Democracy is the best ruling system

FRAMEWORKI would like to start off with a complete and utter rejection of the yardstick the opposition has presented, and then go on to counter his arguments, and then ultimately, conclude with the extension of my case and the rejection of the opposition's non-existent baseline.CRITERION DISPUTEThe opposition has proposed to replace the criterion that I have presented with a better criterion on his behalf. The opposition's criterion is the following:(1) Increasing efficiency and speed in governmental activities.(2) Implementation and adaptation of policies in a swift time.(3) Bringing about discipline in a great extent in the country and(4) Preventing misuses in federal tasks. There are several flaws with this ideal. The first one being the following: that condition (1) and (2) suffers from a necessary misunderstanding of the debate. The increase in efficiency and implementation of policies necessarily derives from the effectiveness of the government, not the form of government. A dictator and democracy may be as corrupt as each other, and this debate would henceforth be rendered invalid and irrelevant in such countries. Condition (3) is simply totalitarian. For why would the state have the need to discipline the people if the people do not want to be disciplined? Tranquility is needed for any state to be secured. However, the poor Greeks who waited his turn to be devoured by Cyclops had tranquility, not liberty. If the states were to be a Cyclops, and the people his lunch, then that state has necessarily violated the social contract. Condition (4) is vague-what does misuses imply? What is misuses? Ultimately, the word "misuses" is subjective.Ultimately, we always have to return to the idea of the Social Contract, for that is what the government is for. Rebuttals1. RE: Constitutional MonarchyThe opposition misunderstands this debate by presenting this as a viable alternative. I, ironically, have the same opinion as the opposition, and I do not see democracy and constitutional monarchy as being polar opposites-in fact, I see them as compatible. Many constitutional kingdoms have elected or semi-elected parliaments, and in many constitutional kingdoms, the Monarch does not have the right to intefere with the legislative part of the government, only the executive. This debate is ultimately about the means of choosing the head of government, not head of state.An example of a constitutional monarchy whose model follows this is that of Liechtenstein. A small micro-state, Liechtenstein has one of the world's lowest unemployment rates and one of the world's highest GDP per capita. It is also, quite unsurprisingly, a democratic state with a TI score of 1.84. Liechenstein is a well functioning representative democracy, and apart from this, a constitutional monarchy. [3,8]Henceforth, on the grounds that democracy and constitutional monarchism is not incompatible, the opposition's arguments fail.2. RE: Refutation of the Abstract Case The only point of clash I can see in this debate is in the criterion, and in the falsity of the main convictions of the opposition. In this case, I shall only be defending democracy against the many assertions that the opposition has attempted to present. The opposition attempts to present democracy as being a corrupted system. The opposition asserts that "in [a] democracy government is dependent on people's vote which include that dishonest official too." However, the opposition does not raise any good empirical evidence whatsoever to support this. That is because that this relationship is not the case. Researchers from the United Nations found an "inverted-U" relationship between democracy and corruption. An "inverted-U" relationship signifies that corruption will increase to an extent, and then declines. This theory is currently postulated by current literature that states that the effectiveness of a democratic government at fighting corruption depends on the quick ability to build effective judicial and legislative institutions. [1] The second criterion is also not satisfied due to the fact that in a constitutional monarchy, the policy making processes are still deficient. For even in such a society, the monarchy would have to place their power into the representatives of the people that are chosen via elections. Apart from this, not all Kings and Queens are liberal in their outlook, and under a Constitutional Monarchy, their powers are severely limited. Hence, contrawise to the assertion that they are free to take any wise decision for their people, the King would be limited by the Constitution.3. RE: Democracy is IrrelevantThe opposition's case here is vague and empirically inaccurate. China is not a democracy. Nevertheless, I see no direct points of clash here except for the mere fact that all the MDGs can be achieved via a Constitutional Monarchy. This is in no way proof of the opposition's case. We are not arguing republicanism vs. monarchy, but democracy vs. dictatorship. Hence, the opposition still needs to affirm that undemocratic regimes can fulfill the many MDGs present here.Extensions1. RE: Crimes Eradicable Only in DemocracyThe opposition now strawmans my case. I never did once say that crimes are eradicable only in a democracy: in fact, my label for that argument was not about crime, but about justice in general, and my examples included organized crimes and the judiciary system. The opposition is correct to maintain that the selected countries have a high murder rate. But what the opposition lacks is a control group: it is a basic law of criminology that crimes do not happen for one select reasons, but for numerous numbers of reason. If we were to compare a similar democratic and non-democratic country together, we would find that crime rates in the democracy are lower than those of a non-democracy.This is present in the case of Belarus, an illiberal regime, and the Czech Republic, a liberal democratic regime. In 2013, Belarus experienced much more crime than the Czech Republic, even though they had similar GDP growth rates. This could be due partly to the fact that Belarus is an illiberal dictatorship, with corruption plaguing it's police force and it's judiciary system. Meanwhile, the Czech Republic experiences much less murders and much less corruption because of it's necessary democratic nature. [2,3,4] This is a valid observations of the high-quality judiciary hypothesis, for the two countries could be considered control groups due to the proximity of each country in respect of socioecnomics, and yet the judiciary for the democratic country (Czech Republic) is of a much higher quality than that of the Czech Republic. 2. RE: Rights in Democratic CountriesThe opposition is clearly joking: Cuba and China are not democracies. They are illiberal socialistic regimes. The opposition also clearly does not look at the empirical evidence that can be given. Smith (2007) published a paper that empirically finds that as the years of democracy increase, the rights for the country's populace also increases. Smith notes that Mali, a country which had democracy for only a year (when the paper was published) had its HR index increased by one even during the transitional period, noting that new democracies are often exemplifications of the wants of an previously oppressed people. [5] FIG I: Results for Democratic Duration and Empowerment Rights Scores Ultimately, the opposition's rebuttal fails on this empirical respect. 3. RE: Abstract Case for Democracy still standsThe opposition completely forgets that the UK is the exemplification of the representative government that this side has offered to defend. From the Global Democracy Ranking, the United Kingdom has a score of 80.1, a very high score. The opposition's example of a democracy, in this case, Pakistan, has a score of 37.1, significantly lower than UK's score. The United Kingdom has had a tradition of continuing the rule of law since the Glorious Revolution of 1689, which upheld the values of liberty and limited government. Voltaire notes, in his "Letters", that "the [English are the] only people upon earth who have been able to prescribe limits to the power of Kings by resisting them; and who by a series of struggles have at last established that wise Government where the Prince is all powerful to do good." If the opposition thinks that since England has a constitutional (non-executive) monarchy and it is a free society, it is a negation of this resolution, then the opposition is very mistakened, for England is a lliberal democracy with Her Majesty the Queen as the head of the state. [6,7] CONCLUSIONThe opposition's case lies riddled here, as the Grande Armee was riddled after its Russian Campaign. The opposition says "constitutional monarchy": good for him! The resolution is affirmed: constitutional monarchies and democratic regimes are compatible due to the separation of the head of state and head of government. The opposition refutes my case by misunderstanding it: I talked about decreases in organized crime and higher quality judiciary, not about crime as prescribed by the opposition. But even then, his arguments fail if we were to use two control variables. His criterion do not allow for a good debate on the issue of a social contract, and henceforth, must be rejected. The resolution is AFFIRMED!CITATIONS[1] http://www.un.org...[2] http://country-facts.findthedata.com...[3] http://www.transparency.org...[4] https://www.fidh.org...[5] http://www.academia.edu...[6] http://democracyranking.org...[7] http://gradstudentmadness.blogspot.com...[8] http://en.wikipedia.org...