Democracy is not an effective ideology in producing a successful society.

"My opponent has refused to counter any of my points and has also admitted that they are all true, without seeking to modify anything." As a matter of fact, I have not refused to counter anything, I have modified the argument, and yes, I have admitted they are all true, they are also irrelevant. "I will not give you absolute morality as a premise. I call that into question, for there is absolutely no proof that morality is absolute or objective." Why can't you accept the argument of at least SOMEWHAT absolute morality? Killing is wrong, stealing is wrong and the like. Always with exceptions of course. There is no real proof of absolute morality because we would need an entity outside of ourselves to prove it. Obviously this is not possible. We can deduce that it is objective however. Most everyone would agree that it is as wrong to murder a person in the United States as it is in Kenya, and everywhere else. This is objective. "If you are going to argue against the efficacy of democracy as a social ideology, you MUST compare it to other ideologies or else you forfeit this current debate in its entirety." I do not have to give examples of any other ideologies or societies in order to find fault in and criticise democracy. If you believe that our society, or any other society is successful I would disagree. How can you deem a society a success if it has homeless people and people dying without health care, and people being abused and people who are not free to express unpopular thought without being ridiculed to the point of silence? These things need no comparison to be true. The only comparison needed is that to an ideal society, not an existing one. When these things, among others, cease to exist in our society, I will conceded to it's success, until then I will criticise it. "I must remind you that this debate is not about perfection. This debate is about whether or not democracy is an EFFECTIVE ideology in producing a successful society. I have rejected your definition of a successful society because that would imply that every society is a failure, and that argument is moot." EFFECTIVE in producing a SUCCESSFUL society. Yes, virtually every society is a failure. This argument is not moot, give me a reason it is. The society of which you are a part may be successful for you, but it surely is not successful to everyone, It can't be both, so it can not be called successful. You may argue that the majority believes it to be successful, but I will not accept the majority's opinion as the end all be all, or of much validity at all. "Not only do you need to prove absolute morality, you must also prove that absolute morality incorporates the things you stated up there. Until you do so, your points hold no weight." I didn't realize I had to convince anyone that it is moral to let everyone marry whoever they like and as many people as they like without interference of the state. Or that people shouldn't have beliefs imposed upon them by the law. "Mill would argue against helmet and seat belt laws because they violate the freedom of a person. Mill would also argue that drug use should be legal and that there should be no age limit for drinking." Yes and he would be right. The law shouldn't have a right to do anything you don't conceded to, even to protect you. "Can you imagine what might happen if these things were all legal? After the helmet laws were passed for motorcyclists, deaths for the cyclists were decreased by 30% in just a few years. Drug use of any sort is also extraordinarily harmful to a person's system and I speak as a pharmacy student on this point. To suggest that kids should have free access to alcohol given this country's cultural background would be chaotic. In European countries where alcohol has a more cultural background, the laws are less stringent. But in America, age limits are necessary." None of this gives anyone the right to impose on another person, their ideas, even if they are right. If I choose to ride a motorcycle without a helmet I should surely be allowed to. This is where Mill's harm principle applies. The majority should not be able to make rules for the minority as well as themselves, unless it is a law passed for the protection of RIGHTS not safety. "I argue that democracy IS an effective ideology for society and I define a successful society above. I find that my definition is more applicable because all societies exist to serve the populace and enhance well-being in the ways I have detailed, whereas my opponent's definition applies to no society existing today and has little to no relevance to what a society exists as. I do not argue that democracy is perfect. I argue that it is effective in comparison to dictatorships, fascist governments, theocracies, etc." I agree that democracy is more effective than dictatorships, in most cases, fascist governments and theocracies. I am not comparing one poor ideology to a worse one however, as far as I'm concerned that is not the way to progress. I am comparing a poor ideology to what the ideal is imagined to be. I have stated what the ideal society, or even a successful one would not posses above. This debate is about the shortcomings of democracy, not the semantics my opponents seems so intent on fixating on. In order to have a better or more successful society, "majority rule" most cease to be the rule of thumb.