This House Would Impose Democracy!

FINAL ROUND! !Note that for two times in a row my opponent has included the sources in the comments. Thus, either the sources points should go to me, or the conduct point. You judges decide for yourself.1. Democratic warMy opponent has still not refuted the facts I posed in round one. And even if SOME democratic nations war against each other, these are far better, and very minor compared to the conquests of absolute rulers. Take the mighty autocracy of Ottomans, ruled by the Sultan, for example. .. [source: . http://www.islamproject.org...] That's a pretty dang big empire, if you ask me! But now let's look at the more ambitous ruler, Napoleon, at his peak-- [source: . http://constructionlitmag.com...] That's also pretty darn impressive! But none of these empires compare to Alexander the Great-- [source: . http://www.bible-history.com...]But even all of these aren't impressive, for if you take the greatest warring empire of all time. .. . . .. these guys, their empire completely trumps these little empires (by comparison). [source: . https://sites.google.com...]But alas, all of these NON-democratic governments, even the mighty Mongols, could not surpass the greatest empire of them all, expanding and conquesting through its two consuls. .. . The Roman Empire! ! [source: . http://omnifeed.com...]Can my opponent name a single example of a democratic government that has been able to even remotely match up to Greece? Okay, not even Greece--even Napoleon's feat are hard to match up. I doubt a single democratic government has been able to take more than even 100 acres of land. These minor wars are nothing compared to these vast empires. Do you want a greedy ruler (or multiple greedy rulers) to have the power and authority to expand their empire and war until their soldiers are way too tired or their empire is too big for their own good? I think not. The collapse and power vacuum would be far too much for the citizens and the empire to last. A strong democracy is what is necessary, and no more empire is needed than how much the people--or the representatives of the people--think they need. My opponent confuses my argument and only takes part of it. I did concede partially that US's strategy may not have been awesome, but it was the best possible justification under the circumstances, and I even said. .. "HOWEVER this is not to say that democracy is completely ineffective on these "outlier countries", . http://www.foreignaffairs.com... shows hope, especially in Iraq's adoption of the Parliament and democratic-voting style elections. " My opponent clearly ignores the fact that I never said "absolute monarchy, or anarchy, or another government is better", and my opponent also fails to propose a single counter-plan that might have worked better than democracy in the case of Iraq. Thus, I win this argument. To counter Afghanistan, my opponent concedes that the main reason democracy cannot be imposed is because of the Warlocks. But can we destroy the Warlocks using absolute monarchy? The Warlocks AND the people would hate that idea. Anarchy would also be terrible for the people, and they would not support us at all. The only good counter plan is imposed democracy. If we encourage the people by not only using financial aid but soldiers as well, they can rebel effectively. The warlocks, against such a huge rebellion with the force of the people already there PLUS foreign military, would have no choice but to give up. Imposed democracy is the best solution possible within Afghanistan. And even if the power-sharing can be weak at times, keep in mind that when the different branches try to work together to a common goal, they can be just as efficient and quick as a constitutional monarchy where the monarch has to listen to the parliament. My opponent talks about the majority versus the minority. Again, especially within the US, the constitution grants minority the same rights as the majority. Even the "majority" of the population can turn into the "minority" at times. Besides, aren't the elected representatives a "minority" of the majority too? 18Karl concedes that "the state protects the "people" and not the "majority". Thus we see, the state tries its hardest to do what's moral for the overall people, instead of merely the majority. Thanks for the free point, my opponent! My opponent states that the American Revolution is an example of democracy coming from internal. But I doubt the Americans could have won without the help of the French army (which is experienced, trained, and can help them learn combat very well). The outside sources certainly boosted the Americans forward, and pushed against Britain so hard that Britain basically let the Americans be independent. Without the French, either the Brit's would have won, or there would have been a long, long stand-off. Why shouldn't we help other countries in need? Again, I stress this, I've already said this in round one, some people can't stand for themselves if the government is too powerful compared to the people. In these cases, The government must step in and help the people. Freedom and justice overpower need of independence. Yes, you should let the country hold off on its own if it can. But most times, they just need a little push, a little help, to make things more moral and better. Even just a little imposement of democracy can help any country. Judges, please look over the arguments carefully before deciding the winner of this debate. But as I see it, I've fulfilled my burden of proof while negating my opponent's false claims (that have little evidence to back themselves up).