A modernized form of democracy should be the goal of every society

.. interesting "My opponent (who has the burden of proof). .. ." --> Not necessarily. In LD debate, there are no 'burdens'. The affirmative must prove the resolution categorically true and the negative must prove the resolution categorically false. "Now opponent attempts to define a modernized democracy not by what it is, but rather by how society's views democracy. Which for the American citizen may different may differ completely from the definition of a chinese citizen" --> My opponent offers no definition to prove mine wrong. Furthermore, my definition stands. --> Societies today (modern societies) have a modern view of democracy. They view democracy today as what most people view a 'democratic republic' (representative democracy) --> China is not a democracy, therefore would not have a modern view of democracy (China is a socialist republic) "My opponent then attempts but in my opinion fails to make a very false assumption that people tend to vote for people who makes them happy" --> If you are happy that the person you voted for won, then the process of voting inherently makes you happy. Voting for somebody that will put forth legislation that will make your life easier also inherently increases your happiness, thus this argument can stand "Since my opponent has made this debate into a moral obligation rather than a form of government. .. Utopian Government" --> I stand by my observation of the moral obligation. The resolution states 'should'. For example, we should rid the world of starvation, but that action is not possible and does not work. Every Society should strive for a modernized democracy, but that action is not possible and does not work --> A 'Utopian' government sounds nice, however it is (a) impossible and (b) has never been tried out "The main reason why every society. .. should not strive for a democracy is simply because there are thousands of different issues" --> One more reason I state a modernized form of democracy (democratic republic) versus a direct democracy. We must elect leaders to deal with all of those issues --> Thousands of issues would exist any any society, whether it be a Utopian government, a communist government, a democratic government, etc. Democracy best deals with those issues because the will of the people is kept in mind. "Since there are many issues, few people running, and a diverse group in society it is almost impossible that a democratic republic better voices society's will than that of other governments" --> Once again, there will be many issues for any society, democratic or not --> There are at least more than one person running, which give the people the choice to express who makes them the most happiest, versus, say, a military dictatorship --> All societies are 'diverse groups'. Even if they were not diverse, say uniform, it does mean that the government which rules over them is doing a good job. They could, for instance, be uniformly bad [His case] He does not present one. He only attacks mine, which I defended. Therefore, I cannot compare how democracy would be better than his form of government. he has failed to met his burden of proving the resolution categorically false via another form of government [Conclusion] My opponent puts forth no society that would be better under a non-democratic form of government, and no governmental system that is better to that of a democratic republic (except some made up one) Thank you