Theocracy Over All

My opponent never supports his assertions. He never addresses that naturally laws are made prohibiting criminals from voting. In addition, most democratic societies require education, thus allowing the population to know more about the candidates and go research on them. People would obviously selfishly vote on topics that relate to them. I don't get what you mean by "neglect of serious topics of concerns". When is a person going to selfishly vote for something that does NOT seriously matter? All politicians' positions must be serious in order for people to care and vote for them. To further support my arguments, let me give you a quote from C.S. Lewis: "I am a democrat because I believe that no man or group of men is good enough to be trusted with uncontrolled power over others. And the higher the pretensions of such power, the more dangerous I think it both to rulers and to the subjects. Hence Theocracy is the worst of all governments. If we must have a tyrant, a robber baron is far better than an inquisitor. The baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity at some point may be sated; and since he dimly knows he is doing wrong he may possibly repent. But the inquisitor who mistakes his own cruelty and lust of power and fear for the voice of Heaven will torment us infinitely more because he torments us with the approval of his own conscience and his better impulses appear to him as temptations. And since Theocracy is the worst, the nearer any government approaches to Theocracy the worse it will be. A metaphysic held by the rulers with the force of a religion, is a bad sign. It forbids them, like the inquisitor, to admit any grain of truth or good in their opponents, it abrogates the ordinary rules of morality, and it gives a seemingly high, super-personal sanction to all the very ordinary human passions by which, like other men, the rulers will frequently be actuated. In a word, it forbids wholesome doubt. A political programme can never in reality be more than probably right. We never know all the facts about the present and we can only guess the future. To attach to a party programme -- whose highest claim is to reasonable prudence -- the sort of assent which we should reserve for demonstrable theorems, is a kind of intoxication." Here we have him make very logical arguments: 1. Too much absolute power-- the theocratic government has unrestrained power. What's to prohibit him from becoming corrupt and get his own riches, or step bounds and completely ignore the people? This same argument does not apply to democracy. With voting and presidential elections, especially in the ideal system--the United States for example, the president's powers can be checked through impeachment in the Judicial branch. 2. Prohibits freedom of people--I said this before and I said it again, not everybody supports one religion; people are very diverse. Many will doubt because there's just about equal evidence providing every religion as there is providing evidence for NO religion (atheistic/scientific). Unless my opponent can prove otherwise, then theocracy does NOT work out. 3. Lack of trust in the leader--as Lewis infers, the ultimate authority will have to prove the existence of God, with God's "appointment of him" or himself as a God, but as I said before, this is very difficult to impossible. In addition, people will trust more someone THEY chose rather than God. Democracy works regardless of the people's religious beliefs, but there will be chaos if half of the population don't believe God could choose such a man. Another good argument is the books themselves. No matter what religious book you choose, there can be many interpretations. We can't settle on one law or one single set of rules because many statements are very vague, and the ruler can shape and maliciously manipulate the people to his will by defining the religious books in a different way. In the contrary, the constitution is extremely--no, impossibly--difficult to misinterpret, with the possible sole exception being the "right to bear arms". My opponent also says the representative of theocracy MUST step down due to the definition, but he has no evidence upholding it. People are naturally greedy and selfish; there is simply no evidence that one would step down. My opponent also has raised attacks against communism, a strawman and a completely unrelated argument. Please do not count that against me because I am not arguing about communism but rather democracy. Back to you my opponent.