That the CIA should rig elections in post Arab-Spring countries to ensure the moderates win

My apologies for the delay in getting this round up. I thank my opponent for his excellent refutations, and I'm glad he seems to agree compromises are good. The difference between my case and his is that I actually want to do something to ensure compromises happen, whilst my opponent wants to see one set of brutal dictators replaced by another.RebuttalIt's a little unfair to say that my opponent's two contentions went without response from me. I even answered the contentions using the same headings he did for ease of reference. On the first point, the struggle for self-determination, I showed why certain candidates winning would undermine self-determination because they wouldn't allow the people to determine anything ever again. On the second point, I showed why democracy was not what they were fighting for, but freedom from autocracy, which only a rigged election can deliver. I also challenged my opponent's characterisation of CIA rigging as vetting or controlling - extremists can still be a part of government under my model, just not the winners of the election. That will allow the government to have legitimacy. Now my opponent needs to stop ignoring me and start responding.Effect on extremistsMy opponent questions whether extremists can compromise if my model has them changing their mind. If they cannot, then there is no problem and they will not get elected. If they can, then there is no problem with them being elected. Either way my model will allow for compromise.Secondly my opponent questions if we can trust these people. In doing so he is ignoring my analysis as to why we can - religious extremists are honest because honesty is what their religion commands. Again, sucking up to the US will not help candidates or hinder them in any way - it's not like there is much subjective interpretation that goes on when one candidate says "I want to impose uncompromising Sharia law" and another says "I believe in democratic Islam", nor would the parties think they need to suck up to the US more than they need to suck up to their own people, whose demands are exactly the same as what the US demands. If my opponent truely fears trusting these people, he is only showing that these people can't be trusted, contradicting his own point that the people of these nations can.Thirdly my opponent suggested the alternative - an oath of office. The problem is that no such oath of office exists. Until one is written and adopted by a democratically elected body, the CIA should help out.Free electionsI explained to you last round why the freedom democracy allows for needs to be qualified, listing two reasons. I can offer the post-Arab-spring nations 100% free elections so long as their president won't be a dictator. I also explained to you why this was a better understanding of democracy than my opponent's idea of totally free elections - democracy in these places is not like democracy in the west. My opponent claims he is giving them one free election - I claim my model will give them elections for many years to come that are democratic, consistant with the ideals of the Arab spring, and dictator-free.I agree that accountability mechanisms would work better, but until these exist and are working, the CIA should be stepping in. In many cases where a dictator rose to power democratically they did so in spite of working accountability mechanisms (see every single facist government for examples).My opponent accepts that their demand was for freedom from tyranny. To say that the alternative for many of them, theocracy, is a lie is not rebuttal, it's assertion. I even gave you strong analysis why - these people have been demotivated by the democracies of the west through their association with the dictators. Democracy is good for the CIA to encourage, but for many people it isn't the alternative they're after. They want theocracy.Finally my opponent says that tyranny leads to revolution. I told you last round that tyrants know that and will prevent it using violence. It doesn't matter if they're stopped 10 years later, what matters is that in the mean time they'll be killing thousands of people. Revolutions always take some time to organise, and in that time there is no shortage of oppertunity to harm the people.Rigging obviousnessFirst my opponent claims I can't guarentee there won't be a clear favorite. I ask him to point to a single example of a "clear favorite" in any of the nations we're talking about. Again, random sampling is extremely robust.Second my opponent talks about run-off elections. The simple solution to this is to make sure extremist candidates do not make it to the run-off stage when there is one.Third my opponent questions the mechanism. This may come as a shock to my opponent, but in many parts of the world votes aren't counted overnight and broadcast on "election night specials". Election vote-counting is likely to take several months, and votes are unlikely to be transmitted electronically from many polling stations like is the norm in other parts of the world. Such elections are rigged all the time - consider that even big, well-established democracies such as the USA have election scandels, and you'll see how easy it is for the most professional espionage agency in the world to rig such a "simple" (for want of a better word) election.Fourth my opponent reasserts the people in the Arab spring are dying for democracy. Restating the same thing over and over won't win the point - he actually needs to refute my analysis.CIA goodnessThe difference between this rigging and South American rigging is that in South America, the CIA was rigging the election to serve their interests. In the Arab spring under my model, the CIA would rig to serve the people's interest - NOT the CIA's, NOT America's, not even the Western world's! I know it sounds cliche, but selflessness is surest path to peace.If people don't trust the agency is actually good, who cares? Nobody trusts the CIA under the status quo. My contention is only that there will be some marginal trust as a result of my model, not that everybody is going to immediately reverse their long-held beliefs about the CIA. Skepticism is good and healthy, but surely the CIA will be given an oppertunity to prove they will have changed.Finally my opponent insists torture, murder, kidnapping etc are all "important". My opponent has clearly not heard of human rights. Maybe he should look them up.ConclusionRepublicans are not extremists, they're stupid. There's a subtle difference. Stupid means you're just wrong, or ignorant. Extremist means you'd be unwilling to compromise on any government policy. My opponent has already accepted compromise is good. Democracy means you have the right to make stupid decisions about your future - but you must ALWAYS have the decision.We must not allow tyrants to hijack the oppertunity the Arab spring presents. The motion must be allowed to stand.