DebateVoter

Con did very well in this debate, and it was Con's conciseness that made it easy to see Pro's case refuted. Though Con was being slightly mean by saying "I stand here annihilating Pro in just 3 paragraphs-worth of debating" Con is correct, because in the three paragraphs Con made the case that nothing is real. Con simply had to point out that evolution could be false and the bible could be correct about things and demons and creationism could all be true and it would not show any realness in God so Con uses a K that nothing is real and this is left untouched by Pro. It is a silly argument, but I view this as a dropped K that successfully negates the resolution that God is real. If nothing is real, (untouched by Pro) then god is not real...I'm sold. Pro should make more relevant arguments and make them much much shorter for everyone to read. Con was cocky, but concise.

Arguments:

I feel Con wins the day here ultimately because Pro's idea of fining so many people is just outlandish and Con even says "You have failed to even state how much of a percent you want to take from people as a punishment for refusing to vote. What if that money that you take from them was their food money?" Pro was trying to tell everyone that democracy is all about civic duty and participating actively in government so as to preserve and protect the rights of the people, but Pro is telling me that people who'd rather choose to feed their family in the immediate outcome should then be fined for doing so?
Con's points on this were much more compelling, because unlike Pro's points about mandatory voting, Con took a forceful look at the real harms delivered by such a mandate and Pro seemed apathetic to it all and did not really respond to it Con's points in depth.

Con also makes a point that being able to not vote is part of true democratic elections and that forcing non-interested to people vote would yield votes based on less than reasonableness, and Pro makes a good response "You can botch the thing if you want or preferably there'd be an 'abstain' box to tick instead. Active abstaining is totally different" which would seem to satisfy Con's contention with the non willing/interested being forced to vote.

So now I imagine that I'm some single mom given the choice to go vote or keep my job and feed my family, even though there's this pretty little option to choose on the ballot, abstain, and even with that option I'm going to take the voting penalty and keep my job/feed my family, so really I've just been fined for choosing my family over my right to choose/not choose.

Meanwhile, as Con said to Pro "you spent much of your arguing as to why a democracy is good as opposed to why voting should be mandatory."
The discussion on dictatorship and democracy I felt was slightly irrelevant, though it seemed to me that neither debater was arguing for dictatorship and they both agreed with democracy.

Because Pro failed to compel me to mandate this to people, and I'm granting that Pro could not respond in the last round, arguments to Con for showing exactly why doing this could be harmful to people.

Sources:

Pro provided sources to show what makes a democracy and the strengths of democracy.
One issue I had with one of Pro's sources is that it explicitly said something quite opposite to what he was trying to indicate.
Pro's source directly said,
"In reality, however, democracy is slightly more problematic"
This makes me as the voter look at Pro's source and not consider it effective towards his argument.

Con on the other hand frequently quoted statistics from references that cited the US census bureau for their data, which seem reliable.
The data is precisely what Con stated it to be, and after checking those sources out, the data is corroborated and it was this piece of evidence, from the us census bureau that compelled me to vote Con because it showed just how many people would be hurt by this harm that Con proved was a detriment, and I was totally convinced by this substantially supportive data.

Since Con's sources were so much more effective than Pro's, sources to Con.

Conduct

Pro got a little snippy at the end and said "There is no way to deny it now Con, you dug your own grave on this one." which shows a little bit of intimidating aggression and then when Pro was supposed to just kindly waive the round he said "Unfair to bring so many new points in the last Round...
Sadly I can't rebuke as per debate structure."
This is both not true and a conduct violation in my view because Pro was instructed to waive the last round, however commented regarding new arguments which to me is not waiving the round at all, it's trying to attempt to sway the voters one last time so conduct point Con, as per the rules.