This house believes a technocracy is a better system of government than democracy

Before I begin , the format we'll be using is standard WSDC. There will be 3 rounds. Debaters will refer to each other as Side Proposition and Side Opposition or we if referring to one's self. NOTE : LINE OF ARGUMENT (LOA) IS A SERIES OF INTERLINKED ARGUMENTS. NO LINKS ALLOWED FORMAT : -----Speaker roles are defined below : First Speaker Proposition :- Lays out definitions and explains what the debate is about.- Introduces and explains 1 Line of Arguments (Or 2 if you have a total of 3).First Speaker Opposition :-Partially refutes First Prop's arguments.- Introduces and explains 1 Line of Arguments (Or 2 if you have a total of 3).Second Speaker Proposition :-Counter-rebuttals to First Opp-Rebuttals to First Opp's arguments-Introduces and explains the final Line of Arguments Second Speaker Opp :-Counter-rebuttals to Second Prop-Rebuttals to Second Prop-Introduces and explains the final Line of ArgumentsThird Speaker Prop :-No new Lines of Arguments.-Mostly rebuttals- Identifies clashes in the debate and proves why he wonThird Speaker Opp : -Same as Third Speaker Prop ------------------------------------------------------------------------------First Speaker Prop :So ladies and gentlemen , today the motion brought to debate is that this house believes that a technocracy is a better system of government than a democracy.So when we say "technocracy" , what do we mean? A technocracy is a system in which people are placed into positions of power based on their technical expertise and ranked according to their qualifications. These qualifications are not only limited to their knowledge of governance but also include their moral perception and decision-making skills. I won't be defining a democracy because we all know how that works. By system of government what we really mean is the selection process for government representatives.So my first Line of Argument will be "How we're upholding the idea of meritocracy for positions of power"So to start off , you see that in the status quo you have several kinds of people. Firstly you have politcians who aren't necessarily equipped with the abilities to govern but just specialize in the art of manipulating people. Now how do they manipulate people ? They persuade people through false promises. How do we know they're false promises? Because ladies and gentleman, at the end of the day once they do get that position of power , they have no incentive of working for the benefit of society. So essentially they're attaining their goals through deception which we feel is bad because when they're not staying true to their promises , they're essentially not representing the people. What this means , that the true purpose of democracy which is to establish a body that represents the people , is not being upheld. What this signifies is that democracy itself is flawed . because the need for it is not being fulfilled. Now on the other hand , what you have is a theocracy where people who excell and possess incredible skills to actually govern a country and have passed multiple tests to prove that their perceptions and views are beneficial to society ,reside. These people have dedicated their lives , time and money on understanding what could benefit society , for the greater good. We feel that these people who have the abilities to benefit society because of their knowledge and moral perception actually deserve the benefits of a position of power. Why is that ? Because unlike politicians who work towards influencing people simply for the benefits that the position would bring and do not actually work to improve society , people in a theocracy would actually work for the progression of the state and so for compensation of their contributions , we say that they have every right and merit the benefits that such position provides. Now how do we know that they're actually going to contribute to the state ? We know this because they've been tested through examinations that test their abilities as well as their ideas of what would benefit the state.So in our world what we're essentially establishing is fair compensation for people who actually merit a position of power for getting work done. We say that a society in which people work for the progression of society rather than manipulating it , is effectively a better society. We say that now because we've eliminated people's abilities to make uninformed choices , we have a better society and for all these reasons ,We are proud to propose.