Americais is a polity, not a democracy

Implications or not as the Con I don't have to actually argue in favor of democracy resolution. You argue in favor of what the resolution states and I simply argue the resolution you support is untrue, illogical or wrong.R1: Republic and OligarchyWhile my definition of an Oligarchy is similar, I would like to provide it nonetheless. According to dictionary.com an Oligarchy is "a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few."Moving on to the meat of the argument "an oligarchy there are no elected officials, and if there are they are generally powerless"Welcome to America, land of the "free" and home of the corporate elite who can buy lobbyist. In fact according to as USA today article 25% of all Super Pac money came from only 5 donors, that's 1 in every 4 dollars. [1] It's time to face the music, Americas political system now and for a long time has been bought by the elite. Corporate lobbyist openly push through legislation every day. We are run by an Oligarchy and that Oligarchy is the wealthy in America. One needs look no further when Recording Industry Artist of America lobbyist tried to railroad the Stop Online Piracy Act/Protect IP Act through congress. [2] This is one of the rare instances that we were able to stop them, but many times we aren't. Even then a new piece of legislation called CISPA which is similar to SOPA is being railroaded again. [3] The stand your ground laws that dangerously and arbitrarily put human lives at risk because of a "reasonable fear" are do to NRA lobbying. [4] And while I believe in self defense, I think it's legally dangerous just because someone is afraid of the way a person look or is walking that they may shoot them. Is it really surprising that Obama wouldn't prosecute the fraudulent big banks when he was funded by banks like JP Morgan, Chase, Goldman Sachs, the Lehman Brothers and Citigroup? Did you also know that Pharma has two lobbyist per congressperson? I won't go into it anymore, but suffice to say that the corporate instance in D.C. are making are "representatives" powerless. Also, this is the testimony of a former lobbyist "I used to be a lobbyist...The end product of this system is lawmaking that's less about making good public policy and more about appeasing the hands that feed — as a result, powerful corporations with deep pockets gain unparalleled access to members of Congress, and they help set the agenda." Lastly he makes the association that Oligarchy's are very restrictive of voting powers. But America is restrictive of voting powers in two ways.1.) We still have an electoral college system that can undermine the will of the people and was formed because they thought the people were to stupid to know what they want. This once again reinforces the idea that a select few get to choose the leadership2.) Even though we can vote for whomever we want, the political system allows for few choices, in fact only two. This is the way corporate America likes it because whomever they can pump the most money in to can win, and their are few competitors to take their money lined votes from them. The corporate elite in America will always repress serious third parties in the interest of moving their agenda.The run down: America has the ultimate Oligarchy because for years it has been paraded as a shining example of a democracy (or republic), and they got the rest of the world to believe it, all the while supporting corporate interest to fund their re-elections.R2: on "A republic"You can hold your government accountable if you can gain enough support to vote out the politicians that are corrupt. However, I wish you good luck with your grassroots democracy against the corporate elite. Also, when you're looking at the constitution you're saying what it is supposed to be. However, while I agree that America is supposed and meant to be a republic it ultimately IS an Oligarchy.R3: ElectionsI addressed this in my R1R4: LibertiesAmerica no longer has the once loved freedoms that we used to have. The US PATRIOT ACT takes away the right from unwarranted search and seizure and violates the fourth amendment. It allows for Secret searches and expands the government's ability to search private property without notice to the owner. (Section 213) [6] Also under NDAA signed by beloved Barack Obama people can be held indefinitely without any legal rights or recourse by the government, this isn't fiction. [7] The article points out "n the dead of night, government operatives descend upon a home, taking a man from his bed, and spiriting him away to a military base that doesn’t technically exist. He isn’t given access to a lawyer, a trial by his peers, or the right to habeas corpus. That sounds like something that could take place in China, North Korea, Iran, or any number of other countries with a history of human rights transgressions. What is scary, though, is that with the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), this could now legally and easily happen right here on American soil.." There are plenty more examples, but ultimately over the past decade our right have slowly been eroding as the American people complacently accept the Oligarchy that is in power.My opponent lastly not that I perverted the meaning of the debate. This assertion is vacuous at best. The resolution can not limit the con side on what I can debate. I don't have to affirm or support or argue on the resolution itself. I merely have to negate and assert that the pro's assertion (the resolution) is false, logically faulty, or at best unclear. He tries to shift the burden of proof, but that's not how debate works. Also, he claims I'm abusive by not debating his resolution for him (why would I?) and then goes ahead and argues it anyway. Clearly my stance that is wholly uniform with standard conduct, was argued nevertheless. You can't say it's abusive or unfair and then debate against it anyway, that openly contradicts your abusiveness argument. I'd almost be pressed to say to take conduct points from you for misconstruing my job in this debate and making me take the time to answer that argument. [1] http://www.usatoday.com... [2] http://blogs.reuters.com... [3] http://www.republicreport.org...[4] http://mediamatters.org... [5] http://www.theverge.com... [6] http://www.aclu.org... [7] http://dailyuw.com...