Americais is a polity, not a democracy
Democracy - "In a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person" So the people, not representatives, make the laws.
I have heard people argue democracy is what america is, this is false. I will argue differently. We are a polity.
If you accept this debate you must be able to finish this by Friday.
Rules: no trolling/semantics
1st round acceptance
 Federalist papers No.15
I accept arguing on the grounds that America is neither a polity nor a democracy, but an oligarchy.
I look forward to debating this issue with you. Also, do not accuse me of trolling because this is about the only way to make the debate fair.
It was fairly implied you where to argue we where democracy......... Well the show must go on!
C1: Republic and Oligarchy – stark differences
Before we can argue whether or not America is either of these two political ideologies, we must ask what are the differences of the two.
An oligarchy is defined as rule of a few, usually related to family ties or political parties. "These people could be distinguished by royalty, wealth, family ties, education, corporate, or military control. Such states are often controlled by a few prominent families who pass their influence from one generation to the next."
A republic, however, is run by elected officials (on oligarchy there are no elected officials, and if there are they are generally powerless). These elected officials are legislating to help the people, and are bonded by constitutional bounds. "A constitutional republic is a state in which the head of state and other officials are representatives of the people and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over all of its citizens. Because the head of the state is elected, it is a republic and not a monarchy. ... The fact that a constitution exists that limits the government's power makes the state constitutional. That the head(s) of state and other officials are chosen by election, rather than inheriting their positions, and that their decisions are subject to judicial review makes the state a republic."
In a oligarchy however, they have no checks and balances or elections like the ones republics like ours have. Here are some examples that readers can understand the point: "Some other examples include the former Soviet Union where only members of the Communist Party were allowed to vote or hold office; the French First Republic government under the Directory; and the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (only the nobility could vote)."
Note the section of vote. It shows only nobles could vote. This implies oligarchy's are very restrictive of voting powers. In america, though, we are not. As the federalist papers state: "The true distinction between these forms was also adverted to on a former occasion. It is, that in a democracy, the people meet and exercise the government in person; in a republic, they assemble and administer it by their representatives and agents." Note this states in a republic people come to vote for representatives, much like we do today. "The United States has a federal government, with elected officials at the federal (national), state and local levels."
So the run down:
Oligarchy - Run by a few non elected officials generally run by political parties (i.e. USSR with communism) or families. Generally dont have a consitution, or follow one.
Republic - In this political system, people come to vote and elect their officials which are bound by constitution.
As we can see the two systems are far from similar, and the US lies under the republic category.
C2: A republic
When the founders created our country, we (and still can/do) hold our government accountable for our actions, and elect them to offices. But what I am looking into is the consitutional aspect of the debate. "The Constitution guides American society in law and political culture."
Note the bolded word. This word means it forms guidelines of things our representatives must go through. They have rules, are boxed in. Now to bring upon a quote already mentioned:
"A constitutional republic is a state in which the head of state and other officials are representatives of the people and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over all of its citizens. Because the head of the state is elected, it is a republic and not a monarchy"
As we can see this aspect of America is indeed a republic, something oligarchies can not do (as they want maximum power, not rules).
Now if this was 1840 I might agree with you, then only white men who owned land where able to vote. Suffrage is a word meaning the right to vote. Now in oligarchies, there is no right to vote. As states above, most oligharchies had no elections (only the leaders nominated themselves) or the elections where lowerd from the few down one step: the nobles. So in an oligarchy, there is little to no free voting. But in the US: "Today, partially due to the Twenty-sixth Amendment, U.S. citizens have almost universal suffrage from the age of 18, regardless of race, gender, or wealth, and both Houses of Congress are directly elected."
Its a farily basic concept. Further, the point of law is another point here. A constitution is the law of the land, the order of the government. As aristotle argued: "But the government which seems to him to best assure the reign of the law is the republic" Its a basic concept, the constitution and elections mean that the law is kept, unlike in oligarchy.
Now this is fairly easy to argue. A monarchy never exists, he always has his nobles, advisors, generals, armies. It is always aligarchy when looking into monarchy. So any monarch that takes freedoms is an oligarch that takes freedoms. And oligarchies and monarchies always take away freedoms. A perfect example: USSR.
USSR was based in a one party rule, the communists. In the USSR, priviate ownership was actually non existant, and the government owned it all. (no property rights). In the economy, the priviate industry was almost non existant. (government controlled, no freedom). Many people where killed by famines, as stalin got mad at them stole food or taxed them. Others where sent to work camps. An average of 1000 executions per day, no trial.  No elections to an extent.
Now in america there is ownership. The priviate industry dominates the economy. Most people are not starving because the government is taking their food or taxing it so high no one can buy it. And no one is sent to work camps. Now my opponent will likley argue we have capial punishment here too, but to a lesser extent. But we have the due process clause. In oligarchy, you have no right to trial. In the US, you do. "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
As we can see, the US and oligarchies are not the same.
My opponent also perverted the meaning of this debate. "America is a polity, not a democracy" = resolution, its implied he argues democracy. As he is arguing dfferent, this either lies on him trying to change the resolution or troll. One breaks the rules auto FF, the other means he never argued the resolution. I have argued in this we are a republic, hence I still fit the resolution. My opponent has not, so his different topic of argunmentation means he loses.
 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
 - Federalist, No.14
 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
 - http://www.econlib.org...
 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
 - http://www.law.cornell.edu...
Implications or not as the Con I don't have to actually argue in favor of democracy resolution. You argue in favor of what the resolution states and I simply argue the resolution you support is untrue, illogical or wrong.
R1: Republic and Oligarchy
While my definition of an Oligarchy is similar, I would like to provide it nonetheless. According to dictionary.com an Oligarchy is "a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few."
Moving on to the meat of the argument
"an oligarchy there are no elected officials, and if there are they are generally powerless"
Welcome to America, land of the "free" and home of the corporate elite who can buy lobbyist. In fact according to as USA today article 25% of all Super Pac money came from only 5 donors, that's 1 in every 4 dollars.  It's time to face the music, Americas political system now and for a long time has been bought by the elite. Corporate lobbyist openly push through legislation every day. We are run by an Oligarchy and that Oligarchy is the wealthy in America. One needs look no further when Recording Industry Artist of America lobbyist tried to railroad the Stop Online Piracy Act/Protect IP Act through congress.  This is one of the rare instances that we were able to stop them, but many times we aren't. Even then a new piece of legislation called CISPA which is similar to SOPA is being railroaded again.  The stand your ground laws that dangerously and arbitrarily put human lives at risk because of a "reasonable fear" are do to NRA lobbying.  And while I believe in self defense, I think it's legally dangerous just because someone is afraid of the way a person look or is walking that they may shoot them. Is it really surprising that Obama wouldn't prosecute the fraudulent big banks when he was funded by banks like JP Morgan, Chase, Goldman Sachs, the Lehman Brothers and Citigroup? Did you also know that Pharma has two lobbyist per congressperson? I won't go into it anymore, but suffice to say that the corporate instance in D.C. are making are "representatives" powerless. Also, this is the testimony of a former lobbyist
"I used to be a lobbyist...The end product of this system is lawmaking that's less about making good public policy and more about appeasing the hands that feed — as a result, powerful corporations with deep pockets gain unparalleled access to members of Congress, and they help set the agenda."
Lastly he makes the association that Oligarchy's are very restrictive of voting powers. But America is restrictive of voting powers in two ways.
1.) We still have an electoral college system that can undermine the will of the people and was formed because they thought the people were to stupid to know what they want. This once again reinforces the idea that a select few get to choose the leadership
2.) Even though we can vote for whomever we want, the political system allows for few choices, in fact only two. This is the way corporate America likes it because whomever they can pump the most money in to can win, and their are few competitors to take their money lined votes from them. The corporate elite in America will always repress serious third parties in the interest of moving their agenda.
The run down: America has the ultimate Oligarchy because for years it has been paraded as a shining example of a democracy (or republic), and they got the rest of the world to believe it, all the while supporting corporate interest to fund their re-elections.
R2: on "A republic"
You can hold your government accountable if you can gain enough support to vote out the politicians that are corrupt. However, I wish you good luck with your grassroots democracy against the corporate elite. Also, when you're looking at the constitution you're saying what it is supposed to be. However, while I agree that America is supposed and meant to be a republic it ultimately IS an Oligarchy.
I addressed this in my R1
America no longer has the once loved freedoms that we used to have. The US PATRIOT ACT takes away the right from unwarranted search and seizure and violates the fourth amendment. It allows for Secret searches and expands the government's ability to search private property without notice to the owner. (Section 213)  Also under NDAA signed by beloved Barack Obama people can be held indefinitely without any legal rights or recourse by the government, this isn't fiction.  The article points out "n the dead of night, government operatives descend upon a home, taking a man from his bed, and spiriting him away to a military base that doesn’t technically exist. He isn’t given access to a lawyer, a trial by his peers, or the right to habeas corpus. That sounds like something that could take place in China, North Korea, Iran, or any number of other countries with a history of human rights transgressions. What is scary, though, is that with the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), this could now legally and easily happen right here on American soil.." There are plenty more examples, but ultimately over the past decade our right have slowly been eroding as the American people complacently accept the Oligarchy that is in power.
My opponent lastly not that I perverted the meaning of the debate. This assertion is vacuous at best. The resolution can not limit the con side on what I can debate. I don't have to affirm or support or argue on the resolution itself. I merely have to negate and assert that the pro's assertion (the resolution) is false, logically faulty, or at best unclear. He tries to shift the burden of proof, but that's not how debate works. Also, he claims I'm abusive by not debating his resolution for him (why would I?) and then goes ahead and argues it anyway.
Clearly my stance that is wholly uniform with standard conduct, was argued nevertheless. You can't say it's abusive or unfair and then debate against it anyway, that openly contradicts your abusiveness argument. I'd almost be pressed to say to take conduct points from you for misconstruing my job in this debate and making me take the time to answer that argument.
I will argue this, I dont care that we are arguing this anymore.
Dc1: Republic and the oligarchy
So my opponent agrees with my argument, up until the election part. (run by corporations) But this argumentation is inherently flawed. So looking into your source, we see the majority of these donors actually run investment companies.  His argumentation is based on these corporations run everything. Now how is my investment companies analysis important? 51.6 million households own investment stocks. 90.2 billion. 44% of US households are investors. Most Americans invest in stocks. Now, again how is this important? If anything, this ends the majority of my opponents arguments. "In short, it isn't Barclays (a larger manager of index funds), Capital Group (which runs the American Group of funds) and FMR (the holding company for the Fidelity Funds) that controls the world – you do, via holdings in mutual funds, both through retirement funds and in brokerage accounts. This is no secret cabal; this is the capital markets at work, allowing everyone a way to save for college, a new home and retirement."
So its you that controls the field. My opponent then argues SOPA was supported by big companies, sure but bad example as that is a scenario where 4 million google petition signers where worth more then the MPAA or other entities.  This refutes his premise, as this shows the mad populous can control the government over lobbyists.
He then cites CISPA. This will likely be shot down too, as the ACLU is up and arms against it. There are almost 1 million petitioners against it (800,000).  It will likely be shot down because of this too. And Obama has also threatene to veto it if it passes. 
Further, my opponent adds the NRA. There are 4.3 million members in the NRA that will likely support those gun laws the NRA pushes, and many other Americans would likely support that legislation too.  68% of America support the NRA.  NRA was a bad example. Also my opponent talks about gun control, lets not even get into that ;)
My opponent then cites the big banks, my analysis is above about investments on this. Its the people in control then.
All of my opponents analysis is flawed, as the biggest donners to congress are in fact investment companies, which is still in your control.  Further this is refuted as if people dont like SOPA they will petition, and politicians would rather have public support for votes to win a second, third, fourth term.
My opponent then lists two points.
1) My opponent then argues the EC is bad for america, yet forgets the EC creates a consensus and ALMOST ALWAYS (I can only think of once, 2000) shows the will of a majority. And even the 2000 election does not prove oligarchy, as this few was only less by less then 1,000,000 votes. So the EC does not strip rights, if anything it gives rights. "The electoral college is a bulwark of states' rights yet, perhaps paradoxically, it also tends to foster the cohesiveness of the entire nation. It makes it difficult for more populous urban states, or states with larger populations, like New York, Florida, and California, to gain an unfair advantage over less urban and populous states like North Dakota, Wyoming, and Montana. But neither does it give these less populous states an unfair advantage over the more populous states." So if anything it is MORE FAIR and more like the land of the free.
2) My opponent has failed to show the two party system hurts a republic as there is still representation. Further people that believe in third party values join the two party system. Example Ron Paul. The two party system does not equal oligarchy.
My opponents claims are without a strong vote as the corporations, we cannot hold government accountable. This is false. The US constitution helps us hold them accountable, as do other laws and regulations. Most public servants are bound by these laws, get sued or arrested, or lose their job in an election (the only one you refute, but miss the other ways). "Constitution, or statute, can empower a legislative body to hold their own members, the government, and government bodies to account." This always, regardless of lobbying, makes them accountable. And recall elections too. Much of the time Exon Mobil wont waste time on a small election. For federal powers we rarely see these elections, they are impeached or they step down due to media attention. Hey, look at this media made congressmen wiener step down. Guess who controls the media? Without you, they are nothing, same with the corporations. You can always therefore link accountability with the people.
My opponent extend his analysis, I will do the same.
My opponent cites two bills that he claims infringe liberty and refute the premise, yet this fails for a few reasons.
1) Threats to the state override the constitution due to public safety concerns as well as the governments concerns. Its a states interest deal. Further the people arrested like this are sometimes let out. Further some liberties are expanding in the same area, water boarding is now illegal.  "ITA researches, monitors, and analyzes all source intelligence on terrorist activities and threats directed against Americans and U.S. diplomatic and consular personnel and facilities overseas." As the state thinks people are in danger, its the states interest to intervene. And guess what? States interests trump the constitution when it is strong enough.
2) 42% of america is for the patriot act, 34% against. Rest undecided.  Now a poll on international problems (NDAA bill and patriot act fit in that category) The run down is like this: Fair amount - 43%, Great deal 11%.  That's already over 50%, no need to continue. So popular will still overrides this, so its still by the people for the people.
My opponents arguments are highly flawed and have been refuted, america is a republic as our electors are elected. Republic definition - "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."
As our vote is what actually what is comes down too (our choices choose who is in power) we are a republic. VOTE CON.
P.S. Even if my opponent wins the analysis on corporations, he still loses the debate as the constitution protects their right to donate via amendment one, so it is again bound by law. Also a republic has many governmental branches, oligharcys dont. 
@ voters: USSR = oligarchy, so is the US like the USSR?
My opponent makes a good argument that the companies wouldn't exist without the people, therefore the corporations do support the idea of a republic because the corporations are representative of the people. However this couldn't be further from the truth. While people do invest in bank and big business and have an interest in them, they don't always represent the will of the people. One empirical example is a company called CVR energy in Kansas, recently bought by Carl Ichan who's net worth is estimated at 14 billion dollars. CVR energy lobbied the Kansas legislature to consider SB 317 and HB 2501. This particular piece of legislation was back by CVR Energy and the Kansas Chamber of Commerce. SB 317 and HB 2501would redefine real and personal property in taxation. This would allow CVR energy to avoid paying taxes , potentially increasing the cost of of some city's property taxes in Kansas as much as 70%. It could also seriously cut funds for education . And while many families are dependent on CVR energy or use their business, that doesn't necessarily mean they support the corporate Agenda. More than this most companies obfuscate where they spend their money lobbying because often times people would not longer support the companies. They depend on the ignorance of the American consumer to not only increase their profit margin, but to support the candidates that will serve their interest.
It ultimately did get sidelined yes. But it's a clear example that
1.) The super rich have a serious influence on the political system, just that they could get anyone to support it shows the effects of the oligarchy
2.) Just because we delayed it doesn't mean they won't try again and again. I obviously can't predict the future. But if CISPA fails I guarantee there will be some similar piece of legislation in the next two years. When the political system fails, the Lobbyist will try again or find another way.
He talks about the NRA and how "68% of America support the NRA." When you actually look at the Ipsos poll cited in the huff post article , it doesn't mention that 68% number anywhere. While I'm not sure if that statistic exists or not, I don't see it from the original Ipsos poll. Even then, he talks about the 4.3 million members in the NRA that support these laws but he doesn't mention the other 313.6 million people that live in the US. 4.3 million members supporting a political lobbying organization doesn't give it legitimacy.
First, it's undemocratic because many states are left out of the process. Why would a republican candidate need to appeal specifically to states like Texas, Kansas, or many other Midwest states when those votes will pretty much always be red. Also the fact that most states are winner take all totally defies the idea of democracy when the delegates to the EC are not given out proportionally. For example, in some states, even if candidate A gets 49% of the vote in a state and candidate B gets 51% of the vote, Candidate B will get all the delegates for the state. It's not only undemocratic, it is a clear example of an oligarchy when the elite politicians say who's votes count and who's don't. There are 48 States that have a winner-takes-all rule for the Electoral College.  It also makes a third party nigh impossible. But this is what corporations want, it makes their lives easier. When somebody could lose by half a million votes and still be considered president t, it's obvious something is not right. Also, it's happened three times in our history. I'd contend though even having one president who was not elected take office is a clear example of neither a democracy or a republic. It happened in 1876, 1888, and 2000.
Two Party Option
Also, I showed it hurt the republic by giving people only two options, and two radical options at that. It creates a false Dichotomy without acknowledging the existence and undermining the legitimacy of any other candidate. The two party system also clearly lead to stagnation, I mean, look how much progress congress has been able to make. For the love of god we haven't even passed a federal budget since 2009, is that not proof enough that they can't accomplish anything because they're so ideologically opposed.
This argument while based in what politicians should be doing, is not based in reality. Sure the government is supposed to hold their own members accountable, but they never do. Who held the Federal reserve accountable in 2008 when the banks collapsed? No one. Who held Eric Holder and the department of Justice accountable for giving guns to Drug cartels? No one. Sure they play their political games and hold there "investigations". But the politicians never pay the price, and it seems as if it's always the citizens picking up the price tag. Also, Lobbyist are usually in more than one pocket. So if the congressmen that is in charge of the ethics commission is controlled by a lobbyist, how often do you think he'd launch an investigation in to another congressmen who is controlled by the same lobbyist? Government accountability these days is laughable at best. Also, when was the last time a recall election or impeachment worked on a federal official.
1.) Threats to the state only under oligarchies override the "constitution" when public safety concerns arise. These are the exact same arguments used by Hitler. Some of you may think I'm being extreme but here is a direct quote
Hindenburg: "This completely overrides the Constitution. It puts you in charge."
Hitler: "These are troubled times."
Only under Oligarchies (which Hitler with his advisers were) do we forfeit personal liberties and governmental framework for security. The law allowed the police to arrest people into "protective custody", which required no charge or trial. (indefinite detention in the US PATRIOT ACT) and In 1942, the Reichstag passed a law giving Hitler power of life and death over every citizen. (This happened in the killing of US Citizen Anwar al-Awlaki without any due process).
Whenever we choose security over the rights and liberties of individuals, we become oligarchic, not a republic.
2.) Just because people believe it's okay for personal liberty to be eroded doesn't mean the still have liberty. The liberty argument is in relation to your assertion that Oligarchies don't have liberty. America doesn't have those liberties, regardless if the people support the degradation of their own rights.
The state of the nation and the nature of our political system ultimately is run by the top 1%. I don't want to sound like an occupy wall street protester but there is an Oligarchy. That Oligarchy are the rich who unfairly influence the laws to meet their needs, while ignoring the rest of us. The rich who are the only ones who can run for office because it is stupidly expensive. It's the Rich who can go to the elite schools that are the most highly respected among big business and politics. We may vote for our representatives, but do we vote because a corporate interest is telling us to? Even then, we must ponder do these politicians truly have power or are they just pawns in a larger game. Sincerely question do we actually get to choose who is in power? The answer is ultimately no.
Also, as my opponent correctly notes, Vote Con.
@ voters: Just because the USSR is an oligarchy, doesn't mean the US has to be just like it to also be an Oligarchy.
Republic vs oligarchy
My opponents main claim is investors have no power (or) they do not represent the will of the people. But this fails for many reasons, which I outlined last round. The consumers AND investors hold the influence, therefore, well, everyone holds the influence. If the consumer is bad at the banks or store, they will just discontinue business with them and move to other stores. If they have no shareholders, they are fairly worthless. and as argued last round, already 44% of america has influence based on mutual funds, most of america owns stocks, and over 99% of the people are consumers in some way shape or form. So based on the study that 150 companies rule the world fail as those 150 are, when getting a good look at it, controlled by YOU.
Then he brings forth the next company, CVR energy. I would like to also note empiracel evidence shareholders have a huge influence on the company. The shareholders where actually where the decision happened, and they approved.  So yes, they own the company, not the CEO. Shareholders = 44% of america as stated last round, that is NOT rule by a few.
My opponents full analysis fails this round as I have proven all of his examples last round are driven by popular support, as is this one influenced by shareholders.
No ones doubting the super rich has an influence, if they did not it would be quite unfair, but the point is the majority (the average people) if they where truly opposed to a bill they can stop it. This does a few things:
- The people override the companies
- If they where truly against it, they would stop it, as they are active/idle they are still run by the people hence still have the opportunity and we are theretofore a republic.
My opponent on his point two falls under a fallacy, as he is arguing something that is likely to happen will happen.  (appeal to probability) and again under the base rate fallacy. He has failed to look at prior possibilities and fails to prove that a likely event leads to the actual one. His point two are formal fallacies hence are dis proven.
My opponent claims the 68% number never was said, yes it was: "68 pct of Americans have favorable view of NRA" I encourage all voters to look into the source if needed. My opponent then argues the members point is unfavorable. This argument was coupled with the 68% poll, it is not invalid.
My opponent cites undemocratic, but as shown already in round two we are a republic based on the federalist paper analysis. It proved that we are a republic based on the stark differences, and we fit under a republic. My opponent ONLY argument is some states need to be in control. But this in itself is not "democratic", as this means only a few areas will actually be in control therefore in and of itself undermines the system. "A purely popular vote would encourage some states (particularly one-party states) to change their voting requirements to increase that state’s influence nationwide. For example, a state could drop the voting age to 17 or 16, because more people voting would allow that state affect the national vote, not just the electoral vote."
This means a few minority states will be at an advantage, so this means the EC actually makes it more of a republic.
Also as proved last round the EC helps the minorities, but still gives the majority the most power. And in a republic a majority is not needed, only a large minority. (unilike oligarchy as this is like 15 people and the army rule).
This makes no sense! Having two political parties are not something to be frowned upon, as it does not hurt the election/republuc system. Having two parties also does not prove anything, as it fails to prove that few people run the country. As this is the case, his argunment is a red herring.
Further having 3 or more main parties would stiffle political action, and be detrimental to the society as society wants change, progress, nothing, or backwards, and tradition etc. If you ahev 60 parties, all with different views, then none of these ideas can really surface. So still, the two party system is a republican like system.
My opponents argunments fail on facts. Who held the 2008 problem to the feds? Austrian and conservative politicians and economicsts. Who held eric holder responsible for the guns? All of the republican party and informed independanrs. If anything, my opponents argunemnts are FALSE. And he brings up lobbying... again... this was refuted this round and last round, he is bringing up debunked points. The people run the lobbies.
1.) My opponent uses hitler. This is irrelevant, as this is constitutional law, but the basis of the interest must be great enough to trouble the people. Also this analogy fails as we have the right to overthrow government, in germany they did not, hence this analogy fails (and again the right to overthrow government mkes us a republic.) Ok hack to states interests. It is basic cosntitutional law that a strong states interests and a strong socetal interest can overide the constitution.
My opponent makes a security statemnt with no support or logic, just claims security. This makes no sense as oligarchy is rule by a few, we can even assume this argunment itself (for both of us) is a red herring, and mainly the first contention is the debate, but whatever :P As it is a conduct violation to introduce new agunments last round, it is impossible to argue this indefensible statement.
2.) My opponent just says it is stoll wrong. This fails as according to you above popular support needs to control everything (or most things). Preserving liberty is a minority opinion hence would be oligarchic. So you contradicted yourself. Further, states interest as well as societies wants/needs/well being/security/interests can trump liberty. And it has, hence we are still a republic.
Oligarchy - a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few. 
- People elect government
- People control wealth and lobbyists
- People have the right to overthrow government
- In the US, the people control everything
The US is not an oligarchy. All of my opponents argunments lie on false data, fallacies, contradictions, or the logic was attacked by me. All of his points have been thorughly refuted, and in the main core of this debate (C1) he ignored much of my case on investors and consumers controlling everything. And those investors and consumers are, well, most everyone. My opponent has not fufilled his BOP (it was assumed even, and he still never met it) Vote Pro.
Republic vs. Oligarchy
The 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   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.
Just 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.
This 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.
My 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  [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  (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.
It'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  The EC is just another tool of the Oligarchy used to influence "free elections"
And 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.
He 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.
First, 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." 
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.
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.
|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:||5||1|