A modern form of democracy should be the goal of every society.

I negate: A modern form of democracy should be the goal of every society For clarity I offer the following definitions: 1. Modern Democracy: representative government; indirect democracy 2. Goal: a result one is attempting to achieve 3. Every: the total amount 4. Society: group of individuals bound by a common goal, culture, or government For analysis of the resolution I offer the following observation: 1. The resolution specifies every society. Therefore the affirmative burden is to prove that ALL societies want a democracy. However the reciprocal of that burden now falls to the negative. Whereas my opponenet needs to prove that all societies want it, I need only provide one example to negate the resolution because if so, I have proved that not ALL societies want it. The negative values Justice which is giving each their due. This value is appropriate to the impaction of the resolution because the resolution is talking about governments within society. These governments and those societies ought to maximize proper allocation of due, i.e. justice. This value is achieved by the criterion of societal autonomy, i.e. the ability of a society to dictate it's own wants, for example its type of government. It is not possible to maximize the allocation of due by restricting societal autonomy. Therefore, to achieve justice, societal autonomy is necessary. Contention I: Cultural Relativism Basically all societies have a different view of what makes a good government. For example, Muslim nations feel happier under dictators because it is not in their culture to have democracy. Form a western standpoint, yes, democracy is a fruitful goal. However, this goal only is applicable up to the point of cultural beliefs. Therefore, due to culture, not every society wants to achieve democracy. [Rebuttal] 2) Should: moral obligation --> This is wrong for 2 reasons: First, should implies necessity not morality. The word OUGHT implies morality over necessity. Second, if my opponent still wants to keep this definition valid, he must provide a source link for that specific definition. Value: Morality --> Well, you can now knock off his value since the resolution has no moral context (since should isn't ought) VC: Consent of the governed -->I have two responses: First, upholding the consent of the governed can be done through many ways, not just democracy. For example, Saudi Arabia has a monarchy, yet the people look favorable on the government. Therefore, that government has the consent of the governed. Second, if you don't buy that argument you can drop his VC totally because achieving the consent of the governed can fail no matter government is implicated. for example, the British government (during the revolution) was a limited monarchy/parliamentary government. They did not protect the rights of the colonies and yet it was a form of limited democracy. "I offer a sole contention: That the people must be able to elect their representatives in order to protect their rights" --> This is wrong for several reasons: First, extend my British example from his VC Second, there are many governments today which are not democracies, and they have protected rights. E.g. Saudi Arabia. Third correlation does not imply causation. Just because democracies work now, doesn't mean that that will be the ultimate effect. In the future a new form of government may be theorized that protects the rights of it's people better then democracy. For these reasons you can negate.