Aristocracy

IntroductionI thank jamccartney for his rebuttals. I find them to be extremely short, but as he has other obligations, I understand. I will now refute his statements, defend my argument, and conclude this debate. As my opponent has not provided many rebuttals, I cannot write too much. Therefore, this entry will be short as well. Counter-Rebuttals I would like to analyze the definition of Aristocracy my opponent provided. the highest social class in some countries : the people who have special titles (such as duke and duchess ), who typically own land, and who traditionally have more money and power than the other people in a society This definition is accurate, but it does not help my opponent very much. There are certain key words that slightly change the meaning: The words "typically" and "traditionally" are not synonyms for "always." This definition does notshow that an Aristocracy is always run by the wealthy. "Looking at this definition, one can see that in an Aristocracy, people do not pick who leads this. It is not a democracy. It appears that my opponent does not entirely know what an Aristocracy is. If he knew, he would not have asked about why people would choose people that are not worthy. It is quite unfortunate that this has occurred, for it means a loss for my opponent. He seems to have failed to research what an Aristocracy actually is."Perhaps I used the wrong wording. I am fully aware of what an Aristocracy is - more than my opponent, I believe - and I know the leaders are not chosen. I simply used the wrong wording in my statements. "An Aristocracy and a Geniocracy are very different. In an Aristocracy, wealthy land owners have power, whether they are intelligent or not. In a Geniocracy, intelligent people have power, whether they are wealthy or not. I do not see why my opponent is making an impossible conparison."My opponent has not done sufficient research. If he had researched more extensively than he has done, he would have seen that Geniocracy and Meritocracy are variants of Aristocracy. Does my opponent not understand what the word 'variant' means? I shall define it for him. different in some way from others of the same kindAs I look through this debate, I notice that a major disagreement between my opponent and I is definitions. I accept his definitions, but I have analyzed them and interpreted them correctly. I urge my opponent to do more extensive research. Regarding Democracy, my opponent says this: "It's certainly a better choice than allowing the wealthy, lazy people leading. I would prefer to have a say in my government. In an Aristocracy, the only way to make a change is to rebel, which is what happened in Russia in 1917." In the second round, I quickly talked about Ancient Greece. It had direct democracy. Their democracy began to fall, they did not quite enjoy the system of monarchy, so they decided to decreed an Aristocracy. It worked. In history, there are plenty of examples of failures and successes. Russia's aristocratic government failed, but Greece's did not. Aristocracy has variants, some of which are excellent forms of government. Democracy has certain risks Aristocracy does not have. I am not an Aristocrat and I never will be, but I have reasons - good reasons, for that matter - to support Aristocracy. I thank jamccartney for choosing to debate this topic with me. It has been enjoyable. I believe he has misunderstood me, but I must admit that some of his arguments are splendid. The only way, though, how I will be convinced that Aristocracy is a negative thing is that my opponent provides miraculous counter-rebuttals, I lose this debate, and all the evidence against it is placed before me. Works Cited1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...