Americais is a polity, not a democracy

Republic vs. OligarchyThe notion that the investors, shareholders and consumers somehow make consent to the political actions of a company is quite absurd. The only people that really have any say over the business are the wealthiest owners and investors. More than that while we are all indeed consumers not everyone is a consumer in the same business, because of this the business could obviously not represent the best wishes of the people. The ignorance of consumerism ultimately defeats your argument. Also, in some places it is simply not an option not to use a business, because there is no other competing business alternative, especially in smaller towns. The idea that corporate businessmen lobbies are doing things in favor of the people is quite ridiculous, because ultimately the lobby for what's best for the company, not the consumers. Sure the 150 companies are ruled by shareholders, but once again isn't this a pretty blatant conflict of interest? This is only for publicly owned companies as well, private companies can lobby for whatever they want with no accountability. One example of this is the Koch Brothers [1] [2] Koch industries is a private company, uninfluenced by shareholders and holds such a huge market that it'd be realistically impossibly to boycott, generating over 100 billion dollars of revenue each year.CVR EnergyJust because the shareholders approved it to line their pockets by getting literally millions upon millions of dollars in tax breaks, doesn't mean they represented the interest of Kansans in their lobbying. In fact it's a clear assault on what the people of Kansas want. But according to you as long as the shareholders approve it it must be the will of the people. This however couldn't be further from the truth, this assertion is a hollow shell.Sopa/Pipa/CispaThis is just empirical evidence of business and lobbyist influencing and nothing more. The people more often than not don't even know what is happening in congress, let alone understand what it does. The politicians as I've proved before are entirely corrupt, and under a republic it is their job to represent our interest as citizens. Not the interest of a single business.Also, he cites I fall under the logical fallacy of appeal to probability. We determine a lot of things with probability in our world. Probability can be useful to find out the likelihood of future events, probability is not a fallacy in itself. I may have exaggerated when I said guarantee, but nonetheless empirical evidence and probability will have influence.NRAMy opponent seems to miss what I said. The Huffington post article does say "68 pct of Americans have favorable view of NRA." Cool whatever, but they are citing a poll performed by Ipsos that the newspaper cited. Follow the link here to his source [3] [http://www.huffingtonpost.com...] scroll down about halfway down the first half of the article is a link to the poll they're getting the statistics from, it says [4] (Link to poll: http://www.ipsos-na.com...) If you follow the source that the Huffington post used, it does not cite the 68% statistic anywhere. If you don't believe me you're more than welcome to check, but as it is not there you should find that statistic immaterial and irrelevant in this debate. Since the 68% statistic appears to be made up by the Huffington post, your NRA argument fails because with out this statistic the membership of the NRA is insignificant.Electoral CollegeIt's not just that it's undemocratic, it's also not in line with being a constitutional republic. The people are supposed to elect the representatives in our country. If that is not the way it works I'd love to be informed on how it is supposed to. But either way my point was the because the elections are unfair they ultimately do not represent a republic. The Oligarchy ultimately decides whose votes count and whose do not. Also, states can not drop the voting age because the twenty sixth amendment of the US constitution [5] The EC is just another tool of the Oligarchy used to influence "free elections"Two PartyAnd Two parties doesn't stifle political action!? The two party system has mucked up congress for the last decade or more. Also his 60 party example is a Reductio Ad Ridiculum, This is typically done by demonstrating the argument's logic in an extremely absurd way. I never said we needed 60 parties, I just said the two party system limits a republic.Also it is not a red herring argument as it applies to the debate at hand. As I have stated and will continue to advocate, the two party system limits the choices for who can be elected. This is advantageous to the government and the wealthy (who just happen to often be the same) because it allows them to control the candidates for office. If the wealthy can run the parties then they can ultimately choose who's political career gets advanced.AccountabilityHe answers my questions in a circular manner. He says the politicians held the politicians accountable, but this is false! Nobody was punished for their wrongful actions while in office, and Eric Holder and the AG's office faced no penalties for their terrible mismanaging of the situation. You fail to prove there have been consequences for their actions. The most effective way to hold our politicians accountable is to make them accountable to the voters and not the firms they represent. Until this is done there is effectively a wealthy Oligarchy in power.LibertiesFirst, we do not have the right to overthrow the government. We can try (and fail) to replace the corrupt corporatism politicians, but we can not stage a revolution or overthrow the government. This is called treason and is highly illegal. "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." [6]Additionally, this is hardly irrelevant, the US PATRIOT ACT and subsequently NDAA are severely eroding liberties in the US. Then you say "Well that's just in the interest of security", and I showed how that very argument was the same argument used by previous Oligarchies. Also, Germany had a constitution but it did not protect them from this type of legislation. I have provided a clear link in US Policy to the policy of a former Oligarchy.Conclusion:While my opponent makes a wonderful case for what America ultimately should be, he doesn't prove that it is this way. Ultimately the people have very little control, as do our representatives. The people in control are ultimately a few corporate elite. The politicians and the businessman are all wealthy and are all ultimately interchangeable, as we find many of our politicians are wealth CEO's and bankers. The wealthy are the oligarchy, the rule by a few.-The Businesses elect government- Very few people control wealth, lobbyist represent only the interest of a single business- People don't have the right to treason, as it is a crime- In the US, the government controls you.Lastly I do not have a BOP, I am the con, I can't be tied to an assumed BOP either.He has to prove the resolution true, I have to refute that assertion. I already answered this in round one.Nevertheless, the burden of proof was not met, Vote con.[1] http://www.theprovocation.net...[2] http://www.iwatchnews.org...[3] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[4] http://www.ipsos-na.com...[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...