America is a republic (polidity)

I'm going to start out here with a major framing issue for the round (This will be the major premise I stress continuously as how you should frame your ballot) that the concept of a republic (in the pure Roman sense as my opponent likes to defend) and a Democracy (say we go with my opponents definition) ARE INSEPARABLE and thus I only have to prove that Democracy (or the foundations of a Democracy) uphold the habits that are Republican in nature. Even if my opponent agrees here that we are, as he puts it, a "modified democracy" that only cedes the point that we built on a foundation of democracy where power ultimately rests in the hands of the people.Now here are my definitions and arguments. Contention 1: Definitions -I will not contest the validity of my opponents definitions per their content because I have won with their introduction to the debate. You'll notice that the similarities between the two, "government by the people", "exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system", and "supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote" and if you look at the quotes given, but not their origin, I promise you that the common layperson could not tell the difference between the two. This is to prove a point though, that for our government to be a republic we have to start with Democracy and thus chose the indicative path for exercising that power. My Opponent will surely try to call foul and claim that I must defend a "pure democracy" but I will pre-emptively that response in the definitions portion because it is how we frame the rest of the debate.A. This debate was solicited as Democracy vs. A Republic and so I shouldn't be forced to debate the side of pure democracy when that was neither part of the debate nor was it defined. I posited a clear reason why there are elements of both but also how we are a basis in Democracy.B. That argument is null and void when you introduce definitions that back my response as legitimate.C. We even have elements of pure democracy like ballot, tax, bond, local election, state constitution, and special measures that all are voted on directly by the public. I'll back this up with a quote from my opponent's speech in which he mentions that in a Democracy we would make decisions "through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums", and while I know he isn't old enough to vote, remember that the people do directly vote on measures, referendums and bonds and do in fact engage in town halls and decide major political decisions through caucuses (which by their very definition are purely democratic).Lastly here I would like to provide a contextual definition of democracy that is in reference to the founding of America. The quote is from Alexis de Tocqueville (Who I shouldn't even have to list qualifications for) who was a famous French Political Scientist, One of the first American Historians and dare I say more qualified to talk about the true meaning of democracy than a dictionary. He writes..."The emigrants who colonized the shores of America in the beginning of the seventeenth century somehow separated the democratic principle from all the principles that it had to contend with in the old communities of Europe, and transplanted it alone to the New World. It has there been able to spread in perfect freedom and peaceably to determine the character of the laws by influencing the manners of the country. . It appears to me beyond a doubt that, sooner or later, we shall arrive, like the Americans, at an almost complete equality of condition." [1]Contention 2 - America the "Republic" in Name OnlyJust because the framers of the constitution wanted to avoid a rule by the mob and called their new government a Republic does not mean my opponent wins. His analysis forgets that the power of our officials and of the document that gave power similar to those of a Republic came from the people. Simply put, under the burdens produced by both sides, I only have to prove that our form of government comes originally from the people and thus no matter how we govern now, was ruled initially by the people. Here I will provide some clarifying evidence to show we truly reside at the whim of the people from Hamilton Albert Long's book "The American Ideal of 1776: the Twelve Basic American Principals", he writes that..."Next, in 1787-1788, the United States Constitution was framed by the Federal Convention for the people’s consideration and then ratified by the people of the several States through a Ratifying Convention in each State specially chosen by them for this sole purpose. Thereafter the other States gradually followed in general the Massachusetts pattern of Constitution-making in adoption of genuine Constitutions; but there was a delay of a number of years in this regard as to some of them, several decades as to a few." [2]Similarly, Long clarifies many people's mislabeling of Republics, including a refutation of our founding father's discussion of our country as a Republic. A mistake I believe my opponent has also fallen for. He writes,"It is noteworthy here that the above discussion, though brief, is sufficient to indicate the reasons why the label "Republic" has been misapplied in other countries to other and different forms of government throughout history. It has been greatly misunderstood and widely misused--for example as long ago as the time of Plato, when he wrote his celebrated volume, The Republic; in which he did not discuss anything governmental even remotely resembling--having essential characteristics of--a genuine Republic. Frequent reference is to be found, in the writings of the period of the framing of the Constitution for instance, to "the ancient republics," but in any such connection the term was used loosely--by way of contrast to a monarchy or to a Direct Democracy--often using the term in the sense merely of a system of Rule-by-Law featuring Representative government; as indicated, for example, by John Adams in his "Thoughts on Government" and by Madison in The Federalist numbers 10 and 39." [2]Contention 3 - We Are Not Rome......and the basis for my opponent's winning argument that we are a traditional Republic framed in those traditions is what loses him the round. If we are, as my opponent likes to stress, a modified DEMOCRACY, or grossly overstated, a republic, our policymaking system would be hugely different. Take for example Rome during its time as a republic as characterized by Roger Dunkle, a Professor of Classics at Brooklyn College in New York."During the republic, the senate, although it could not make laws, was the dominant force in Roman politics; its decrees virtually had the force of law and strongly influenced legislation. The senate was not an elected body." [3]As you can see they had neither the power to make laws and were not in fact elected proving that OUR POWER TO CHOSE REPRESENATATIVES THROUGH DIRECT ELECTIONS is in fact something only granted in a democracy.Contention 4 - ConclusionIn conclusion I will leave you with a few key distinctions you should carry with you while continuing to read this debate.1. This is not a debate about direct democracy - while there are instances and branches off of the form of government that involve direct democracy, my opponent cannot hold me to that strict interpretation without definition or reason why it is topical under the resolution we are debating. Even my opponent's definitions support this claim.2. Do your own fact checking - I want all of you reading these debates to read the sources and to only trust those with a qualified source like books or professors and not simply wikipedia. Sources -[1] - http://xroads.virginia.edu...[2] - http://lexrex.com...[3] - http://depthome.brooklyn.cuny.edu...