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. "1. I define a successful society in terms of the morality of it's people. This is depicted by the societies policies and acts. This, of course implies that we are working under the idea that absolute or some form of absolute morality exists. In other words, generally speaking, what's right is right and what's wrong is wrong, regardless of people's preferences." 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. Thus, I reject your definition of a successful society unless you can show that success comes directly from this criteria alone. I myself believe that a successful society is one where there is general improvement in the lives of each member in the fields of emotional, financial, physical, and mental well-being. "In response to this, I don't have one. I am not debating the existence of a more effective, or better ideology, I am merely criticising the ideology of democracy." Although I would normally follow this up with Socratic questioning, this is not possible in a three round debate. So instead, I will emphasize that in order for society to exist, one must have some sort of social order. The issue of debate is efficacy, meaning that the thing being analyzed can be done so with a reasonable scale against other things. 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. So far, the only option you have would be to link absolute morality to other social ideologies, which is dangerous. Anything that comes remotely close to fulfilling your criteria would be a theocracy. "Just because democracy represents the majority doesn't make it good and it certainly doesn't make it ideal. Democracy works to suppress the ideas of the minority, which often times are more moral and just plain better than the majority." 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. "Some examples of the majority suppressing a minority who is morally right... Gay Rights Separation of Church and State- the word God in the pledge and on money AND polygamy being illegal" 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. "When deciding what is moraly right and wrong, and the bases of most of my argument is Mill's harm principle. And the basic idea of not violating human rights." Mill's harm principle is essentially "Your right to swing your fist only ends where my face begins". On the most part, I agree with this. However, this does not tie in with my opponent's position at all. 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. 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. These laws were passed for the good of society and little to no personal freedom is being taken away. ******* My opponent has essentially argued a whole bunch of nothing. My opponent has conceded each and every single one of my points, making no modifications and verbally agreeing to every one. My opponent has also failed to meet the requirements of this debate, which is to argue that democracy is not an efficient ideology for sustaining a society. My opponent cannot offer any system, real or imaginary, that is better than democracy and has no scale or method of comparison to say that democracy is not effective. My opponent also claims absolute morality as one of the key tenets to a successful society and has yet to objectively prove that point. ******** 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.