The Instigator
ThinkBig
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
missbailey8
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Mandatory Voting

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
ThinkBig
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 7/10/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 547 times Debate No: 93577
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (1)

 

ThinkBig

Pro

Many thanks to missbailey8 for agreeing to debate this topic with me.

Full resolution: In a democracy, voting should be compulsory

DEFINITIONS

Democracy: A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. (1)

Compulsory voting: A system in which voters are obliged to vote in elections or attend a polling place on voting day. (2)


DEBATE STRUCTURE

1. Acceptance
2. Opening statements (no rebuttals)
3. Rebuttal to opening arguments only (no defense)
4. Defense of opening statements (no rebuttals)

RULES

1. The burden of proof is shared
2. Forfeiting will results in a full 7-point loss
3. Images are permitted, but videos are not
4. The character limit is 10,000
5. All arguments must be made in the debate and so any arguments that are mentioned in the comments or outside (i.e. google docs) should be ignored.

Con agrees to these terms upon accepting this debate. If she has any issues with the terms/definitions, con should contact me prior to accepting.

The voting period shall last for two (2) weeks.

__________________

SOURCES

1. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
2. https://en.wikipedia.org...;
missbailey8

Con

I accept all definitions and rules my opponent placed. Best of luck to my opponent. May the best man win.
Debate Round No. 1
ThinkBig

Pro

I would like to begin by thanking missbailey8 for accepting this debate. I have read your previous debates and am delighted to be debating someone who is well articulated and experienced.

Arguments-

1. Voting is a moral and civic duty
2. Mandatory voting will increase representation
3. Mandatory voting will reduce polarization
4. Mandatory voting will increase voter participation and knowledge

When we vote, we make a conscious decision that will effect the entire nation. Often times, our choices will have consequences, whether good or bad, that could last for generations. In his book, The Ethics of Voting, Princeton philosopher Jason Brennan writes:

"Voting is morally significant. Voting changes the quality, scope, and kind of government. The way we vote can help or harm people. Electoral outcomes can be harmful or beneficial, just or unjust. They can exploit the minority for the benefit of the majority. They can do widespread harm with little benefit for anyone." [1]

Brennan further writes:

"Voting is the principal way that citizens influence the quality of government. No activity is more emblematic of democracy. Some call voting a civic sacrament. Many people approach democracy, and voting especially, with a quasi-religious reverence." [2]

In his debate, debate.org use whiteflame writes:

"[Democracy is] the basis for how our country continues to function, and an essential component in determining who represents the country. As such, voting is necessary to keep the country functioning for the benefit of the people. It's beneficial for all eligible voters to understand that necessity, and to be aware that their duty as citizens is to be involved in the composition of their government, and thus to be involved in the laws it passes. This is the same reason why jury duty is compulsory, as it ensures that the courts can function properly." [3]

So in conclusion, we get this:

P1: In democratic countries, voting is the primary way in which the government functions.
P2: It is therefore our moral and civic duty to ensure that the government runs properly.
C: Therefore, the government ought to make voting mandatory.

Among the mantras of democracy is the concept of the consent of the governed. One of the many problems in the United States is the anemic voter turnout. This, in turn, creates a situation in which the vast majority of eligible voters do not consent to the current form of government, nor the leaders in charge.

For example, in the State of Maine, the gubernatorial election in 2014 had three candidates. Paul LePage, the highly unpopular governor, won re-election with only 48 percent of the vote. (4) This means that for those who actually voted, 51 per cent did not consent to him being the next governor.

How would mandatory voting increase representation? Whiteflame further notes (3):

"Part of the reason that voting is so important is because it ensures that your views play a role in how your part of the country, and the country as a whole, are represented. Representation is enhanced by having a larger voting bloc, but that's a basic hazard of democracy in any case. What changes in a voluntary voting system? Those sectors of the public that turn out to vote. Who turns out to vote? Those with higher incomes. Voter apathy is inversely correlated with wealth, as those with more wealth tend to vote more often. This means that these groups receive less representation, as the leadership of our political parties has little reason to see to their needs over those of the rich. Compulsory voting ameliorates this problem, making voting blocs the size of their populations, and, perhaps, even reducing the gridlock that we currently see between political parties. This is what we've seen in studies conducted in Australia, a country that employs compulsory voting. In the end, this ensures that special interest groups and extremist subsets of the population have less control, and over the way U.S. policy is conducted, and have to convince broader subsets of the population that their intentions are for a larger overall benefit than simply for themselves."

Thus to conclude:

P1: Democracy is based on the consent of the people
P2: Citizens show consent by voting.
P3: Mandatory voting increases representation and consent of the people.
C1: Therefore, a democracy without high electoral turnout rules without consent.
C2: Therefore, voting ought to be mandatory.

Among the issues with voter turnout is the high polarization in the United States. Justin Valasek in his research for Duke University noted:

"When turnout is strategic and citizens have decreasing intensity of political preferences, I show that an incentive to maximize turnout among the base can cause candidates to take partisan positions, in contrast to the median voter result under full turnout. I then study how the results of this model change with the introduction of measures to increase turnout. In contrast to previous literature on turnout and mandatory voting, which takes candidate positions as fixed, I analyze the effect on both who wins the election and the candidates’ political positions.R32;R32;I show that at high enough levels, measures to increase turnout result in convergence at the median citizen’s ideal point. As voting is made cheaper, or strictly beneficial (through subsidies), the strategic effect of turnout on candidates disappears, returning the median voter result."

So, if we made voting mandatory, the results will be that the candidates will largely take political positions that represent a broader aspect of the said population, thus creating a more centrist government as Eric Liu writes (6):

"In today’s electorate, hardcore partisan believers are over-represented; independents and moderates are under-represented. If the full range of voters actually voted, our political leaders, who are exquisitely attuned followers, would go where the votes are: away from the extremes. And they would become more responsive to the younger, poorer and less educated Americans who don’t currently vote."

One of the main arguments used by those who do not support mandatory voting is the issue of low-informed voters; however, by making voting mandatory, we will prompt more voters to pay attention to politics. Eric Liu further notes (6):

"Third, mandatory voting would prompt more Americans to pay attention to the choices. Those of us who lament the decline of civic knowledge generally focus on the supply side of the equation: more civics education. A mandate would stimulate the demand side, motivating more voters to learn what they were voting on (just as a draft makes the drafted motivated to learn what they’d fight for).

There are many arguments against mandatory voting; each reflects a lack of faith in democracy itself. One says that increasing the number of uninformed voters will lead to worse policymaking. That presumes, however, that policymaking today sets a high-water mark of enlightenment. It also sets up a viciously antidemocratic circle: if you don’t vote you must be stupid and if you are stupid you must not vote."

| Conclusion |

In democratic society mandatory voting is necessary for the government to be able to properly function. Voting will also help to reduce polarization, and increase knowledge and awareness of the government.

I affirm the resolution. Over to con!

_______

Sources

1. Brennan, Jason. The Ethics of Voting. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 2011. Print.
2. Ibid
3. Used with permission of whiteflame. http://www.edeb8.com...;
4. https://en.wikipedia.org...;
5. http://econ.duke.edu...;
6. http://ideas.time.com...;

missbailey8

Con

Firstly, I'd like to thank ThinkBig for his arguments in the first round. Without further ado, my arguments will be the following.

I. The Uniformed Public
II. Freedom of Choice and Speech
III. Universal Declaration of Human Rights

***

I. The Uniformed Public

One of the most popular arguments for compulsory voting is in relation to the low voter turnout in America. In fact, only 57.5% of Americans voted in the 2012 Presidential Election. [1] However, voter turnout isn't the worst problem, but it's more about the uniformed voters.

In 2015, Just Facts conducted a 23 question poll about issues such as education, healthcare, taxes, government spending, global warming, Social Security, energy, hunger, pollution, and the national debt. The average American got a mere five questions correct. [2] This proves that the average voter won't take the time to learn about these issues.

Now let's take a look at the unregistered voters and how they fare out.

In another survey conducted by Pew Research Center, they found out the demographics of who votes, who doesn't, and why they do/don't vote. In the survey, they recorded the most popular reasons why non-voters fail to register. Quite a few answers had to do with apathy, those being 'Don't care about politics' (14%), 'no confidence in the government' (12%), 'no point I'm voting' (3%), 'laziness' (2%), and 'don't understand politics' (2%). [3]

"The survey also reveals broad differences between those who are not registered to vote and regular or occasional voters. Non-voters are politically estranged: They are the least interested in local politics of the four groups and the most likely to say voting doesn’t change things." [3]

In turn, if you make voting compulsory, then those who previously didn't vote will most likely blindly follow a candidate because they're less informed than those who do vote.

You can try to make voting mandatory, but you can't insure that the public will be informed with accurate information. So why possibly increase the amount of apathy voters would have when election season comes around? It wouldn't be worth the higher voter turnout.

II. Freedom of Choice and Speech

"The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age." [4]

This is the 26th amendment, one that grants anyone over the age of 18 the right to vote, as long as you register of course. Also, I'd argue that the first amendment can stand against compulsory voting.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." [5]

This begs the question: how? Well, in the first amendment, and in most other amendments really, we are granted rights, we aren't forced to abide by them. This relates back to the right to vote. While you can't be denied the right to vote by the government, you can simply choose not to exercise your rights. They aren't being taken, you just refuse to acknowledge them.

For example, we as Americans have the freedom of speech, but one can choose not to speak. This technically relates to the freedom of speech, as make a conscious decision not to speak falls under freedom of speech. The same example can be used for the right to vote. In turn, making voting compulsory is unconstitutional.

And besides, America was founded as a nation where we can make our own choices in life and they'd be respected, so long as it doesn't bring direct harm to others.

III. Universal Declaration of Human Rights

As if the violation of The Constitution wasn't enough, compulsory voting also violates Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights created the United Nations.

"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty."[6]

So by making voting compulsory, you're taking away a person's political freedom. This is against their human rights, as stated above.

Conclusion

To end this, I say that compulsory voting isn't needed for our government. By making it mandatory, you're increasing the amount of uninformed voters, you're taking away their freedom of choice and speech, and you're violating one of their human rights: political freedom.

Thank you.

***

Citations
[1]http://www.statisticbrain.com...
[2]http://www.theblaze.com...
[3]http://www.people-press.org...
[4]http://constitutioncenter.org...
[5]https://www.law.cornell.edu...
[6]http://www.un.org...
Debate Round No. 2
ThinkBig

Pro

Many thanks to missbailey8 for her superb opening statements. Without further ado, here are my rebuttals.

I. Uninformed Public

As I argued in the previous round, making voting mandatory could actually lead to an increase of public knowledge and awareness of political issues.

Con also begs the question. What exactly is an uninformed voter and how much knowledge should one need to know before casting a ballot? What amount of knowledge, and on what issues, does one have to have before becoming "informed"? Exclusionary elitism has no place in democracy.

Con cites a quiz given by Just Facts. The problem with their organization is that they are often heavily bias. For example, on abortion, they write:

"False arguments aside, the vast weight of scientific evidence indicates that preborn humans can feel pain by 20 weeks or earlier. While this does not rise to the level of 100% certainty, it rests upon factually solid ground." (1)

Unfortunately, the fetal pain is a lie and is totally bunk science as Lee et al. write (2):

"Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester. Little or no evidence addresses the effectiveness of direct fetal anesthetic or analgesic techniques. Similarly, limited or no data exist on the safety of such techniques for pregnant women in the context of abortion. Anesthetic techniques currently used during fetal surgery are not directly applicable to abortion procedures."

They also admit that their viewpoint is more towards the conservative side (3).

Finally, it is arguable that we are all misinformed about some issues. Grigory Graborenko writes (4):

"The truth is, even with the best intentions, any individual has a vast number of blind spots. How can a leader tell the difference between a policy that is unpopular because the people are too stupid to understand why it’s necessary, and a policy that is genuinely awful? We are told that our politicians are wise, experienced, and clever, and that making “hard choices” is the sign of true leadership."

So once again, we are left begging the question. What/who is an uninformed voter and how much knowledge does one need until they are properly "informed"?

II. Freedom of Speech

Con argues that requiring people to vote violates the First Amendment and the Freedom of Speech. Conceding for a moment that this is true, we could simply amend the U.S. Constitution to permit and require voting. Next, the debate is not necessarily about mandatory voting in the U.S., but rather democratic societies in general. But the more serious issue is that it is not so clear whether or not it does violate the U.S. Constitution. A note in Harvard Law Review notes (5):

"[C]ompulsory voting is a legitimate infringement upon individual liberty for the purpose of ensuring that political outcomes reflect the preferences of the electorate...the very idea that a right, by definition, can be waived is false. Numerous rights cannot be waived; and, although many others can, this still does not imply the general existence of inverse rights. The Supreme Court observed this in Singer v. United States, in which it upheld a federal rule that requires government consent in order for a criminal defendant to waive his right to a jury trial. The Court declared that “[t]he ability to waive a constitutional right does not ordinarily carry with it the right to insist upon the opposite of that right," and cited several examples of this principle in the context of a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights: the right to a public trial, the right to be tried in the state and district where the crime was committed, and the right to confront the government’s witnesses."

"The reason that a right does not imply its inverse is that there are competing interests at stake. An individual right may serve both a public and a private interest, and creating an absolute individual right of waiver would leave unprotected the public interest that the right serves. The right to trial by jury is a protection of the individual from the power of the state, but it also serves an important collective function by promoting the accuracy and legitimacy of criminal trials there is no inverse right to a bench trial because this would focus only on the individual interest and would ignore the collective interest. Similarly, the collective interest in having open trials prevents a defendant from turning his right to a public trial into the inverse right to a private trial."

III. Universal Declaration of Human Rights

This is perhaps con's most far-fetched contention. As I argued above, the rights do not necessarily mean that there is a negative right associated with it.

I would contend that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights absolutely supports mandatory voting. Article 22 states (6):

  1. (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
  2. (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
  3. (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

The third one is the one that is most relevant. As I argued in round 1, democracy requires the consent of the people. The way to ensure that you have the consent of the people, is to ensure that all eligible members of the population vote.

Finally, this contention is absolutely ridiculous because there are more than 20 countries that make voting mandatory (7). Should mandatory voting actually violate human rights, the UN would almost certainly have spoken out against it by now. We simply do not see this happening.

Conclusion

Compulsory voting is much needed for Democratic societies. By making it mandatory, we are affirming that we have the consent of the governed.

Over to con!

SOURCES

1. http://www.justfactsdaily.com...;
2. http://jama.jamanetwork.com...;
3. http://www.justfacts.com...;
4. http://tinyurl.com...;
5. http://harvardlawreview.org...;
6. http://www.un.org...;
7. http://www.pbs.org...;

missbailey8

Con

I. Voting is a moral and civic duty

I do beg to differ on this point. Yes, voting is a right, but that doesn't make it your duty to carry through with it.

Duty - a moral or legal obligation; a responsibility. [1]

If we take this definition into consideration, that would mean that voting is a moral obligation, but like I said in my opening statements, the right to vote also encompasses the right to not vote if you choose so. This doesn't mean that you're being deprived of your right to vote, it just means that you have a choice of whether or not you want to exercise that right. For example, we have the right to practice any religion, which also means you have the right to not practice any religion.

So to conclude:

P1: We have the right to vote.
P2: This means we also have the right to not vote.
C: Therefore, our right to vote shouldn't become our obligation.

II. Mandatory voting will increase representation

My opponent claims that, by making voting mandatory, it'll make sure that voters consent to the leader's they elect. He uses an example of which Paul LePage was elected with just 48% of the vote. My argument is that this will happen even if voting is made mandatory.


Let's pretend for a moment that voting was made compulsory in America around the time of the 2012 Presidential Election between President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney. We'll just pretend that Obama got 51% of the vote and Romney got the remaining 49%. Making voting mandatory wouldn't excuse the fact that this hypothetical 49% of Romney voters didn't want Obama to be president.

Everyone has differing political beliefs whether by party, other ideologies, religion, etc. It's almost guaranteed that no candidate will ever get 100% of the votes.

Also, my opponent highlighted a phrase from whiteflame saying that voter apathy is linked to wealth, so making voting mandatory will increase representation of the poor. However, there's a clear reason that even my opponent acknowledges to why they aren't voting; apathy. As long as they meet the legal requirements to vote then there's nothing stopping them from voting. It's their choice.

III. Mandatory voting will reduce polarization

I do have to concede to this point and I personally believe that it's not only the strongest argument for mandatory voting, but also my opponent's best argument for it.


IV. Mandatory voting will increase voter participation and knowledge

Followed by my opponent's strongest point is, in my opinion, his weakest. He argues quotes Eric Liu who argues that the increase of uniformed voters won't lead to worse policymaking. I'm going to pick apart what he says of the last two sentences of his quote to prove my point.


"That presumes, however, that policymaking today sets a high-water mark of enlightenment."

Yes, the policymaking today isn't very great, but that's due to the amount of uniformed voters we have already. So why increase that number to make policymaking even worse?

"It also sets up a viciously antidemocratic circle: if you don’t vote you must be stupid and if you are stupid you must not vote."

Technically, those who don't vote are less educated, though not voting doesn't make you inherently stupid.

"Other factors distinguish the non-voter. Nearly half (46%) of all college graduates are regular voters, compared to 28% of adults who are high school graduates or have less education." [2]


Also, Liu is implying that 'stupid' people don't have the right to vote. They do, as long as they fit the legal requirements to vote. They would be able to vote with or without compulsory voting. However, if voting was made compulsory, then it'd increase those who are uneducated and aren't interested or informed about politics.

Conclusion

To conclude, we honestly have no need for compulsory voting. It can prove to be detrimental to the policymaking, it'll increase the amount of uniformed voters, and it violates the right to vote, as it also extends to the right not to vote.

Thank you. So long and goodnight!

Citations
[1]http://tinyurl.com...
[2]http://www.people-press.org...
Debate Round No. 3
ThinkBig

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for a fantastic and educational debate.

1. Voting is a moral and civic duty

My opponent begins by defining a duty as a moral or legal obligation; a responsibility. She repeats that the right to vote must include a right to not vote. Here is the syllogism that she uses:

P1: We have the right to vote.
P2: This means we also have the right to not vote.
C: Therefore, our right to vote shouldn't become our obligation.

The syllogism fails because the second premise is wrong. The idea that there is a right to not vote is based on a flawed interpretation of the idea of the right to vote, an interpretation which mistakes the sort of liberty which the right to vote represents and which overlooks the centrality to that right of the value of the active electoral participation (1).

Furthermore, as I pointed out in the previous round, numerous rights cannot be waived. Another example of such a right that cannot be waived is the employment rights that are granted under the FLSA (2). Voting rights cannot be waived because that is the primary way in which the government functions.

The syllogism that I brought up in my opening arguments still stands. To reiterate:

P1: In democratic countries, voting is the primary way in which the government functions.
P2: It is therefore our moral and civic duty to ensure that the government runs properly.
C: Therefore, the government ought to make voting mandatory.

2. Increase representation

My opponent misunderstands what the consent of the governed means.

Everyone has differing political beliefs whether by party, other ideologies, religion, etc. It's almost guaranteed that no candidate will ever get 100% of the votes.

And that is true. However, the consent of the governed does not mean that a said candidate will receieve 100% of the vote from 100% of the population. It means that our government’s legitimacy and moral right to exercise power is only justified and legal when derived from the people over whom that political power is exercised (3).

"It is only when the people come together and make decisions as a whole, with the decision of the majority taking precedence, that the "consent of the governed," has been obtained. And this process of decision making by the majority is the basic principle that is indispensable to the establishment of a nation based on equal rights."(4)

3. Reduce polarization

My opponent has conceded this point and so I extend it below.

4. Increase participation and knowledge

I will drop this point as I do not have the adequate time to properly respond. I agree that it is my weakest point.

Once again, thanks for a fun debate. May the best man (or woman) win!

Sources

1. Lardy, Heather. "Is There a Right Not to Vote?" Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 24.2 (2004): 303-21. Web.
2. http://www.lexology.com...;
3. https://www.boundless.com...;
4. http://www.dailykos.com...;

missbailey8

Con

I. Uniformed Public

Firstly, my opponent said that he presented evidence to prove that voting would increase public knowledge and awareness. However, I believe that I properly refuted that argument, as he didn't respond to my rebuttals. .

Then, my opponent questions the accuracy of my source to prove how uniformed voters are. However, here's a paragraph taken directly from the article I found my information in.

"The poll was conducted by Conquest Communications Group, a professional polling firm located in Virginia. The responses were obtained through live telephone surveys of 700 likely voters across the continental United States on Dec. 15–20, 2015. Likely voters are those who say they vote 'every time there is an opportunity' or 'in most elections.'" [1]

Lastly, my opponent says that every voter will have blind spots when voting. I will concede a bit to this. Yes, every voter will have blind spots, but let me reference even more data to share how uniformed voters are.

"Despite years of public controversy over the budget,surveys consistently show that most of the public have very little understanding of how the federal government spends its money. They greatly underestimate the percentage of federal funds allocated to massive entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security—which are among the largest federal expenditures—and vastly overestimate the proportion that goes to foreign aid (only about 1 percent of the total). Voters are also often ignorant about the basic structure of government. The Annenberg survey found that only 36% of Americans can name the three branches of the federal government: the executive, legislative and judicial." [2]

This is a huge problem. If most voters don't know about issues like Medicare, Social Security, or even the basics of our government, then why bring even less informed people in instead of focusing on bringing accurate information to the masses?

II. Freedom of Choice and Speech

If we skip ahead a little bit in his rebuttals, my opponent quotes Harvard Law Review notes. With my defense, I'll pick parts of it to really dissect.

"[C]ompulsory voting is a legitimate infringement upon individual liberty for the purpose of ensuring that political outcomes reflect the preferences of the electorate...the very idea that a right, by definition, can be waived is false. Numerous rights cannot be waived; and, although many others can, this still does not imply the general existence of inverse rights." [3]

It isn't that the right is being waived necessarily, they just simply aren't being exercised. Let's say that we have a man. We'll call him Jim. Jim is unregistered to voter and is simply not interested. Let's say a few years later that Jim wants to register to vote. Just because he didn't vote previously doesn't mean that his right was taken away. He still has the right, he just didn't acknowledge it.

III. Universal Declaration of Human Rights

I will concede to this rebuttal.

Conclusion

I still stand by the fact that mandatory voting would be harmful to Democratic societies. To end this debate, I'd like to thank ThinkBig for his participation. Thank you for a fun debate. I wish you luck. So long and goodnight!

Citations
[1]http://www.theblaze.com...
[2]http://www.forbes.com...
[3]http://harvardlawreview.org...
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Amedexyius 4 months ago
Amedexyius
(Also, I made a typo in RFD Part I "I can't help but think that **is Con simply refuted this argument", **is should be **if)
Posted by ThinkBig 4 months ago
ThinkBig
Thanks for a great RFD
Posted by Amedexyius 4 months ago
Amedexyius
RFD Part IV

Conclusion ~ A great debate to the both of you. This debate had the potential to be tied, although, mostly, because of the concession of Con in a strong topic of debating in this argument, I feel it my duty to give the win to Pro. My favorite argument brought by Con was her statistical and exemplary format and alignment of her rebuttal in the topic of General Information. That argument was a very heavy influence in me giving the win to her. In favour of Pro, ThinkBig also had a strong factual argument in the first topic of Civic Duty un-refuted, which proved a fatal blow to Con for not being able to recover concerning her concession. With these variables of the arguments combined, I give the win of the debate, to ThinkBig; Pro.

A wonderful debate, both of you.
Posted by Amedexyius 4 months ago
Amedexyius
RFD Part III

Choice and Human Rights - This argument could have been tied if Con did not concede. Pro made his statement, but ONLY as an interpretation, that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights allows limited authoritarian powers to the government to control certain aspects of a democracy. These certain aspects in the same quotation that Pro had used were still up for interpretation and there was no direct statement regarding mandatory voting in the article that Pro provided. If Con made her rebuttal regarding the matter of perspective and lack of the article directly targeting the topic of this debate, she could have tied this argument, leaving it as a matter of perspective. However, she made a concession of this argument. This allows me to give the argument of Human Rights, by default, to Pro.
Posted by Amedexyius 4 months ago
Amedexyius
RFD Part II

General Information - This argument, to me, was the easiest to analyze. Pro's push in his argument stating that mandatory voting would increase public perception of political events and general government knowledge is assumptive. There is no factual foundation or historical example that shows any government succeeding in their attempt to broaden the horizons of knowledge in their citizens through mandatory voting. Con, on the other hand, had the upper hand with a contemporary and solidified example of the public being swayed to their political figure of choice, not completely by the figure's knowledge, but also by charm and relativity. She also provided many statistics which allowed her to completely dominate the argument of general information. The argument of General Public Information goes to: Con.
Posted by Amedexyius 4 months ago
Amedexyius
RFD Part I ~ I always make my decisions based on factuality, versus perspective and assumptions. Certain argument points weigh more in influence than others, this can sway my decision even if I reply with a quantity majority (Ex: x + x < y), one argument may be stronger than two arguments.

Civic Duty ~ Pro argues that the civic duty is already a pushing point in the necessity for participation of citizens in order to preserve a functioning system. He continues this point as a form of moral obligation, but morality is a matter of perspective. It cannot be solidified with a source foundation. This makes Con's rebuttal equally null in the matter of fact based decision making. The source Pro used stating that "voting is necessary to keep the country functioning for the benefit of the people" is still under hybrid perspective. As Pro pointed out, his only factual argument is that a democratic system needs voting to continue functioning. I can't help but think that is Con simply refuted this argument by stating that 'there is an extreme improbability of a nation's majority not to vote (With plentiful sources), this one factual statement in the argument of civic duty could have been tied. Alas, this one un-refuted statement and the necessity of I, having to only base my decision on the written arguments forces me to give the argument of civic duty to: Pro.
Posted by missbailey8 4 months ago
missbailey8
Sounds great. It's fine that you were delayed.
Posted by ThinkBig 4 months ago
ThinkBig
Arguments will be up soon. Sorry for the delay.
Posted by TheBenC 5 months ago
TheBenC
I've been wanting to create a registry for people who choose to abstain for lack of faith in either candidate.
Posted by migmag 5 months ago
migmag
Republicans would be completely dead in the water if voting was made mandatory, all statistics prove, the more people vote, the more Democratic the outcome, Republicans would never win another election again
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Amedexyius 4 months ago
Amedexyius
ThinkBigmissbailey8
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in Comments.