You write, "To bring in the idea that Napoleon wanted to conquer 'in the steps of Alexander' is nothing but pure conjecture."
Hardly conjecture at all. Did not Napoleon admire and study Alexander the Great? Everything I've read on the subject states that he did.
Napoleon didn't hide what he considered his ultimate goal -his "destiny." He exclaimed when speaking of Sir Sidney Smith, "That man made me miss my destiny." It was Smith who commanded at the Siege of Acre that stopped Napoleon's army from going on to Constantinople and the Indies. The purpose, of course, was to beat the English by capturing from them the riches of their Indian colonies. Of course, after suffering his first defeat, N. announced his "victory" when returning to Cairo. Seems like that story has stuck inside some circles.
Just try and think about it for a moment, clearly N. felt he had a "destiny" and was stopped from attaining it. The French history picks up on N.'s report back to the Directory that he had succeed in bombarding Acre to rubble and destroyed a Turkish army. But, why then did N. conduct a costly siege of Acre for more than 60 days?! Take the time to read the details of the Siege of Acre; it was one of the deadliest, sustained, vicious episodes of warfare. But, of course, since there was no glory for N. in this loss, the event is ignored and belittled. It was N.'s defeat at Acre -on the same path that Alexander took- that stopped him from his destiny.
There is direct evidence of what N. thought his destiny was: Egypt-Acre-Constantinople-India; which looks a lot like he was marching in the steps of Alexander. I recall reading N. quotes concerning Alexander which helps point this out but don't have the book at hand.
You write, "Attempting to prove a negative is a logical fallacy.."
It is not trying to "prove a negative" when requesting information that would support the idea the N. was something other than a dictator. The English pointed to the Magna Carta as clear evidence of a means of restraint on their king. These are always some elements that when present and respected by a government that will show that a government is not a dictatorship. George III was constrained by Parliamentary laws, he did not and could not exercise absolute rule. Francis II/I was constrained and had to play politics within his administration. I would really like to know what the rules of constraint that N. was forced to observe. Are there any examples of the French senate (or whatever it was at the time) overruling N. and his then respecting their authority? This should not be a hard request; if it's there, it's there, If not, then not.
There is no need to consult history about what was and wasn't considered a dictator; a dictator exercises absolute rule without constraint. Some rulers were dictators, some weren't. Each case is individual and usually it is pretty obvious even on a casual level.
There is plenty of clear evidence that N. was indeed a dictator: no freedom of the press, extra-judicial executions (Duke of Enghien), having the unilateral power to declare war, having the power to dethrone other monarchs (Spain, Naples, etc), it goes on and on. By itself, N.'s power to individually declare war -1812 Russia- is proof that he held at that time absolute dictatorial powers. There is no higher power than that to declare war.
I'm happy to reconsider on calling N. an absolute ruler without constraint -a dictator- but to effect a change there needs to be evidence to the contrary. I'm by no means set in my opinion. Like I've said, outside of France he certainly was one, inside of France?