Democracy is the best ruling system

FRAMEWORKIn this argument, I would like to essentially refute all of the opposition's contentions, whilst extending mines. However, before we go on, note that practically all of the opposition's constructive case this round is copy and pasted. I am disgusted, and call on voters to give the opposition a good lesson about the destructive qualities of pliagirism.THEORETICAL DEBATES1.) Differences between a Constitutional Monarchy and a DemocracyAgain, the opposition presents a flawed understanding of the term "democracy", and also presents a flawed understanding of the necessary separation between head of state and head of government. The head of state "is the highest-ranking constitutional position in the state", whilst a "head of government of a country is the person who runs it." The opposition says that since "in the baseline instigated by me, it was ruling system, neither directly government nor clearly stated", both have to be taken into consideration. However, the government can be democratic, but the state is necessarily undemocratic. The citizens of the United States elect the "government", but to elect a "state" is to elect every administrative position in the state. This might be so in the case of a tyranny of the majority, but definitely not a democracy. The opposition necessarily forces us to debate republicanism vs. monarchy: note the consented resolution in this debate, which is "Democracy is the best ruling system", not "Republicanism is the best ruling system." Democracy is vague, but I have provided a definition of it in the first round which the opposition has consented by silence too. Note here also the inconsistency in what is known to mean "constitutional monarchy": in Round II, the opposition says "[the people's consent] also [exists] in systems like aristocracy, constitutional monarchy. Look at UK." After that, when I proved the UK to be a democracy within the limits of this debate, he then consents and tells us that "constitutional monarchy separates the Head of State’s ceremonial and official duties from party politics." Then tell me, if the Head of State is separated from party politics, then how will party politics be organized? Would His/Her Majesty handpick the Parliament? Then that is necessarily an absolute monarchy. Or would His/Her Majesty let their respective people decide what party gets power? Then that, my friend, is called democracy.2.) Criterion DisputeThe opposition goes on to say that his criterion (1) and (2) refers to the efficiency of the government. However, the opposition meets a roadblock, for there are countries which have the same govern efficiency and different governing systems. Criterion (1) and (2) refers to the efficiency of the State, not the Government. And we have proved that we cannot think of a democratic State, where every administrative position is elected. But we can think of a democratic government, where every governing position is elected. Hence, (1) and (2) makes no revelance whatsoever. Apart from this, my criterion 3 is actually analytical from the notion of the Social Contract, for a government protects people internally and externally. If the country is an illiberal dictatorship, for example, the people are not protected internally as the government is the one inflicting the harm. And finally, the last condition comes with no substantiation whatsoever-the opposition knows this. But even say they come with subtantiation: they are still vague, and evere more so, local: not every state is a federal state. In defending his criterion (3), he says "there is the need, as they are not disciplined. When a work is not done, then you have to do it." What is discipline? Is a nation an army? The people are not clay that the government gets to sculpt-the people are the people, who have the fundamental freedom to not be the slaves of the government. Since all of the opposition's criterion are standing on one foot, we can reject it and accept side proposition's criterions. EXTENSIONS1.) RE: Refutation of the Abstract CaseThe oppositon talks of my answer not being a logical one. However, in doing so, the opposition acknowledges the United Kingdom as a democracy. Yay for him! He has just affirmed the resolution for everyone to see. 2.) RE: Rights in DemocracyThe opposition here talks about Sri Lanka and Pakistan. However, these two cases are necessarily bad examples. In the example of Pakistan, he necessarily takes a country interrupted by three successful coups with four unsuccesful coup attempts, making democracy in Pakistan a very new thing. In fact, from 2000-2013, Pakistan has not successfully experienced a peaceful transition of power from a prime minister to another with a completion of a tenure. Pakistan is ultimately quite undemocratic in this regards. In the case of Sri Lanka, the country has been ravaged by an unending history of attempted coups, insurgencies and full-scale civil war. In fact, in spite of this, Amnesty Int. has acknowledged a good improvement of HR status in Sri Lanka in 2000, even in spite of this civil war. [1,2] And even if this is untrue, the opposition cherry-picks his data from the many rights-abiding democratic communities.3.) RE: CrimesThe opposition attempts to rebut side proposition's case by saying that "crimes depend on a number of reasons. So, undoubtedly, it was unwise for you to say democracy itself deserves the credit of lessening crime rates." Is this a refutation, or is this a mere statement thrown in at random? Firstly, I never said democracies reduced crimes: I ultimately said three things. I have said that (1) the judiciary quality in democracies are higher than those of undemocratic regimes, (2) that organized crime is ultimately deterred by democracy, and (3) that democracy deters crimes from happening in the first place. Hence, the opposition fatally misunderstood my case. The opposition's strawman of my case hence is refuted. REFUTATIONS1.) Quantity vs. QualityThe opposition here talks "quantity" rather than "quality." But what does this mean in the opposition's case? The opposition then supports the rule of the wise i.e. the notion of a philosopher king. I shall not go in this Platonic notion much, but I should like to highlight what the rule of the "wise" has led men to. The intellectual philosopher dictator, Mao, was the author of a regime that killed 45 million Chinese. Mao's intellectual achievements are admirable, but his practical philosophy not so. We could go back to the realm of Emperor Nero, who was playing a Harp whilst watching the city of Rome burn: he was a philosophically trained and intelligent person. [3,4]Ultimately, the opposition must understand: wisdom does not automatically give a person a hand over others. What is good or bad ultimately depends on the utilitarian notion.2.) Inefficiency and CorruptionThe opposition necessarily ignores my case in the last round. There is a "U-relationship" between democracy and corruption i.e. corruption would increase so much so until democracy finds a stable institution, then declines again as institutions get stronger and stronger. Efficiency might also be included in this.3.) Opportunists and Self-SeekersAgain, whatever is good is determined not by an individual's opinion, but by the effect of that opinion on the utility of the populace. An opportunist in one person's view might be a hero in another. There is no objective opportunists.4.) Expense, and the Role of Money in DemocracyMonarchical countries actually have more money than democracies. In Saudi Arabia, the King has a budget of $21 billion. Although the costs for democracy is actually much more than this, this highlights one thing: that democracies actually invest in the people, rather than invest in worthless projects like Yachts or self-portraits. Actually, if the opposition were to think about it, a dictatorship is much more plutocratic than a democracy: the Banana Republic of Honduras, in 1912-1913, was led by a coup-installed government of Manuel Bonilla, who was backed by a mercenary army from the Cuyael Fruit Company (CFC). The US turned a blind eye to this, and soon, the CFC ruled Honduras as their own private company, allowing for the rich elite to stay atop of Honduran society. [5,6]5.) Tyranny of the MajorityThis only happens, big time, in direct democracies, not in representative democracies, which are the only type of democracy covered in this debate.6.) Education and DemocracyThis is the most empirical false case that the opposition raises. There is too much evidence of a positive relationship between democracy and education. A good democracy depends on education, for with a more educated mass, a more intelligent electorate would be created. Shleifer (2007) notes a positive correlation between democracy and education in his study. [7] Fig I: Schooling vs. Polity Democracy Score 1960 Fig II: Change in Education Levels 1960-2000 vs Polity Democracy since 1960 7.) Curtailment of LibertyThis case was refuted in R2 by a study that showed a relationship between Democracies and Rights. CONCLUSION:The opposition drops the defense of his "democracy is irrelevant" case, and ultimately, most of his case is just a new plagiarism of his sources (unacceptable). His constitutional monarchy has been shown to be compatible with democracy, and even if his case stands, he does not say why constitutional monarchy is better than democracy (which are the same thing). His case is hopelessly flawed. The resolution is AFFIRMED!CITATION[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] https://www.marxists.org...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...[7] http://scholar.harvard.edu...