America is a republic (polidity)

Let's get something very clear here, my opponent concedes the only point I made explicitly clear at the beginning of my speech (you'll remember I called this the framework for how you evaluate the round) that if I prove only that the foundations for our government come from the basis of majority rule (Which my opponent concedes is all I need to defend in order to win) then we are founded in Democracy. Let's recap a few reasons why I have still unconditionally won this round.1. Direct voting on bonds, referendums and ballot measures. My opponent argues that in fact this was refuted by his video but that is not an argument, I did not consent to debate the wisdom of some random video and as such no argument was imputed as to why the video is a good refutation. I ask the judges to only regard written references and arguments to refute this. His only other claim is that Bush won with 49% and Lincoln with 40% but forgets that in Bush's case it was electoral votes (a system voted ad approved for directly by the people to show the will of the majority) and in Lincoln's case because there were three major candidates meaning 40% was the majority. If there are 30%, 30% and 40% votes, 40 is the majority.2. My opponent admits this foundation of Democracy. "a republic is a type of democracy" is a fitting quote because by his own definition and admission a Republic is merely an offshoot of Democracy proving that if we did not have a Democracy then we surely could not have a Republic. 3. My contextual definition of Democracy. I believe that my quote from Alexis de Tocqueville, who was one of America's first historians and a political science (do not let my opponents stand-offish nature towards my sources diswade you from its validity) is the only definition that actually discusses the American government and it's place as a Democracy. In brief recap from the quote you'll see that Tocqueville describes how the immigrants and eventual founders of America were distinct in ensuring that principals of a Democracy came firstRemember my opponents words exactly:"Sorry you do not have to defend 'pure democracy' but you have to argue the generic version. Majority rule etc."I will extend my First Contention here -Again I will go back to my qualified source, Alexis de Tocqueville, to prove that America should be labeled a Democracy foremost and cite more from later in his book "Democracy in America" written in 1835. Tocqueville explains that America is at its roots a Democracy, laden with Democratic ideals of majority rule. Here are a few selections in which he writes;"MANY important observations suggest themselves upon the social condition of the Anglo-Americans; but there is one that takes precedence of all the rest. The social condition of the Americans is eminently democratic; this was its character at the foundation of the colonies, and it is still more strongly marked at the present day." [1]And further he explains that the foundation of America from it's settlement was the basis of overthrowing colonial power and thus replacing it with power that originates from the majority of those under citizenship. He writes;"At this period society was shaken to its center. The people, in whose name the struggle had taken place, conceived the desire of exercising the authority that it had acquired; its democratic tendencies were awakened; and having thrown off the yoke of the mother country, it aspired to independence of every kind. The influence of individuals gradually ceased to be felt, and custom and law united to produce the same result." [1]This proves that the underlying theme of American governmental establishment was a theme of Democracy.I will now extend my second contention separately here -America is only a Democracy in name only. The extension of this contention will directly refute my opponents use of the contentionThis is the argument that proves we are foremost a Democracy. Bear with me as I explain the logic behind it all. If I can prove that the ratification of the constitution and thus the source of the power for the American government was only possible through means and powers present under a Democracy then I win. Here is the proof; my source, Author and Historian Hamilton Albert Long wrote in his book that the only reason we give validity to the constitution is because THE MAJORTY (AKA AMJORITY WILL) wanted it. Viola people, a democratic choice. The key quote from my last speech proves this;"...the United States Constitution was framed by the Federal Convention for the people’s consideration and then ratified by the people..." Similarly the founders were only loosely using the term Republic. Long explains that their use of the word does not mean that we are conclusively a Republic when he writes;"the label "Republic" has been misapplied in other countries to other and different forms of government throughout history. It has been greatly misunderstood and widely misused""Frequent reference is to be found, in the writings of the period of the framing of the Constitution for instance, to "the ancient republics," but in any such connection the term was used loosely"As judges, you cannot vote for the wishes of the founding fathers that America be called a Republic if the reality changed and the foundation of American power (which means the enabling power of American government is Democracy.) and thus we are only a Republic in name only.ConclusionIn conclusion I would like to re-clarify some things that my opponent misinterpreted. -I have not cheated. I followed your definition and clarification for how this debate will go. I have never once claimed that America was founded on anything less than a Democracy.-My sources are qualified. I listed the qualifications of all the sources before their quotes. I won't re-list them here but note that my opponent does not explain where he got his material, mine are from historians and professors that are obviously more qualified than random URL's with no explanation. Yes the direct links in my URLs do not explain where they are from but if you trace the origins of the webpage you can see who maintains the source and writes on it. Similarly two of mine are from books, the URLs are simply links to the chapters I used. If anything my opponent should be punished for not using qualified sources.-Wikipedia is not a source. Simply because one of the hundreds of users on this website won a debate using wikipedia does not mean it is a practice that should be repeated. I treat this debate like any research paper I have to present to peers, in academia you do not site a website that is maintained by users, you must use work from books and published professors to give it credit.-I have no idea what are my opponents words versus those of his citations, do not assume that because there is a footnote reference that those are all the words of the authors. In my case, reference the the italicized and clearly quoted information as reference to my original authors.-The issue of Roman senate is a non-starter because there are no comparisons between it and the US and is not the topic for this debate.-The number of sources does not qualify who has the best sources, do not reward my opponent for throwing out numerous unqualified URLs on the page. I am choosing to stick to my original, qualified sources.My opponent has only refuted my argument but there is no semblance of a reason extended why we are actually a Republic. If anything, my opponent has only muddied the gray area between a representative Democracy and his Republic (Which is lacking definitional support extended). Simply put, you cannot do the work for him and assume why his generic explanation of Republic's versus Democracies actually applies to America using the definitions he provided. You cannot vote for him unless you can look me in the face and tell me that things get done without consent of the majority.Sources:[1] - http://xroads.virginia.edu...