Commentator's Choice - Democracy is a good system of government

Rebuttals:- "Ignorant people have a very marginal chance at selecting good leaders. This can be seen in modern examples, where the masses select a leader that represents a polarized point of view. In a representative system, particularly in 2 party systems, this can be a bad thing, as it leads to a lack of productivity in the government and overbearing partisanship."This may or may not be true. What does it mean to be corrupt? Past what point must an elected citizen be deemed partisan? My opponent assumes the burden of proving that categorical democracy is corrupt and that partisanship is ultimately a weakness to democracy. I have a couple of arguments to this statement.1) I am going to argue that partisanship is actually good. Partisanship is the way a democratic nation accommodates its many opposing viewpoints; democracy inherently cater to its constituents. While this may create some inefficiency in policy-making (the process is considerably lengthened), partisanship forces policies to undergo change to suit the needs of as many sides as possible. The democratic partisan system guarantees that policies go through great scrutiny (its harms, its benefits, its effects on the people, etc.) before they are passed. I believe well thought-out policies are better than those which do not go through the same process; the populace matters.2) A system of government in which policymakers are not pressured by or accounting for its constituents is no democracy; it is an oligarchy. There are governmental systems which call themselves democracies, but are really oligarchies. "The ability of the majority to choose who or what policies it wants is what makes a democracy good. As someone once said, democracy is power ‘by the people, for the people’.. literally. Anything less would not be a democracy."If my opponent seeks to argue that oligarchies are bad, I will unilaterally agree with him. However, the resolution pertains only to democracies. If it fails, it is not a democracy. It is only a democracy in success, meaning we are arguing only whether or not successful democracies are good, not whether or not democracy is worth attempting. If a governmental system is graded by its success, a democracy is not only good, but one of the best.- "the chances of [democracy's] success are extremely slim."This statement is irrelevant unless my opponent can show that democracy's rate of failure and its consequences are worse than those of other governmental systems. Democracy is good because it succeeds in bringing about much greater total happiness than other systems of government.I'm quite curious as to how my opponent defines a governmental system's success. What does it mean for a system to be successful?- "The idea of beign micro-economically efficient and the prctice of capitalism is not independent to democracies. It can be seen in all variaties of governments"Democracy is micro-economically efficient. That there exists other systems of government which employ capitalism doesn't mean this point is moot. Capitalism differs, is oftentimes nonexistent even, across various systems of government. A democratic capitalist system is superior to, say, a dictatorial capitalist system because while there are some limitations as to what suppliers can do (i.e. there are usual codified laws by the people-elected government which forbid unfair market manipulation such as forming monopolistic coalitions), suppliers are generally free to set the bar for themselves. It is the suppliers who know the in and outs of their market product through many instances of trial and error or acquired knowledge. Forcing suppliers to unnatural lows, for example, would cause the supplier to lose its ability to maintain its supply (it costs money to produce supplies), and can destroy the supply itself (lowering living standards). In terms of jobs, the supplier may be forced to fire all its workers, cutting off people's revenue, decreasing the total market income and cyclically destroy the economy. This is why totalitarian economic systems have never been successful: It is impossible for the government to account for each and every business or market in its nation's immeasurable numbers of localities. Allowing the suppliers greater freedom is one of democracy's strengths. Democratic capitalist systems are among the few which don't have its state assume control its suppliers/supplies. Summary:- My opponent continues to point out potential weaknesses of democracy, but I've already admitted that democracy (and all systems of government) has weaknesses. I am arguing that democracy's strengths offset its weaknesses; trading efficiency of unilateral decision-making for better scrutinized policies/decisions and greater liberties and opportunities for a greater number of people makes a democracy one of the better systems of government. Under this, my greater liberties/powers argument still stands. My opponent completely drops this point and has not shown, in any way, why democracy is not good. (Ten points for House Democracy!!)- My economic argument in favor of democracy still stands. My opponent only points out that other systems of governments can employ capitalism, but made no attempts to refute that democracy's economic system is good.- Dmocratic societies provide greater opportunities for success. My opponent drops this point. (Five points for House Democracy!!)- For the purposes of his arguments, my opponent should define what he thinks it means for a system of government to be successful or good.