This House would reject consensus.

Cheers for the debate, buddy!Well my opponent has the burden of proof. I didn't see anywhere in his explanation of what "parliamentary debate" was that this usual facet of debate would not play a part. So that'd leave me only to refute or cast sufficient suspicion on his contentions to win the debate by default, right? Aside: I'm neither pro or con on the issue really.My opponent's contention:That participatory democracies are more prone to rights violations than the system of government under which the United States is currently operating, and thus the policy should not be adopted by the current United States. He also makes some few arguments and i'll get to them shortly, I just want to make clear that i need make no argument affirming that the policy should be adopted, but just to keep it considerable within the parameters of the debate, as per my opponent having the BoP. My opponent's arguments: "Participatory democracies are more prone to lead to rights violations. Because the vast majority of the people only look to their own self-interests rather than the interests of all,"Granted, people generally act in self-interest, but I don't see why this holds any problems for participatory democracy and not represenative democracy (i'll get to the checks of my opponent's "contention 2" later). I'd even consider it to most probably have a greater toll on representative democracies what with the people in power being more corruptible what with being less in number. See: politicians.And what self-interest might the majority of people act on that would violate the rights of the minority? My opponent provides an example:"For example, during the French Revolution, the majoritarian Jacobians, which consisted of the working class proletariat and the bourgeois middle-class, decided to condemn any aristocrats found within the French borders to death by guillotine,"...from over 200 years ago. And even then it was a revolution, an uprising of the majority from tyranny! And with this being a civilised discussion on the matter of government between two opposing sides and to be voted on, one would suspect we were discussing what would be a peaceful adoption of the policy. So again, what self-interest might the majority of people act on that would violate the rights of the minority, in this day of age? I really can't think of any. Oppress black people and homosexuals again? What is the liklihood of that happening in all honesty? Slim i'd imagine what with them at this stage being pretty much fully integrated into American society as equal members, if i'm not mistaken. And once they're in... Not to mention you'd likely be causing civil war in attempting to oppress either of those minorities, or black people anyway for sure, which'd hardly be seen to be in anyone's interests, or at least majority interests. Religion cannot measure up to science in influencing people, in this day of age. Science has continually given us new and verifiable information and how to use it, while Religion preaches the same unverifiable, nonsensical silliness that it always has. Religion is dying, being replaced by materialism. People just want stuff these days. You could nearly throw the jews and their jew gold at me, but Hitler was a minority :PAnd one might consider that representative democracy has the potential to suffer far more (in terms of my opponent's value criteria) from self-interested people what with essentially being minority control and what with in the case of tyranny it would be the majority being tyrannised, as opposed to the minority in a participatory democracy. More prone, prone to more? You're gonna have rights violations under every political policy :)"and because the masses are more likely to be influenced by emotional considerations, participatory democracies are more likely to act in a manner that disadvantages some for the sake of others."If by influenced you meant influenced to act, then that'd be more understandable/sensible what with the majority backing, but it still begs the question why this would necessarily or even significantly be a bad thing, even with respect to the "preservation of natural rights". My opponent's example of the murderings of his claimed innocent aristocrats doesn't cut it for me. First of all what with have occured in a considerably significant different time and place. And secondly, what with having occured during a revolution from tyranny!My opponent's contention 2:Checks! This part i'd consider to hold the most weight of my opponent's argument. Not in that i feel they'd actually be necessary in today's American society under participatory democracy however, but in a it couldn't hurt to have them just incase kinda thing. Really i figure the participating population would be a check on itself. With participation you'd have argument, learning, cooperation, all things to make for a better society one would imagine. And on top of that you'd have a whole population of rational checks rather than the two my opponent mentioned there being under the current system (Congress and the Supreme Court). Something similar to the constitution however I'm having a hard time working in with participatory democracy, but then who wants to possibly start civil wars or strip people of liberties for absolutely no rational reason. Again, religion is dying :P