On Balance Voting Should be Compulsory in US
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...
- 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
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.
In 2016, the US elections cost an estimated $6.5bn. BBC Reality Check breaks down who paid for it and looks at how much 2020 might cost.
2020* (projected)$10,838,227,655
2018$5,725,183,133
2016*$6,511,181,587
Con's choice to effectively skip three out of four rounds, distracted from the arguments and effectively rendered the debate a foregone conclusion.
Pro's Arguments:
- Less than 50% of people vote so it is not true representative democracy
- Compulsory laws will increase voter turnout
- Candidates are appealing to most likely voters, not the majorities' best interest
- Sometimes best governing practices require doing things you might resent, i.e. paying taxes
- True objectors may conscientiously abstain to protect their first amendment rights
Con's Arguments:
- Elections are costly
- Forcing people to vote creates resentment
- Non voting =/= disinterest
- Some people have good reason for not voting (anxiety, jobs)
- People will vote for candidates for flimsy or poor reasons (anger, fear)
Pro says "As we move to more advanced electric machines, blank or empty votes will be easier to count, refuting most of Con's arguments." That is not true. This at best addresses only one of Con's arguments which has to do with cost. In response, Con says "I find that nothing Pro said rebuked what I said and that I have successfully poked all holes in Pro's case that are open." This is also not true. He did not respond to Pro's arguments at all.
Neither one of these debaters came close to addressing the other's arguments. In the end, we're forced to compare the weight of each debater's claims. While Con says elections are costly and foster resentment, Pro negated that preemptively by pointing out Congress often does things citizens might resent or find costly (i.e. paying taxes). Further Pro did at least respond to one of Con's points (cost) whereas all of Pro's were left open.
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
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.
- 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)
Name them
no. I don't get it. If you FF'd in any of my truly dangerous topics, you would be at a severe disadvantage.
Do you see what I do with these moves of intentional forfeiture? I never let my enemy control the situation.
To be fair, I did say I could be wrong, and I was. This is why we make tentative claims.
in democracy voting should be compulsory (http://www.wacfl.org/joomlaweb/topics/116-lincoln-douglas-debate-topicsLincoln-Douglas)
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?