Instigator / Pro
14
1417
rating
158
debates
32.59%
won
Topic
#2541

On Balance Voting Should be Compulsory in US

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
3
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
1

After 2 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...

seldiora
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
10
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
won
Description

The punishment for not voting is merely a small fine. Voters may submit a ballot with "null vote" to make it clear they are unwilling to vote any of the candidates.

I was prepared to vote on this debate, but found the results of the debate untenable to render a vote.
Pro R1 says [presume the meaning is in the US, as the source indicates American voting] that a vote has never been registered by a majority of Americans. That is not true: Not all Americans are eligible to vote; there is an age restriction that limits the voting population, and pro does not account for this. Neither does the cited source, Wiki, which says of itself that it is an "unreliable source." Further, Pro offers an abstention option, which takes any certainty out of voter increase, effectively negating Pro's argument.
Con R1 effectively waives, which was not offered by Pro as an acceptable argument round, and is, therefore, effectively a forfeit.
Pro R2 offers one argument already set in R1: "It is evident that compulsory voting laws can and will increase voting turnout," but there is no further evidence shown beyond that offered in R1, In effect, this amounts to a waived round.
Con R2: Con effectively demonstrates the futility of an abstention option by cost and fear factor. This is the only valid argument Con makes in the debate.
Pro R3: The argument made that the fear factor does mean votes are foced, but then argues that inaccurate voting may eliminate compulsory voting. Neither argument makes sense.
Con R3: Forfeit, effectively the second occurrence, negating Con from consideration.
Pro R4: Extend argument [not possible being the last round.
Con R4: Declares victory

Con effectively argued a successful R2, but the forfeits cost Con the vote. Pro did not overwhelm Con's rebuttals, but made faulty proofs of arguments. I cannot vote even vote to offer a tie, because there was no tie. Con would have won without throwing two rounds away. Both participants failed

-->
@seldiora

I'll do the teenagers and social media later on, that will be a very research-demanding one but I am passionately Con on the topic.

-->
@RationalMadman

- Smoking Should be Criminalized (pro)
- Gun Control Should be Tightened in the US (con)
- On Balance Social Media has positive effect on Teenage users' mental health (pro)
- Gay Marriage Should be Legalized (pro)
- Table Tennis is the most enjoyable Asian sport (pro)
- We Should Colonize Mars by 2100 (pro)
- On Balance Charter Schools are Beneficial to Quality of Education (pro)
- Abortion Should be Banned With Exception of Maternal Life (con)

-->
@seldiora

Name them

-->
@RationalMadman

no. I don't get it. If you FF'd in any of my truly dangerous topics, you would be at a severe disadvantage.

-->
@seldiora

Do you see what I do with these moves of intentional forfeiture? I never let my enemy control the situation.

-->
@seldiora

To be fair, I did say I could be wrong, and I was. This is why we make tentative claims.

-->
@Theweakeredge

in democracy voting should be compulsory (http://www.wacfl.org/joomlaweb/topics/116-lincoln-douglas-debate-topicsLincoln-Douglas)

-->
@Kbub530

Ummm, no I don't think so. I haven't checked it in a while (working on congress uil) but I don't think it was this. Could be wrong.

This is the high school LD topic, isn’t it?