This House would reject consensus.

Against my burden analysis, my opponent claims that I have cheated because I did not specify that he must adopt a case in order to win the round. First, most debate styles explicitly force negatives to adopt a case even if they are not advocating a change in policy, so this was a reasonable stylistic expectation. Second, since I have to argue that the United States should not adopt a participatory democracy, he must argue that the United States should in order to provide a fair, equal burden for both sides. Insofar as he is not doing so, he is not fulfilling his burden, so you affirm. Even if you do not buy this, remember that I already extended my value of Justice and value criterion of preservation of natural rights, and he failed to respond to either of them. This means that the round must be weighed through the filter of preserving rights. Insofar as the dangers of participatory democracy are too great in comparison to those of a representative democracy, I outweigh him on magnitude, so you should affirm the resolution. In contention 1, I explained that representative democracy minimizes tyranny because it is in the interest of politicians to act in their own self interest and be reelected. He responds by pointing out that American politicians are corrupt, and claims that I have not argued against the inherent tendency of representative democracy to lead to corruption. First, I would posit that American politicians are less corrupt than the rulers of participatory democracies; even at the time of the French Revolution, American politicians were not slaughtering their citizens for the sake of preserving their political power, while the French politicians clearly were. So, even if you agree that American politicians are corrupt, you should also realize that politicians in participatory democracies are more corrupt, meaning that I outweigh him in terms of rights preserved, so I better achieve Justice. Moreover, I did respond to his point about participatory democracy leading to corruption by arguing that direct democracies are more corrupt because they are based on fleeting emotions, and not on reason. He failed to respond to this argument, so you can extend it across the flow. This further buttresses my analysis about representative democracies being less corrupt that participatory democracies. His only response to my "checks" analysis is that the participatory democracy would be a check on everyone PROVIDED THAT THE PEOPLE ARE IN THE CORRECT MINDSET. First, you can cross-apply my point at the top of the first contention about how the people in the participatory democracy only look to their own interests and vote on emotion rather than reason (French Revolution supports this.) This means that the people are not in a correct mindset, which he has conceded is a precondition for proper decision making, so there is no proper check in his world, while there are in mine. The impact of this is that he is more likely to lead to tyranny and thus violate rights, while the checks on my side minimize the likelihood of this occurring. Thus, I preserve rights better, and you affirm. Second, even if you do not buy the analysis I just provided, look to the fact that under a participatory system, once the majority makes a decision, there is no way to repeal it (except through a vote of the majority.) This means that once tyranny does occur, he has no safeguard to protect the people, while under a representative system, separation of powers, federalism, etc. does provide an excellent safety measure to prevent this from occurring. In contention 2, he continues to insist that my French Revolution example is off because it was a revolution against tyranny. When I pointed out that the revolution was already over, he responded that the aristocrats were tyrants and that they deserved death. First, even if some were actually tyrants, most were not; the King had the majority of power in France, and the revolution occurred to dethrone him. This means that the deaths were unnecessary and violent. Second, even if you do not buy that, look to the fact that tyranny should not be responded with tyranny, which occurred under a participatory system. Finally, he concedes that this occurred under an emotional system, so any objections he raises against this in the next round are defunct because the violence and tyranny occurred in the participatory democracy due to emotion. Finally, he argues that such emotion would not occur in peace-time. The problem with this is that emotion has ruled participatory democracies since the dawn of time; in the Salem, Massachusetts participatory democracy in the 1600s, which hunts were conducted and at least 20 innocent lives were shed due to emotion, and not due to reason. Next, he contends that Americans are more sophisticated than the French, so the United States can handle a participatory democracy. Remember, however, that abuses have occurred with participatory democracies in the past, such as in the Salem Witch Trial example; these happened on American soil. Second, keep in mind that the only reason we are seen as sophisticated is because our representative system has checks that slow the political process and allow for reasoned decision making; this legitimacy would be lost in a participatory democracy. Against contention 2, he claims that checks do not matter, but you can extend the Supreme Court analysis that explains that the checks against democracy eliminated school segregation and thus caused reform in the people's attitude. The checks are not "just pieces of paper"; rather, they are ever present obligations that bind the state to promote the rights of all. They have worked in the past, and will continue to do so in the future. His only response to the Supreme Court analysis was that there was a war against slavery and that the majority won it. First, I would posit that the Confederate states actually held the majority, so it was an example of minority triumphing over majority tyranny. Second, this did not occur under a participatory system, it occurred in a representative one, so you can turn the example against him. Finally, this was not everyone checking on everyone; rather, it was an example of a group pulling away from the nation because they wanted to continue to promote tyranny. Finally, against my analysis that representative democracies are slow, he claims that participatory democracy would be slow due to sheer magnitude of size. First, this is empirically denied; you can extend the Salem Witch Trials and French Revolution examples; in both systems, the vote to condemn innocent people to death was quick and effortless. Second, this argument assumes that most people will vote, and in the American system, approximately 46% choose not to participate because they are politically apathetic, so there is reason to believe that this system will continue. Finally, insofar as democracies are based on emotion, and not on reason, it is more likely that the people living under such a system will choose to vote quickly rather than slowly. The impact is that decisions to harm others are quickly made. Voting issue Vote affirmative because I have better demonstrated that participatory democracies cause more rights violations. First, participatory systems are based on emotion, not on reason, so the people are more likely to be harmed and rights are more likely to be violated. Second, insofar as the American system currently has checks to slow and minimize the impact of tyrannical decisions, the current system has safeguards against the violations of rights. These safeguards would disappear almost immediately under a participatory system, because once the majority decides to act, no body has the power to prevent it from executing a tyrannical motion. This means that I outweigh him in terms of probability of saving rights, and thus am more likely to achieve Justice. Thus, this House rejects consensus, and you affirm.