Aristocracy

I believe he made a satisfactory case against Aristocracy, but it ultimately can be refuted. RebuttalsI will now analyze and refute my opponent's argument. He begins his arguments by stating, "[i]n an Aristocracy, if someone is born into a wealthy family, they have power, whether or not they are fit to rule. Furthermore, if someone is born into a poor family, they have no power, whether or not they are fit to rule. " This is true to a certain extent. An Aristocracy is not necessarily run by the wealthy. It may be ruled by the best. This is the definition my opponent himself gave. The statement he made is not necessarily untrue, but it is not automatically fully accurate either. "There is also no voting involved in an Aristocracy. Citizens to not have the freedom to have a say in government. Very few citizens have any power whatsoever. Because of this, in an Aristocracy, the majority of citizens have no freedom. " I would like to ask my opponent, what is freedom? Seriously, what is its definition? Is it even defined? I will define it for you. Merriam-Webster defines "freedom" as, "the quality or state of being free. " The citizens of an Aristocratic government are not necessarily in bondage, are they? They are not necessarily being treated unfairly, or are they? I believe in democracy. I truly do. However, my opponent needs to accept the fact that an Aristocracy has certain positive aspects. In a democracy, we elect leaders that will eventually corrupt our nation, while leaders in an Aristocracy are the best possible leaders. I would like to ask my opponent this question: Which is more corrupt; hundreds of members of Congress endlessly debating, or a few aristocratic leaders coming to an agreement? "Wealth simply means you have privileges. Even though one has money, it does not mean they would make a good leader. " This does not correspond with my opponent's definition of Aristocracy. He said it was "a government run by the best individuals or by a small privileged class. " That definition says NOTHING of wealthiness. The statement itself is true, but it does not fully relate to this debate. "An Aristocracy is also anti-Democratic, one of the best forms of government in my opinion. " I somewhat agree with this statement, but it is only a matter of opinion, not supported by facts. Or, at least, my opponent neglected to mention these facts. "All citizens have equal power to choose what goes on in their government. This is called freedom. " This does not correspond with the definition of "freedom" I provided. "In the past, countries with an Aristocracy have always failed. " There is no evidence of this. Of course, my opponent provides an example of how aristocratic Russia fell, but that was just one of the many aristocratic nations. My opponent has to provide further examples for this point to be valid. "Let's look at Russia for example. In 1917, the country, which consisted of a lot of poor people and very few rich people, was run by the rich. The poor people, who were fed up of having no power or freedom, revolted, getting rid of tsarist Russia and forming the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. " As this is history, I grant my opponent this argument. However, this does not prove that Aristocracy is always bad. "This is a simple concept to grasp: People do not like to be suppressed. Freedom is incredibly important to people. When they do not have freedom; when they do not have a say in their government, they revolt. They become unhappy and make a change. This is the simple logic that governs all of humanity. Russia had another revolution in 1991. When the Soviet Union fell, the people were unhappy with it and wanted something new. " Of course, there is an example of this in history. One of the main reasons for the thirteen British colonies revolting against Britain was "taxation without representation. " Of course, this was very wrong and the Americans made the right decision. However, Aristocracy can work. I have shown so in my arguments. "An Aristocracy is risky. Yes, a Democracy and a Republic is also risky, but at least the people can choose. In an Aristocracy, it is only the wealthy who have control. " My opponent has shown only one example of how wealthy people were in control of an Aristocracy. "The wealthy man could be a genius, but he could also be an idiot, whereas in a Democracy or Republic, the people can decide for themselves whether or not the individual they are voting for is a good choice or not. They have the choice. It is all about choice. Freedom is a beautiful concept. Freedom is a great thing to have. When one does not have freedom, there is no point of living. Why live if there is nothing to live for? A Democracy allows this to happen, while an Aristocracy does not. " I essentially refuted this already through my rebuttals and points made in my arguments. "I believe I have sufficiently shown that an Aristocracy is not a good system of government to have in a country. I have shown that an Aristocracy is a limit of certain freedoms and that is always ends in disaster. I know my opponent supports freedom. I also want to point out to him and chapter fourteen of The New World Manifesto states that freedom is key. My opponent cannot deny that freedom is important. I patiently await my opponent's arguents. " In my personal opinion, my opponent's argument was weak, but that is ultimately decided by the voters. Also, may I ask, what is this The New World Manifesto you speak of? I am unaware of what it is. ConclusionAgain, I wish to discuss the definition of Aristocracy. My opponent provided the definition, "A government by the best individuals or by a small privileged class. " My opponent has continiously spoken of how Aristocracy is about the wealthy. This is not necessarily false, but it is somewhat unfounded. He never showed how Aristocracy is always about the rich. He provided the fact that Aristocracy regards the best or privileged. I see an issue with this. I discussed the two variants of Aristocracy, Geniocracy and Meritocracy. My opponent has not even spoken about these two forms at all. I would like for my opponent to consider what I have provided. Works Cited1. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...