America is a republic (polidity)
My definitions will be fair.
Good luck :)
you argue america was/is a democracy, I argue we are a politidty/republic like the old rome.
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.http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com... 
so majority rules.
a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
So a republic is a type of democracy, but you have to argue true democracy I argue republic. So I argue a modified democracy.
Plledge of allegence says "I pedge allegance to the flag of the united states of america, TO THE REBUBLIC"...
So a simple song to the flag is with me.
Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution states: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion . . .
Not only is our Constitution being ignored, the exact OPPOSITE is being encourage by John McCain and seconded by ALL those who voted for S. 2611 in the Senate. If you want to preserve the Constitutional Republic you should vote out of office . . . every single senator that voted for S. 2611. 
Lately, from politicians, radio-talk show hosts, and other commentators, we have heard that we should forget about democracy, because the U.S.A. is a republic. 
Beginning with the Constitution's adoption, America has been a Republic. But the dominant trend over the last two centuries has been to make it into a democracy as well, a representative democracy, also known as a democratic republic. True, the creation of the Constitution itself was partly a reaction against democracy. In states like Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts, the situation was getting way too democratic for the monied aristocracy that had, since the American Revolution, refused to share power with ordinary men. 
So the article above says a representative democracy is a republic. So the republic is a type of democracy, but you and I are arguing different types.
More important to our democracy-versus-republic debate, the U.S. Constitution left the question of who could vote in elections to each individual state. In most states only white men who owned a certain amount of property could vote. So, on the whole, the first federal government that met in 1789 was a republic with only a fig-leaf of democratic representation. This is what today's commentators mean when they say America is a republic, not a democracy. 
A democratic republic, as it says below, is still a republic, as I am arguing republic as a whole and you argue a secific type,but a democratic republic and a representative democracy are almost exactly same as a republic.
The United States of America (also called the United States, the U.S., the USA, America, and the States) is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district. 
this says it plain out.
The United States is, indeed, a republic, not a democracy. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf. The Framers of the Constitution were altogether fearful of pure democracy. Everything they read and studied taught them that pure democracies "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths" (Federalist No. 10). 
yeah so does that
SO right now we are a republic, but are slowly moving away. So as of now yes we are a republi, 300 years ago yes we where a republc, in 100 years who knows.
Also benjamin franklin:
"sir what have you given us" - some lady
"a republic mam, if you can keep it" - benjamn franklin.
I refer to the video now.
I'm going to start out here with a major framing issue for the round (This will be the major premise I stress continuously as how you should frame your ballot) that the concept of a republic (in the pure Roman sense as my opponent likes to defend) and a Democracy (say we go with my opponents definition) ARE INSEPARABLE and thus I only have to prove that Democracy (or the foundations of a Democracy) uphold the habits that are Republican in nature. Even if my opponent agrees here that we are, as he puts it, a "modified democracy" that only cedes the point that we built on a foundation of democracy where power ultimately rests in the hands of the people.
Now here are my definitions and arguments.
Contention 1: Definitions -
I will not contest the validity of my opponents definitions per their content because I have won with their introduction to the debate. You'll notice that the similarities between the two, "government by the people", "exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system", and "supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote" and if you look at the quotes given, but not their origin, I promise you that the common layperson could not tell the difference between the two. This is to prove a point though, that for our government to be a republic we have to start with Democracy and thus chose the indicative path for exercising that power.
My Opponent will surely try to call foul and claim that I must defend a "pure democracy" but I will pre-emptively that response in the definitions portion because it is how we frame the rest of the debate.
A. This debate was solicited as Democracy vs. A Republic and so I shouldn't be forced to debate the side of pure democracy when that was neither part of the debate nor was it defined. I posited a clear reason why there are elements of both but also how we are a basis in Democracy.
B. That argument is null and void when you introduce definitions that back my response as legitimate.
C. We even have elements of pure democracy like ballot, tax, bond, local election, state constitution, and special measures that all are voted on directly by the public. I'll back this up with a quote from my opponent's speech in which he mentions that in a Democracy we would make decisions "through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums", and while I know he isn't old enough to vote, remember that the people do directly vote on measures, referendums and bonds and do in fact engage in town halls and decide major political decisions through caucuses (which by their very definition are purely democratic).
Lastly here I would like to provide a contextual definition of democracy that is in reference to the founding of America. The quote is from Alexis de Tocqueville (Who I shouldn't even have to list qualifications for) who was a famous French Political Scientist, One of the first American Historians and dare I say more qualified to talk about the true meaning of democracy than a dictionary. He writes...
"The emigrants who colonized the shores of America in the beginning of the seventeenth century somehow separated the democratic principle from all the principles that it had to contend with in the old communities of Europe, and transplanted it alone to the New World. It has there been able to spread in perfect freedom and peaceably to determine the character of the laws by influencing the manners of the country. . It appears to me beyond a doubt that, sooner or later, we shall arrive, like the Americans, at an almost complete equality of condition." 
Contention 2 - America the "Republic" in Name Only
Just because the framers of the constitution wanted to avoid a rule by the mob and called their new government a Republic does not mean my opponent wins. His analysis forgets that the power of our officials and of the document that gave power similar to those of a Republic came from the people. Simply put, under the burdens produced by both sides, I only have to prove that our form of government comes originally from the people and thus no matter how we govern now, was ruled initially by the people. Here I will provide some clarifying evidence to show we truly reside at the whim of the people from Hamilton Albert Long's book "The American Ideal of 1776: the Twelve Basic American Principals", he writes that...
"Next, in 1787-1788, the United States Constitution was framed by the Federal Convention for the people’s consideration and then ratified by the people of the several States through a Ratifying Convention in each State specially chosen by them for this sole purpose. Thereafter the other States gradually followed in general the Massachusetts pattern of Constitution-making in adoption of genuine Constitutions; but there was a delay of a number of years in this regard as to some of them, several decades as to a few." 
Similarly, Long clarifies many people's mislabeling of Republics, including a refutation of our founding father's discussion of our country as a Republic. A mistake I believe my opponent has also fallen for. He writes,
"It is noteworthy here that the above discussion, though brief, is sufficient to indicate the reasons why the label "Republic" has been misapplied in other countries to other and different forms of government throughout history. It has been greatly misunderstood and widely misused--for example as long ago as the time of Plato, when he wrote his celebrated volume, The Republic; in which he did not discuss anything governmental even remotely resembling--having essential characteristics of--a genuine Republic. Frequent reference is to be found, in the writings of the period of the framing of the Constitution for instance, to "the ancient republics," but in any such connection the term was used loosely--by way of contrast to a monarchy or to a Direct Democracy--often using the term in the sense merely of a system of Rule-by-Law featuring Representative government; as indicated, for example, by John Adams in his "Thoughts on Government" and by Madison in The Federalist numbers 10 and 39." 
Contention 3 - We Are Not Rome...
...and the basis for my opponent's winning argument that we are a traditional Republic framed in those traditions is what loses him the round. If we are, as my opponent likes to stress, a modified DEMOCRACY, or grossly overstated, a republic, our policymaking system would be hugely different. Take for example Rome during its time as a republic as characterized by Roger Dunkle, a Professor of Classics at Brooklyn College in New York.
"During the republic, the senate, although it could not make laws, was the dominant force in Roman politics; its decrees virtually had the force of law and strongly influenced legislation. The senate was not an elected body." 
As you can see they had neither the power to make laws and were not in fact elected proving that OUR POWER TO CHOSE REPRESENATATIVES THROUGH DIRECT ELECTIONS is in fact something only granted in a democracy.
Contention 4 - Conclusion
In conclusion I will leave you with a few key distinctions you should carry with you while continuing to read this debate.
1. This is not a debate about direct democracy - while there are instances and branches off of the form of government that involve direct democracy, my opponent cannot hold me to that strict interpretation without definition or reason why it is topical under the resolution we are debating. Even my opponent's definitions support this claim.
2. Do your own fact checking - I want all of you reading these debates to read the sources and to only trust those with a qualified source like books or professors and not simply wikipedia.
 - http://xroads.virginia.edu...
 - http://lexrex.com...
 - http://depthome.brooklyn.cuny.edu...
No we do not, America didn't start as a democracy, my federalist papers proved this.
Our Founders did everything possible to avoid democracy in the new nation they were creating. You will not find the word democracy in the declaration of Independence or in the Constitution of the United States of America or in the constitutions of any of the fifty states. Our Founders new very well the dangers of democracy's tyranny of the majority over the minority. They deliberately established a republic to constrain the excesses of democracy. 
we where never a democracy.
Sorry you do not have to defend 'pure democracy' but you have to argue the generic version. Majority rule etc.
"We even have elements of pure democracy like ballot, tax, bond, local election, state constitution, and special measures that all are voted on directly by the public. "
The video I provided last round refuted this. Also as I said America is a republic, a republic is a type of democracy. So it will have a few of the same aspects.
Also your quote is blatantly false. Democracy is majority rule, and America is not. In a jury you need a unanimous vote. Also George bush won with 49%, Lincoln with 40% etc. That is well known, look it up if you disagree with me.
"Just because the framers of the constitution wanted to avoid a rule by the mob and called their new government a Republic does not mean my opponent wins."
It doesn't mean I win but it proves my it was meant to be argument.
"His analysis forgets that the power of our officials and of the document that gave power similar to those of a Republic came from the people."
Yes a republic can be by the people.
The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.
So a republic is a group of PEOPLE electing a smaller group of people. So it is by the people through the electorate.
Also to a response to your second quote, whoever that is is misguided. If we are meant to be a democracy why doesn't the consitution say it. It says the word republic. Further more your source says it indicates a representative Goverment. That's what a republic is.
A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place 
So you just added and helped my argument.
Also a refutation from the we are not rome.
Your source doesn't say the time period.
They did not make laws but had similar powers to the senate now (minus religeon)
Religion and the Roman Senate
The Senate assumed to themselves exclusively, the guardianship of the public religion; so that no new god could be introduced, nor altar erected, nor the Sybiline books consulted without their order. 
Finances and the Roman Senate
They had the direction of the treasury, and distributed the public money at pleasure. They appointed the salary or allowance to their generals and officers, and provisions and clothing to the armies. 
Just like ours as they are the ones that pass budgets.
I will just say the main things instead of c/p it. all from my 3 source.
appointing diplomats and other things.
had to deal with crime and punishment.
ours don't do this always. They pass laws on what is allowed and the judiciary branch does a well. So kinda like ours.
So they do not have the distinctive power as ours but they have similar roles. Also they have 100 members, according to my 3 source, just like ours.
Rome was founded as an aristocratically lead nation in the hills of Italy. At some point, they turned into a republic, where citizens were represented by their Senate. 
These leaders, much like the ancient Roman founders of the Republic, tried to create a government that was fair. They paid much more attention to givng power to the people, to stopping tyranny, and almost none to making themselves powerful -- they were, without a doubt, great men and human beings. 
the roman one is the first description, the second america. It says that they share the republic values.
"As you can see they had neither the power to make laws and were not in fact elected proving that OUR POWER TO CHOSE REPRESENATATIVES THROUGH DIRECT ELECTIONS is in fact something only granted in a democracy."
A direct primary is defined as a vote cast in a ballot. Look at 5 source.
Do you have a source how it is only offered in a democracy. Also republic is a modified democracy and shares some things, voting, usually majority rules (sometimes differs) etc.
Also a republic offers a direct voting system:
In contemporary usage, the term democracy refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or representative. 
Also lets look at the electoral collage:
it represents a republic not a democracy as stated in my 7 source.
Also the founding fathers hated direct popular vote and democracy (the 2 go together by definition)
Also a rebuttal to the founding fathers are for democracy (false):
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." Thomas Jefferson
Thanks 7 source. This disproves your idea that the founding fathers are pro democracy.
rebuttals for conclusion
yeah who would expect that:
yes my definitions and my comment said you argue majority rules. I said "so majority rules" you have argued differently technically breaking a rule.
My sources are factual as yours do not say who wrote them. Also my sources this time are pristine. Also wikipedia is a good source. Imabench won a debate on that.
vote pro as i have refuted my opponents arguments and have presented facts. And I had more sources. I have proven that we are a republic, and my opponents case really doesn't negate that. My video above also proves my point.
I refer to my video.
--out of room--
Let's get something very clear here, my opponent concedes the only point I made explicitly clear at the beginning of my speech (you'll remember I called this the framework for how you evaluate the round) that if I prove only that the foundations for our government come from the basis of majority rule (Which my opponent concedes is all I need to defend in order to win) then we are founded in Democracy. Let's recap a few reasons why I have still unconditionally won this round.
1. Direct voting on bonds, referendums and ballot measures. My opponent argues that in fact this was refuted by his video but that is not an argument, I did not consent to debate the wisdom of some random video and as such no argument was imputed as to why the video is a good refutation. I ask the judges to only regard written references and arguments to refute this. His only other claim is that Bush won with 49% and Lincoln with 40% but forgets that in Bush's case it was electoral votes (a system voted ad approved for directly by the people to show the will of the majority) and in Lincoln's case because there were three major candidates meaning 40% was the majority. If there are 30%, 30% and 40% votes, 40 is the majority.
2. My opponent admits this foundation of Democracy. "a republic is a type of democracy" is a fitting quote because by his own definition and admission a Republic is merely an offshoot of Democracy proving that if we did not have a Democracy then we surely could not have a Republic.
3. My contextual definition of Democracy. I believe that my quote from Alexis de Tocqueville, who was one of America's first historians and a political science (do not let my opponents stand-offish nature towards my sources diswade you from its validity) is the only definition that actually discusses the American government and it's place as a Democracy. In brief recap from the quote you'll see that Tocqueville describes how the immigrants and eventual founders of America were distinct in ensuring that principals of a Democracy came first
Remember my opponents words exactly:
"Sorry you do not have to defend 'pure democracy' but you have to argue the generic version. Majority rule etc."
I will extend my First Contention here -
Again I will go back to my qualified source, Alexis de Tocqueville, to prove that America should be labeled a Democracy foremost and cite more from later in his book "Democracy in America" written in 1835. Tocqueville explains that America is at its roots a Democracy, laden with Democratic ideals of majority rule. Here are a few selections in which he writes;
"MANY important observations suggest themselves upon the social condition of the Anglo-Americans; but there is one that takes precedence of all the rest. The social condition of the Americans is eminently democratic; this was its character at the foundation of the colonies, and it is still more strongly marked at the present day." 
And further he explains that the foundation of America from it's settlement was the basis of overthrowing colonial power and thus replacing it with power that originates from the majority of those under citizenship. He writes;
"At this period society was shaken to its center. The people, in whose name the struggle had taken place, conceived the desire of exercising the authority that it had acquired; its democratic tendencies were awakened; and having thrown off the yoke of the mother country, it aspired to independence of every kind. The influence of individuals gradually ceased to be felt, and custom and law united to produce the same result." 
This proves that the underlying theme of American governmental establishment was a theme of Democracy.
I will now extend my second contention separately here -
America is only a Democracy in name only. The extension of this contention will directly refute my opponents use of the contention
This is the argument that proves we are foremost a Democracy. Bear with me as I explain the logic behind it all. If I can prove that the ratification of the constitution and thus the source of the power for the American government was only possible through means and powers present under a Democracy then I win. Here is the proof; my source, Author and Historian Hamilton Albert Long wrote in his book that the only reason we give validity to the constitution is because THE MAJORTY (AKA AMJORITY WILL) wanted it. Viola people, a democratic choice. The key quote from my last speech proves this;
"...the United States Constitution was framed by the Federal Convention for the people’s consideration and then ratified by the people..."
Similarly the founders were only loosely using the term Republic. Long explains that their use of the word does not mean that we are conclusively a Republic when he writes;
"the label "Republic" has been misapplied in other countries to other and different forms of government throughout history. It has been greatly misunderstood and widely misused"
"Frequent reference is to be found, in the writings of the period of the framing of the Constitution for instance, to "the ancient republics," but in any such connection the term was used loosely"
As judges, you cannot vote for the wishes of the founding fathers that America be called a Republic if the reality changed and the foundation of American power (which means the enabling power of American government is Democracy.) and thus we are only a Republic in name only.
In conclusion I would like to re-clarify some things that my opponent misinterpreted.
-I have not cheated. I followed your definition and clarification for how this debate will go. I have never once claimed that America was founded on anything less than a Democracy.
-My sources are qualified. I listed the qualifications of all the sources before their quotes. I won't re-list them here but note that my opponent does not explain where he got his material, mine are from historians and professors that are obviously more qualified than random URL's with no explanation. Yes the direct links in my URLs do not explain where they are from but if you trace the origins of the webpage you can see who maintains the source and writes on it. Similarly two of mine are from books, the URLs are simply links to the chapters I used. If anything my opponent should be punished for not using qualified sources.
-Wikipedia is not a source. Simply because one of the hundreds of users on this website won a debate using wikipedia does not mean it is a practice that should be repeated. I treat this debate like any research paper I have to present to peers, in academia you do not site a website that is maintained by users, you must use work from books and published professors to give it credit.
-I have no idea what are my opponents words versus those of his citations, do not assume that because there is a footnote reference that those are all the words of the authors. In my case, reference the the italicized and clearly quoted information as reference to my original authors.
-The issue of Roman senate is a non-starter because there are no comparisons between it and the US and is not the topic for this debate.
-The number of sources does not qualify who has the best sources, do not reward my opponent for throwing out numerous unqualified URLs on the page. I am choosing to stick to my original, qualified sources.
My opponent has only refuted my argument but there is no semblance of a reason extended why we are actually a Republic. If anything, my opponent has only muddied the gray area between a representative Democracy and his Republic (Which is lacking definitional support extended). Simply put, you cannot do the work for him and assume why his generic explanation of Republic's versus Democracies actually applies to America using the definitions he provided.
You cannot vote for him unless you can look me in the face and tell me that things get done without consent of the majority.
 - http://xroads.virginia.edu...
"His only other claim is that Bush won with 49%"
That is a fact right there I disprove your argument, al gore had 50%, nader 1%, bush 49%. Bush didn't have a majority. SO boom you lose.
"Lincoln with 40%"
yep he had a majortiy, but still my case above ruins you.
"Bush's case it was electoral votes"
That's my argument, democracies rely on popular vote. Even you can't deny that. SO theres proof we are a republic. Also if the electoral college elects by will of majority then why did bush win with 49%? I am for the EC but come one really? Your argument contradicts the facts, that you and i agreed upon, bush won bu 49% vs gores 50%. So that disproves majority rule.
" is a fitting quote because by his own definition and admission a Republic is merely an offshoot of Democracy proving that if we did not have a Democracy then we surely could not have a Republic. "
So? We wouldn't have computers if franklin hadn't discovered electricity. SO? That doesn't disprove anything. Can I not argue 2 different types of things? People argue PC vs mac all the time, and those are both computers.
"Democracy came first"
SO? the dinosaur came first and we are not considered so. Monarchy came first we are not one. My opponen't case is flawed. Also you say america was made democracy, but i provided quotes from our founding fathers twice disproving this. America was not meant to be a democracy, as the video stated the word democracy does't appear in the consitution.
Also your next quotes:
Notice it says social not political condition. Point debunked.
"This proves that the underlying theme of American governmental establishment was a theme of Democracy."
answer this then:
1. then why did benjiman franklin say we where a democracy?
2. why did my othr quotes from founding fathers say they hated democracy?
3. Why is your quote against all of my quotes directly from the source.
" America is only a Democracy in name only."
That is a good point, you just said we are in name only therefore we must not be a democracy. You just agreed with me.
his ratified by the people point:
a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitledto vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly
or indirectly by them.
so it was ratified by the people, and it still falls in my definiton.
His missaplied argument
lol. This quote means nothing as he doesn't say america is one of them.
Also his reference is frequent
that is directed towards ancient societys.
Judges you can vote on the founding fathers as they are the beginning. Why would they mean democracy if they said republic over and over.
"I have not cheated. I followed your definition and clarification for how this debate will go. I have never once claimed that America was founded on anything less than a Democracy. "
you didn't cheat technically but argued differently against majority rule until now.
" -My sources are qualified. "
never said they weren;t I was refuting your argument against mine. Also mine are written my qualified people.
Wikipedia was used for definitions and clarifications, not as a argument source.
A roman comparison is good because i proved they where a republic, you conceded that, and I proved america is like them.
why am I refuting a conclusion lol.
I have proven my previous arguments so I will do a few things:
C1: america is a republic, not a democracy, there is a difference.
A Republic is representative government ruled by law (the Constitution). A democracy is direct government ruled by the majority (mob rule). A Republic recognizes the inalienable rights of individuals while democracies are only concerned with group wants or needs (the public good). 
(foot notes mean c/p'd from that source)
Article IV Section 4, of the Constitution "guarantees to every state in this union a Republican form of government".... Conversely, the word Democracy is not mentioned even once in the Constitution. Madison warned us of the dangers of democracies with these words,
"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths...",http://www.cpjustice.org...;
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.
A 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. 
 - http://www.whodiscoveredit.com...
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|