from the government. The governments only job should be to crack down on crimes and protect our rights. Why would you want your whole life dependent on one person? I would like to note that my opponent has given no modern day examples of any good dictatorships, he has given very little fact(most of them being false). He has simple based his whole debate on petty conspiracies, ignorance and his own biased opinion. His main argument being that democracy is a lie and is the same as a dictatorship, even know its obvious this is false. You can see through pure observation, that democracies have more rights and freedom then dictatorships. My opponent chooses not to except this because he doesn't like it.