A modern form of democracy should be the goal of every society.

Ill start with my opponent's case. (REFUTE) His observation 1) "Therefore the affirmative burden is to prove that ALL societies want a democracy. " My opponent completely misconstrues the resolution. The resolution is not that all societies want a democracy, only that a democracy SHOULD be the GOAL of all societies. "Value: Justice, Value Criterion: Societal Autonomy" First off: This value is not inherent to the resolution. Yes, we are talking about governments and society, but what they should do, not what is just for them to do. Just look at my definition of "should"; it's moral moral obligation, not what is just. Second: My opponent's value criteria is contradictory to his value. Let's take WWII as our example. The Allies completely destroyed the government of Austria and Germany, thus destroying societal autonomy. Yet their actions were JUST. Their actions saved people's lives. Thus my opponent's value structure is contradictory. Moving on to my opponent's contention "Cultural Relativism.....Therefore, due to culture, not every society wants to achieve democracy." a) My opponent once again misconstrues the resolution. The resolution states it SHOULD be the goal, not that it IS the goal of every society. b) Muslim nations do not feel happier under dictators, let us remember that the minority is in control of these dictators and that the majority often suffers under them. c) Even if one dictator makes the people happy, that does not mean that that government should be the goal of any society. Remember that in a dictatorship, the people have no say in their government so if that ruler dies and is replaced by a tyrant, then the people would be miserable. The only way to ensure people's happiness is by vesting the supreme power of government in them. (DEFENSE) "First, should implies necessity not morality. The word OUGHT implies morality over necessity." No, should implies an obligation, which is a moral or social requirement. I find this interesting that my opponent demands a link for this definition yet has no link for either his definition or case. (I got these definitions from the freeonlinedictionary) This definition impacts his Value, and first contention, making neither of them inherent to the resolution. V- Morality "Well, you can now knock off his value since the resolution has no moral context (since should isn't ought)" Once again should expresses an obligation, which is a MORAL requirement. Thus morality is the inherent value. VC- Consent of the governed *"First, upholding the consent of the governed can be done through many ways, not just democracy. Ex: Saudi Arabia...if you don't buy that argument you can drop his VC totally because achieving the consent of the governed can fail no matter government is implicated. the British government (revolutionary) was a limited monarchy/parliamentary government. They did not protect the rights of the colonies and yet it was a form of limited democracy." a) The consent of the governed cannot be upheld fully if the people do not have a say in their government. People may look favorably on the dictators of Saudi Arabia now, but what happens when a tyrant takes power? The dictators may be looked favorably on, but the government itself is too flawed. b) He then brings up Great Britain. However, during the revolution, Britain had a monarch with considerable power and a Parliament. This is not a MODERN democracy. Additionally, just because something fails once does not mean it should not be the goal of society. True, democracy may have a flaw or two, but there is currently no system that surpasses it. C1 Defense) People must be able to elect their representatives to protect their rights. He says: "First, extend my British example from his VC.....Second, there are many governments today which are not democracies, and they have protected rights. E.g. Saudi Arabia." Ok, simply extend what I said earlier. Britain in the revolution is not a modern democracy and while the Saudi Arabian leaders may now protect rights, the government itself has no guarantee of doing so. He then says: "Third correlation does not imply causation. Just because democracies work now, doesn't mean that that will be the ultimate effect. In the future a new form of government may be theorized that protects the rights of it's people better then democracy." But we are talking in the present tense. Democracies do work now, my opponent even concedes that, so why should they not be the current goal of every society today if they are the current best form of government? In the future a new Utopian government may arise, but today we have democracy. Even if we are to try to achieve a uptopia, we should at the same time try to achieve democracy. Think of it this way. If you try to lose 30 lbs, at the same time you try to lose 20 lbs. Democracy is the best government we have today, and thus it is only logical that all societies should try to achieve it. My opponent has failed to refute my Value, Value Criterion, or contention, and therefore I urge you to affirm.