Democratization

Thanks again to Con for a great debate! At this juncture, I will defend my case, refute Con's case, and then move on to some reasons to vote Pro today.PRO's CASEI thank Con for pointing out that I should not point out what Con conceded; however, I would prefer to give him a chance to address those points rather than simply winning because he failed to clash.At this point, however, Con may not address any dropped/unrefuted points because I would not have an opportunity to defend those points, which would be unfair to me. Any attacks against dropped points would be new arguments, and thus against the rules. Therefore, any dropped points that I extend now are untouchable pieces of evidence for Pro.C1: Democracy is DesirableThe example of Morsi really is cherry-picking--Con never disputes this fact. My argument was never that democracy is perfect; clearly, no system of government is perfect. Rather, I contended that democracy was the best form of government in most cases. Pointing out individual exceptions to the rule (exceptions that are in the minority) fails to invalidate my point.If we look at Con's University of Hawai'i source, it writes about democracy thusly: "One necessary and sufficient set of characteristics involves the electoral system through which people choose their representatives and leaders, and thus give their consent to be governed and communicate their interests. The manner is which democracies conduct their elections vary from one to another, but all share these characteristics: regular elections for high office, secret ballot, a franchise including nearly the whole adult population, and competitive elections." I would also argue that free and fair elections should be included on any set of criteria for a democracy--democracy is about people choosing their leaders. An unfair system prevents people from doing that, and is therefore undemocratic. Consequently, Russia is not a democracy--Putin is more of an autocrat than a democrat.As for the other countries on this list (Turky, Ukraine, Brazil, Colombia) Con's own source is unsure of whether or not they are democracies. Let me also point out also that this source Con is using was from 2002, and is really out-of-date. In Turkey, recently, the PM's allies have been put under a criminal investigation [1] and a key opponent of Erdogan was just released from prison by court order [2]. So, the judicial freedom concerns and corruption concerns expressed in the source seem to be bygones. Brazil, Ukraine, and Colombia have also made great strides in fighting corruption and in liberalizing their governments since 2002.Finally, Con's own source observes: "Of course, freedom is an ideal, and even liberal democracies imperfectly fulfill it, although they do much better than other types of government...Sometimes and more than you like, officials do step on your rights; and they pass laws and rules that in one way or another limit your freedoms. But when this happens, you have the power to do something about it. Your freedoms remain more than paper constitutions, political pronouncements, and strutting flag-waving." Con's owns source agree with the Pro position: the democracy is better than most other forms of government! Turn this against Con.Con then uses this same source to try to argue that there is no correlation between freedom and democracy. The numbers Con cites are from 1999, mine are from 2013. Prefer mine because they more accurately reflect the status quo. Finally, Con's own source asserts that democracies a freer than most other forms of government, so we can turn this back on Con.As for Corruption, I cannot find the AER article he cites, but I would point out that the most recent citation used is from 2002. Again, prefer my far more recent evidence. Finally, Con's own source writes: "However, where one political party dominates a state, controls the legislature, executive, and courts, and has a sympathetic media, then there usually will be political corruption. When there is a strong opposition party to exploit the corruption of the governing party for electoral gain, incumbents will be more careful about obeying the letter and spirit of the law." One party domination is an autocracy, and so Con's own source indicates that autocracies are more corrupt on balance.C2: Nondemocratic Regimes Kill MillionsMy idea of promoting is using education, social media, etc. to educate people about the benefits of democracy, so that they are able to work for democracy at home. Promotion =/= invasion. Look at the Arab Spring, for instance. Social media galvanized nations into making necessary democratic reforms.I also support having government advisors in transitioning countries. In Myanmar, for instance, Britain has sent advisors to teach the military how to act in a way more respectful of people's fundamental rights [3]. These are small steps, but they all are in a good direction. Conditional aid is another tactic which can be used.Ultimately, Con is just totally wrong when he asserts that "'promoting democracy' is always done by war." And even if war were used, the democide impacts outweigh. As my source, whose math has gone unrefuted, points out, democide has killed more people in the 20th Century than all of its wars combined. Con essentially concedes that democracies tend not to fight each others--therefore, a few wars to bring about a more democratic globe could drastically reduce the total number of future wars. In other words, a small short term loss for a massive long term gain. This means that war actually saves more lives than it costs. Again, though, war is a very extreme option, and the "small steps" approach is more advisable.Pro misunderstands how I am using the term "powerful." A powerful government is one that can act sans de jure or de facto checks and balances. Therefore, what I am saying is that an unchecked government is more apt to be abusive. The USFG for example, is not so powerful that it could legally start killing people without trials, because there are institutional checks against such actions.C3: MO to ActMy argument is focusing on mass human rights violations of governments against their own citizens. The U.S. does not perpetrate such acts in nearly the same number as other countries. There just isn't any comparison. Also, consider the following example. A bully beats someone up. The next day he comes back to the playground and sees another bully beating someone up. The first bully intercedes and stops the fight because "bullying is not okay."I don't think any sane person is going to say that the first bully shouldn't have stopped the fighting because doing so was hypocritical. In the same way it is silly to suggest that the U.S. should not act to save lives because it is hypocritical. The goal is to save lives, not to engage in finger-pointing.Finally, Con never actually disputes that states that violate rights forfeit sovereignty. As a part of the international community, the U.S. has a duty to intercede.One last thing: if the resolution was simply talking about invasion, it would have said "invasion" not "promote." Con is willfully and obstinately trying to twist the resolution in such a way to skew the ground Con. This is not to be allowed.CON's CASECuba and Tito: So, democracies have good healthcare, literacy, and civil rights. Cuba just has the healthcare and literacy. Clearly, in that match-up, democracies win. As for Tito, I would argue that Russia is not a democracy under the criteria posited by Con's very own source. Again, most democracies don't have purges and secret police.Atatruk: a provisional government is not an "arranged" government, but rather a "temporary" government. [4] It is part of the transition to democracy. I think it is ridiculous to say that Ataturk was an authoritarian because he took part in a provisional government whose sole goal was to steer a steady course until elections were held. Provisional governments are part of the democratization process, and Con's arguments here border on the outrageous.The point about U.S. as a hegemon is really irrelevant. The topic is asking how the U.S. SHOULD act, not how it DOES act.At this point, let's review all the points Con dropped, and which he cannot contest further: 1. Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq are non-topical2. Democide killed more people than War3. Democracies tend not to fight each other4. The worst regimes in history have been authoritarian5. Humanitarian crises outweigh war6. States that engage in massive and systematic violations of human rights lose legitimacy; therefore, they lose their claim to sovereignty7. Economic growth in autocracies only benefits the elites VOTING ISSUESWhy is democracy good? Con's own source advocates well for democracy promotion, and it alone basically affirms the topic. But, we can see from the panoply of sources I offered, that democracies are safer, have less corruption, have more freedom, and are less abusive than nondemocratic regimes. Nondemocratic regimes tend to be abusive, oppressive, and deadly--they perpetuate humanitarian crises, which are the WORST moral wrongs. And, under the R2P doctrine, soveriegnty is no moral barrier to action.What is my BOP? The resolution wants to know whether the U.S. should promote democratic ideals. "Promote" means "to help something happen, develop, or increase." Promotion does not necessitate military action--this takes out most of Con's objections against me. However, even if I did have to support military action, the benefits outweigh the harms, so a Pro vote is still in order.Thanks! Please VOTE PRO!SOURCES1 - http://news.yahoo.com...2 - http://www.spiegel.de...3 - http://www.mmfreedom-daily.com...4 - http://www.merriam-webster.com...