":""Many arguments rehashed over and over"" quoting Bletch. Yes, I could not have said it better.  But, 99% of what I have seen are arguments based on your original research.  Adam's latest argument,  , is 100% original research.  The obligation is on you, to cite credible verifiable sources to back up your assertion.  No original research allowed.  The twelve citations provided yesterday were laughably weak.   Bear in mind that you are attempting to prove a negative.  It is easy to prove Cuba is not your favorite type of ideal democracy, but that is not sufficient.  You actually need to prove, with credible citations, that Cuba is not any type of democracy...even a flawed democracy is a type of democracy.  [Haiti] I was browsing around  Wikipedia today and easily found more than twenty types and variants of democratic governmental systems.  You have a tall task to prove that Cuba is not any type of democracy.  There are also dozens of citations, many quite credible, stating that Cuba is a type of democracy, so even if you succeed in your task of proving a negative (unlikely), even then, a real and genuine point of view exists, far from being a 'flat earth theory', and cannot fairly be ignored.     

 "