Democracy is no longer the best form of government.

It is not encouraging that my opponent likes to spend half of his second round attacking my motives, rather than my warrants. I will assure that you that my arguments shifted in order to address the things that you were saying, as they should in every good debate. If you offer up an argument, you should expect me to offer a counter-argument, and not to calmly accept yours as the truth. My beliefs did not change between the first and second rounds; I only offered you the information that you asked for. As for you continuously attacking the legitimacy of my argument, I will AGAIN state that the solution that I have claimed is theoretical; it is a thought process to be pondered. I have said many times that I am not against democracy, and that I simply believe that there is a better way. Your claims that I am anti-American and anti-Democracy are ludicrous. Since you attacked my logic, I will do that same for you. By you stating that you cannot argue what is in my mind, you are stating that you can never partake in any debate of any kind. In an argument, the two sides are ALWAYS debating what is in the other person's mind. In addition, you saying that you cannot argue what is in my mind is not only illogical, but it is a lie. For two rounds now you have indeed argued against my thoughts. It seems that you are determined to not view my arguments as theoretical, but to view them only as they would be practiced in the real world. I boldly accept this challenge. It is not at all impossible to have a single person who will never lose integrity in the face of power. I believe it is much more likely to find a person with such a character than it is to vote in thousands of people and to expect all of them to hold true to their word. And if you do still seem to think it is impossible, all you need to do is look at history. Was Charlemagne ever corrupted? He ruled with absolute sovereignty and absolute success. In one of your arguments, you attack my reasoning again saying that a benevolent dictatorship cannot be benevolent without a benevolent dictator, not the other way around. I was not wrong. Simply put: If there is a benevolent dictatorship, then there is a benevolent dictator. If there is a dictatorship, then there is a dictator. If there is a malicious dictatorship, then there is a malicious dictator. In this case circular reasoning is not a fallacy, it is the absolute truth. In my second round argument, I offered an idea for a system of checks and balances. This was merely a response to a question that you raised in your first argument. I tried my best to get the point across that the council that I explained in my example would be working for the dictator, and they would only be against his decisions if they questioned the benevolence of the government. I suppose that you either did not accept this as reliable or you did not understand it. If it is the former, to assume that one person can rule a country by himself is ridiculous. Even in dictatorships, there are still subordinates who can make decisions by themselves, unless said otherwise by the dictator. Your next argument is about "my system of checks and balances" being the same as the current system of corrupt and lazy politicians who go back on their words. This is hard to argue, as it does not really make much sense in this debate. Politicians are being voted in by the people, and the council in my proposed dictatorship would obviously not be. They would have no agenda to uphold as they wouldn't have to campaign with empty promises. They would simply be saying yay or nay to their leader, who picked them to represent him. As for your question on the integrity of the checks and balances, this would indeed be at stake. However; with a group of voting people under the supervision of a dictator, the chance of complete digression would be slim. If one member seems to be slipping under the weight of power, we would have to assume that he would be replaced. The benevolent oligarchy sample that I used in the second round was simply to help you better understand what I was trying to say, as it seems your mind is having a great difficulty wrapping around my thoughts. It was offered as a counter claim possibility, which I believe any well structured argument should have. As for your final argument against my insults of today's humans, I should barely even be acknowledging this as it is hardly legitimate. You and I both know that a very large portion of people have no interest in intelligence or the pursuit of intelligence. Many people in today's society even think that it is cool to be dumb! By me saying this, I was only attacking those who are easily swayed by a democratic government's politicians, and you should not confuse it with the members of this website. I am very new to debate.org, but from what I have seen so far, it is a hub of intelligence and understanding, dedicated to the goal of acquiring knowledge and forming opinions. I was only making an example of how politicians use people who we all know to be, how shall we say it...not the sharpest tools in the shed. In finality, I believe I have fully scoped the lengths of MY beliefs, but I am still yet to witness any serious effort on your part to promote YOUR beliefs. All I have seen thus far is attacks on my own personality and motives, as well as direct challenges to parts of my argument that I have already explained. Since you insist on petty, disabling, and incoherent assertions against ME rather than providing strong warrants for your OWN claim, all in order to garner more votes, I will have to assume that in real life you are a politician!