America is a republic (polidity)

First I did not mean to say America is a Democracy in name only. I was supposed to be like my earlier contention "republic in name only". An honest mistake but of course those reading the debate can see that the theme of what I was saying was extending my second contention.To begin, I would like to point out that a lot of his analysis relies on rhetorical and ad hominem remarks that may sound strong due to their ethos, do not resolve the issue at hand. He only chooses to select individual quotes from my speech and throw one liners and rhetorical questions at them without forming a coherent explanation why they are wrong or even extending his own claim.I am going to reference my earlier introduction before moving on. Remember I gave you the judges an easy way to vote in this round. Remember that I told you that the only thing I needed to prove was that we have a basis of majority rule and that that power gives all other power to the government to win. Guess what. He did not answer the three big issues I presented before him in my introduction. Here they are again;1. We directly vote on everything. Whether it is new bond proposals, tax measures, local office holdings, national office holdings and ballot measures. Simply put, my opponent has not refuted that the majority (AKA the people that vote for something and get it to pass) can pass something. This goes counter-juxtaposed to the argument then that if anything is to be done in America, it must have the approval of the majority; otherwise we would never have a consensus on things and every small little group would have their way. The Bush claim was his only real response but he forgets that every system has its flaws and since the legal battles between the two candidates were too long to recap here we have to say that it was messy and thus not a clear cut response here considering there have been dozens of elections that clearly represent a majority wanting something. Similarly the electoral college argument is a non-starter. I argued that the powers of the electoral college were only granted by the people and thus have the backing of the majority and thus are legitimate. If the majority did not want them, they would be removed, just like the popular consensus against slavery, poll taxes and discrimination helped get those policies removed. 2. My opponent does not refute the foundation of a Republic in a Democracy. This debate has become like two ships passing in the night because there is no consensus, so let me clear the water. My opponent is arguing that a Republic is a type of Democracy and thus they can be compared yet I was only challenged to prove, as my opponent puts it, a generic form of democracy. Thus, my claim is that you cannot compare a Republic to a Democracy because a Republic could not exist without one. This is where the logic of my voting framework applies, if we had to be founded in a Democracy for a Republic to exist I win that America is at its bare roots, a Democracy. My opponents only response;"So? We wouldn't have computers if Franklin hadn't discovered electricity. SO? That doesn't disprove anything."Well it does actually. If electricity wasn't discovered we would not have computers. If we did not found America on a Democracy then we would not have what you call a Republic. Let's set something straight, just because we use the word Republic does not mean we are one or that we have the principals of one. The key issue to remember is that even if we have a Republic now, we could not get there without using the Democratic elements of majority rule (as proven later by showing exactly how the constitution got its powers).3. My contextual definition. Remember that a contextual definition is always better than a dictionary because it takes into account all the historical backing for an era and explains the motives of the people involved (in this case the founders of America). The qualifications of my Tocqueville quote went undisputed and so did the content so you assume the validity that the colonial founders specifically instituted Democratic principals into the fabric of how we established power in America, and as you'll remember, if the root of the power was a Democracy (AKA the people or the majority gave that power to the government) then I have won that we are a Democracy at heart. I don't have room to extend the quotes so I will refer you to my earlier speeches.I will now extend my definitions argument here (it will contain the claim that America was a Democracy that led to, if we can even call it that, a Republic)Because the debate about the representation portions of Democracy have been done all I will do is lay before you my opponents definition of Democracy from his first speech. It is so clearly CON that I don't even have to do analysis to win;"government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system."The only other key argument I want to make clear is that if we were founded on Democratic and Democracy type ideals then we are logically a Democracy. My opponent has only half-heatedly assaulted the logic here and has really only resorted to stand-offish style tactics that throw meaningless examples at a problem he cannot answer.The only other contention I will focus on is my contention about America being a Republic in name only. Yes my opponent cites the constitution's historic rant on the dangers of unparalleled power of the people but my argument is not that we are a pure democracy like the constitution warns us about. The founding fathers were worried about mob rule but I have proven above the people in a Democracy can chose to have a representative Democracy and that even if the constitution made us a Republic, THE ONLY REASON THE CONSTITUTION HAS ANY CREDIBILITY IS BECASUE THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE DECIDED IT TO BE SO, thus only gaining power through a system of a Democracy.There really was no comparison or refutation of any of the analysis of my quote from Historian and political scientist Hamilton Albert Long's book. Mr. Long proved a couple of things when I quoted him. First is that the founding fathers argument isn't a round winner because the term Republic was used loosely and that the foundation of our Republic could only happen if we were a Democracy first. Second, there was a misconcensus when the term actually applied skewing hsitrocial prosepecitve. I don't have room to extend my quotes I will refer you to last speech as usual.ConclusionA few arguments from my past conclusion I would like to extend here the my opponent didn't really answer or explain that lose him the round.-He hasn't explained who his sources are. It shouldn't be up to the judges to determine what the qualifications of the authors are and that they need to be listed in the debate so I can refute them as well. -Wikipedia is still not a source. It is not even a source for clarification. I'm not even going to extend all my arguments here because they weren't answered. Simply put, Wikipedia has no credible backing in academia and thus has no basis in a debate that is meant to be scholarly in nature.-He cannot produce more evidence in the last rebuttal. This is not fair to the debaters and the judges because there is not enough time to refute the validity of that evidence. It does not allow the debate to become about issues presented in earlier speeches and thus is always changing. I ask that you remain focused on the evidence I have defended throughout the round.Remember that logically a Republic founded from Democracy is still Democratic at its roots and that the remaining powers of the majority (IE people only win elections through majorities) proves that we have majority rule and thus vote CON.Let's also get something right, William Gilbert discovered electricity. He coined the term. [1]Source:[1] - http://www.whodiscoveredit.com...