The Instigator
Con (against)
21 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Resolved: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 5/7/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,021 times Debate No: 90647
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (38)
Votes (3)




Debate Challenge Status

This debate is going to user Seagull. If anybody else manages to accept this debate then they instantly forfeit the debate. I look forward to a great discussion as I have already debated Seagull before and am aware that he is a great debater.


This is a part of Tej's DEBATE OF THE WEEK efforts, and this will be this week's DEBATE OF THE WEEK! For more details please view the link:


Resolved: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory


1 - No Kritiks
2 - No semantics
3 - The burden of proof is solely on Pro due to their proposed change on the status quo meaning that only Pro needs to argue and Con needs to refute their arguments to win.
4 - By accepting the debate you accept the definitions presented
5 - The first round is NOT acceptance. Please post your arguments as you have the BOP.
6 - No source wars (you are allowed to critique sources but don't make that the focus of the debate)
7 - No trolling
8 - No forfeiture
9 - No plagiarism
10 - Failure to abide by the rules, definitions (below) and the full resolution means that all points will automatically be awarded in the person that didn't violate the rules' favor.


Democracy: a system of government voted in by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

Voting: a formal expression of opinion in regards to your preffered country or state representative.

Ought: used to indicate duty or correctness

Compulsory: required by law or a rule; obligatory.

Good luck in advance to Seagull!


Before I begin, I would like to thank Famousdebater for this opportunity to debate such an intriguing topic.

Resolved: In a Democracy, voting ought to be compulsory

In the opening round, we see that Democracy was defined as “a system of government voted in by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state…” I invite all to ponder the following question: How is it that a system of government that is established via voting can truly represent the electorate when the electorate in discouragingly large numbers does not vote?

The harm of low voter turnout.

In a Democracy, the Electorate is sovereign. The power given to the Electorate is exercised via voting. As is likely apparent to most, in a Democracy high voter turnout is desirable. This is due to large voting turnout being indicative of the legitimacy of democratic authority. Unfortunately, we see that in many democracies, voter turnout is low. Consider; “Over the last 40 years, voter turnout has been steadily declining in the established democracies. This trend has been significant in the United States, Western Europe, Japan and Latin America. It has been a matter of concern and controversy among political scientists for several decades.” (1) Low voter turnout is undesirable as the less of the sovereign that participates, the less accurate the will of the electorate is reflected in the government. Furthermore, “low turnouts can lead to unequal representation among various parts of the population. In developed countries, non-voters tend to be concentrated in particular demographic and socioeconomic groups, especially the young and the poor. “(1) At this point it should be clear that low voter turnout is harmful, even detrimental to the very purpose of a democratic government. Compulsory voting brings solvency.

The impact of compulsory voting

It seems intuitive to assume that compulsory voting increases voter turnout. Never the less, Consider Australia, which has compulsory voting; in 2013 had voter “turnout figures of 93.23% for the House of Representatives and 93.88% for the Senate.”(1) Clearly compulsory voting increases voter turnout.


In a Democracy, low voter turnout is harmful and undesirable. Compulsory voting has the solvency of increasing voter turnout. If the right to vote is not exercised, the entire system of a democratic government cannot live up to its primary purpose. Thus, in the interest of democratic government filling their function and purpose, it is only reasonable to conclude that in a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory.


Debate Round No. 1


Thanks Seagull. As I mentioned in R1, we’ve debated before and I look forward to debating him again.


The BOP is solely on Pro meaning that I will not be obliged to provide a constructive case (though I will be making a short argument just to make my rebuttals clearer). In order for me to win this debate I must successfully refute Pro’s case. Pro’s case must be standing by the end of the debate in order for him to win this debate.

Democracy is built upon 4 key elements, as described by political scientist Larry Diamond. These elements are (a) A political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections; (b) The active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life; (c) Protection of the human rights of all citizens, and (d) A rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens.” [1]. The elements that I will be focussing on in my rebuttals are elements A and C.

Application of Democracy’s Key Elements

Element A clearly states that election must be “free” and “fair”. How fair something is can be subjective so I’ll be focussing on how “free” elections will be if people are forced to vote. Free is defined as “Not controlled by obligation or the will of another” [2]. By forcing somebody to vote you are controlling them by obligation since they must vote regardless of whether they want to or not. You are also doing what is there will as opposed to what is your will (which also violates the definition of free).

Element C states that democracy’s purpose is to protect the rights of all citizens. By forcing people to vote they lose their freedom of choice [3], since they cannot choose whether they want to vote or not and it also violates article 4 and article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights since these rights regard freedom of opinion and freedom from slavery [4] - a slave is defined as a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them, which is the case here since voting will be compulsory.

The harm of a low voter turnout

I agree that low voter turnout is undesirable however I disagree that my opponent’s proposed measures are necessary. However there are people that have very valid reason for not voting and forcing them to vote would likely distort the interests of a nation further given that are large percentage of people that do not vote are actually undecided [3]. On average, 70% of men are likely to have an idea of who they are voting and 61% of women have an idea of who they are voting for, meaning that 30% of men are undecided and 29% of women are undecided on average [3]. This is a massive figure, showing that by forcing people that are undecided to vote, you are potentially making them vote randomly, without actually assessing the positives and negatives of every campaign. This can and will be detrimental in achieving a fairer society given that these statistics clearly show that people will not be decided.

Another major reason is that people often do not like any of the candidates [5] (which is something that I can say for myself regarding the elections in the UK - which is where I come from). This, again, raises the same concerns as above. If people do not like any candidates, then logically, when forced to vote they will most likely not vote properly which will once again negatively impact the result of elections.

Robert Montenegro reports that many people don’t care about their vote. If young people do not care about their vote then, in the scenario that they are forced to vote, they will probably waste their vote due to the attitude regarding the issue showing that they do not care about the outcome, meaning that there is no point (when looking at the issue from their perspective) in taking time to analyze the candidates and vote on who you believe in, if you do not care about it from the beginning. [6]

So whilst I do agree that a low amount of people voting is bad. And I do agree that if more people voted (of their own free will), then that’d be good. But forcing people to vote will allow undecided voters, people that don’t like any candidates and people that don’t care to have to vote, causing distortion in election results, thus not making democracy any more accurate or fair, as my opponent claims.

Impact Of Compulsory Voting

In Australia the same things as stated above are likely to be happening. Also, when analyzing compulsory voting we have to consider the bandwagon effect which is a common issue raised against the system. Given the high percentage of people that do not care about their votes, bandwagoning does occur and many case studies have been written on the topic. Compulsory voting does increase bandwagoning on votes significantly and is identified as a major factor regarding it [7][8]. This data collected regarding compulsory voting, as well as the points made above show that Australia almost certainly experiences bandwagon votes, uncaring votes, random votes, etc. [9].

And with that, I hand the stage back over to Seagull.












Democracy is built upon four key elements

In Famous’ round, he introduced the concept that democracy consists of four key elements. He argues that compulsory voting violates two of these elements. I will address each in turn.

1: Does compulsory voting conflict with “Free and Fair Elections?”

My opponent claims that because democracy is “built upon a political system… through free and fair elections” that compulsory voting violates the “free” aspect. In addition to being a puerile way to apply freedom; the idea that compulsory voting attacks “free elections” is to misunderstand the concept itself. When “free” is applied to elections, it is typically applied to the idea that an election is “open.” Meaning the electorate is both able to participate and free to choose who to elect. For example; voting is not restricted based on ethnic, economic, or educational factors. Free elections means open to the people.

Famous agreed that low voter turnout is undesirable, but claims people “have very valid reason for not voting.” As I see it, he gives three reasons, none of which I find convincing. First, he argues, many are undecided and making them vote will essentially make their votes random. This is a simple fix, all we have to do is allow people to check a box indicating “undecided” so that their vote is counted and are still free to abstain. This solution also solves his second worry, specifically that making people vote will cause them to vote for someone they don’t want. This is nonsense. They merely select “none of the above” or write in who they would prefer. Nothing about compulsory voting limits who the voters may select in their vote. Finally, he argues that people do not care about their vote. Again, this is easily solved by allowing them to select “none of the above.”

Next, my opponent argues about bandwagoning. The issue with this contention is simply illustrated by the reality that “bandwagoning” is an issue with or without compulsory voting and thus does nothing to reject the resolution. Rejecting the resolution does not prevent bandwagoning, and supporting it does not result in bandwagoning.

The purpose of compulsory voting is not to make people vote for someone they do not wish to vote for, rather to ensure that everyone’s vote is counted. Thus, none of these concerns address compulsory voting directly. It should be clear at this point that Compulsory voting does not conflict with free and fair elections.

2: Does Compulsory voting conflict with human rights?

My opponent argues that forcing people to vote results in loss of freedom and effectively makes slaves out of the electorate. This is ludicrous. As explained above, compulsory voting does not result in a loss of freedom, but rather ensures that every vote is counted. Put another way, rather than negatively impacting your freedom, compulsory ensures it. Aside from this, the idea that compulsory voting equals slavery is asinine. The United Nation does not view compulsory voting as a violation of human rights in spite of my opponent attempting to cite them as doing so. Several members of the United Nations have compulsory voting laws, for example, Australia. Cleary compulsory voting does not conflict with human rights.

3: Compulsory voting increases participation in civic life.

Now that I have responded to my opponent’s objections, I will now address the elephant in the room. One of the four so called key elements that democracy is made of articulates why compulsory voting ought to be implemented. “The active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life;” is a key element of Democracy. As demonstrated by my arguments compulsory voting ensures this element.


My opponent’s arguments are based on four key elements of a democracy. He argued that compulsory voting violates two of the four. I have shown it does not. Conversely we see that compulsory voting does help ensure the third key element. Namely, “The active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life.”

Debate Round No. 2



OBV1: My opponent makes some very drastic changes to his arguments and his advocacy which are problematic. He proposes that people should be given the option to vote “undecided” or that they are not interested in voting. This negates his entire burden and ultimately costs him the entire debate which I will explain in more detail as I address each individual argument.

OBV2: I think that it is necessary to reiterate the burdens here - so that voters and my opponent are aware of what they are. My opponent’s burden requires him to prove that the status quo should be changed and that compulsory voting should be implemented as opposed to the status quo. Since he proposes a change to the current system, it is evident that he must prove that a system of compulsory voting is preferable to a system of optional voting.

Compulsory voting conflictions with free and fair elections

Whilst free can mean “open”. The definition my opponent proposes creates similar complications to my original interpretation. An election that is “open” to the people means that it is an election that is “available” to the people [1]. Available (in the dative case) means “free to do something” [2] or “given the option to doing something” - thus both definitions ultimately lead to the same problems.

Regarding undecided voters, my opponent claims that undecided voters should have a box to tick stating undecided or none of the above. This is a late plan initiated which is poor debate conduct since if I initiate a counterplan in the second round I can simply use it to refute your arguments unfairly. For example, on a debate regarding guns, the proponents of guns may argue that the US has a strong gun culture. If counterplans are allowed in late stages then the opponent can simply say that it would be done over a long period of time so the culture disturbance would be minimal. The opponent could then continue to do this for all of the arguments and the proponent has nothing left to argue since Con’s position is so distorted from the original advocacy that the debate is no longer on the subject of guns v no guns but it becomes a debate of semantics and shifts of advocacy's.

Regardless, in this instance the counterplan is detrimental. It effectively makes compulsory voting pointless. Logically, all the people that will not vote, are not interested in voting or are undecided will just tick the box that states “none of the above” or “undecided”. This is virtually the same as my proposition. My opponent needs to state a reason as to why compulsory voting under this new plan is any different than the status quo in regards to elections.

Take the following hypothetical scenario: there are 100 people in total. 30 want president A. 60 want president B. 10 are undecided. In the status quo The 30 people will vote president A, 60 will vote president B and the undecided members will not vote. Therefore, under the status quo president B would win the election. In my opponent’s counterplan.

The 30 people would vote president A. The 60 would vote president B and the undecided would tick the undecided the box. President B would still win. The result will be completely unchanged. So I ask my opponent a very simple question: What makes his newly proposed system any better than the status quo.

My opponent ignores the fact that I specifically sourced the claim that bandwagoning increases in places with compulsory voting so his objections are irrelevant. I acknowledge that bandwagoning occurs in both systems but bandwagoning is more frequent as a ration in systems of compulsory voting because there are more undecided voters and unsure voters who don’t know who to vote for, hence why they vote for the popular decision [3][4].

My opponent’s objections and proposed changes cost him the debate. They make his newly proposed system incredibly similar to the status quo and since my opponent needs to prove that his system of voting is superior to the status quo in order to win, he cannot win this debate, as none of his initial arguments attempt to support his specific system of voting.

Human Rights

I am not just referencing to human rights. I am referring to rights in the law and generic rights (such as freedom of choice). Furthermore, I am not talking about whether or not the United Nations are intervening in these situations (the UN are hardly stopping every single human rights violation). I cited the universal declaration of human rights and specifically quoted the areas in which human rights were violated. My opponent drops this and instead looks towards whether or not compulsory voting is being penalized by the UN which is faulty logic to use when addressing whether or not a human rights violation is occurring.

There are many instances in which the UN acknowledges human rights violations but is unable to do anything about it due to the sheer number of violations that the UN is faced with on a regular basis [5]. This is a minor violation by the United Nation’s standards (but a violation, nevertheless) [6].

The evidence is clear. This is a human rights violation (as I have cited). My opponent fails to refute the quotes and attempts to show that this isn’t a violation through the fact that there has been no UN intervention. I have proven this claim to be irrelevant since the UN cannot and does not intervene with every violation and this is a minor point (as I have proven by citing the priorities of the UN from their official site).

Participation in Civic Life

Each of the 4 element are equal in value. Let us say that they are all worth 1 for simplicity. So if 3 of these work in my favor and 1 works in my opponent’s then this point works in my favor since I have a clear majority. My opponent is correct in stating that his argument fulfills this one point however his burden is in direct contradiction with the rest (particularly A and C). In addition to this, my burden also fulfills the point that my opponent speaks of. Note how the requirement does not say ALL the people. This is because it simply needs active participation from people within society. Under the status quo this clearly happens and so this point works in my favor too.

Thank you once again Seagull for your round, and I hand it back over to you. The resolution is negated.









A Final defense

My opponent claims that I changed my advocacy and doing so costs me the debate. I am perplexed by this accusation. My initial argument was that compulsory voting increases voter turnout and ensures people’s votes are counted. This is still my argument. There is no shift in advocacy. It seems to me that my opponent is conflating compulsory voting with limiting who people can vote for. As I mentioned in my previous round; the purpose of compulsory voting is not to make people vote for someone they do not wish to vote for. Rather, it is to ensure that everyone’s vote is counted.

Thus, as people have the ability in the status quo to write in whomever they want and do not have to select an option presented the same would be true under compulsory voting. Here Famous complains that this makes my proposed system all too similar to the status quo. Not so, as he mentioned in his opening argument there are many reasons why people currently don’t vote. Surely he does not view this list as comprehensive. Compulsory voting ensures that people’s votes are counted for so that we don’t have to guess as to why they did or did not vote. Even in the cases given, someone voting for “none of the above” clearly articulates the voter’s dissatisfaction whereas not voting leaves ambiguity.

Con argues that placing an undecided or none of the above box on a ballot is poor conduct on my part as it is a late plan. Again, I find this perplexing, I am arguing for compulsory voting, not for limiting what can or cannot be voted for. These are entirely separate issues. What we have here seems to be a case where my opponent does not have a good response and seems to be rejecting my argument to technicality because he has no response to it otherwise. It seems to me that my opponent is trying to severely limit what I may or may not argue. If anything is poor conduct, I would say this is. My burden in this debate was to affirm that voting in a democracy ought to be compulsory. I have done this.

Famous attempts to have his cake and eat it too. Consider he argued that people that are not interested in voting or undecided will simply check the box none of the above, only to later argue that bandwagoning is an issue. This should clearly demonstrate the lack of structure in my opponents’ criticisms. As my opponent concedes the point that bandwagoning is an issue with or without compulsory voting I will not address this further.

This brings us to the asinine claim that compulsory voting is a violation of human rights. Here con misunderstands my objection. He claims that because the UN does not intervene in every violation of human rights that the UN’s lack of intervention on compulsory voting means nothing. First, I am not claiming that if compulsory voting was a violation (which it is not) that the U.N. would intervene. Rather, I argued that the U.N. does not view Compulsory voting as a violation. Take notice that my opponent has not cited an example contrary to this, he merely cites the U.N. website and erroneously applies a statement on slavery to compulsory voting. He claims this is a “minor violation.” Again, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Either compulsory voting is slavery and a severe violation of human rights or it is not.

A Brief Summary

My opponent’s argument’s are based on four key elements of a democracy. He argued that compulsory voting violates two of the four. First he argued that compulsory voting works contrary to the principle that “A political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections;” I have shown this to be untrue and based on the semantics surrounding the word “free.” Compulsory voting does not mean forcing people to vote for something they don’t want. Second he argued that Compulsory voting violates the key principle that A rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens.” He claims this because he views compulsory voting was a violation of human rights and a type of slavery. I have shown this to be a ridiculous accusation. The fact that he even claims it to be a “minor” violation demonstrates how off base this contention has been.

I have presented a case for compulsory voting. This case demonstrated that low voter turnout is detrimental to democracy. Compulsory voting has the impact of increasing voter turnout, thus ensuring “The active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life” which con claims is one of the key elements of a democracy. Thus we see the resolution is affirmed. Thanks for reading.

Vote Pro!

Debate Round No. 3


Thanks Seagull!

Concluding The Debate

My opponent’s burden in this debate was to prove that in a democracy voting should be compulsory. His initial arguments were used as a means to defend this burden. He then, in his rebuttals and defense, insists that there would be a box for undecided or uncaring voters. This counterplan wasn’t initiated in his opening arguments and should be penalized as a result. My opponent opts in to actually defend his counterplan in his final round. He never actually defends the system that he proposes (with the option to tick undecided or uncaring) until the very last round. In the other rounds he defends the standard system of compulsory democracy in which you must vote for a candidate [1], his plan is NOT the same as the system that he originally defends which is why his counterplan is invalid and his defense should not be counted.

In the final round Seagull states “someone voting for “none of the above” clearly articulates the voter’s dissatisfaction whereas not voting leaves ambiguity.” This is a new argument in the final round (which is generally frowned upon). He also defends his counterplan in the final round (when in reality he should have been defending this in the first round. This limits my opportunity for rebuttal. Furthermore, Con’s reason is not compelling. He argues that with the addition of an undecided vote box there will be less ambiguity regarding why people do not vote. This is simply not true and I’ve already offered a source which clearly shows the percentages regarding how many people are undecided, how many don’t care, etc. This cannot remove any ambiguity if there is none to begin with. I have stated this is the case and sourced it (in the previous rounds). My opponent merely asserts this argument and therefore voters should not buy it.

My opponent dismisses my claims of his poor conduct as a means of avoiding his argument. This is untrue since I refuted his argument alongside making this claim, so this reason he presents cannot be true. Furthermore, it is poor conduct since a counterplan is a proposed change to your what you are affirming which ultimately keeps your burden the same. My opponent does this but does not include this in his arguments. He uses a counterplan (that he doesn’t previously introduce) to try and refute my arguments. I’m sure that anybody can agree that saying that you are going to make various changes in an attempt to distort your position so that it isn’t affected by your opponent’s argument is poor conduct and this is exactly what my opponent does. Pro does not do anything to refute the argument. Extend.

Next my opponent attempts to spot out a contradiction in that I talk about the undecided voters and the uncaring voters and then I continue by talking about bandwagoning. The problem is that I never said that the sole issue is undecided and uncaring voters. Bandwagoning is an issue that takes place amongst some of the undecided and uncaring voters in the scenario in which they are forced to vote. So actually the vote becomes more distorted than accurate (as my opponent claims). I did concede that bandwagoning is a problem in both compulsory and optional voting systems but I also made it VERY clear that it occurs in higher quantity in systems of compulsory voting. My opponent drops this argument too. Extend.

My opponent uses NO objective reasoning in an attempt to refute my arguments citing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Right to choice. My opponent DROPS the rights separate from the UDHR (such as the right to choice). Extend.

Regarding human rights, I cited specific, objective and indisputable violations. Whether or not the UN acknowledges them as major violations is irrelevant. The fact is that they ARE violations and the declaration of human rights makes this very clear. My opponent ignores this. My opponent states that I erroneously apply the argument regarding slavery however he merely states this. He offers no explanation. No source or citation. The argument stands. Extend this point.

This is a clear and objective vote for the affirmative case. My opponent drops many arguments and the points that he does contest are contested weakly overall and I have successfully refuted them. I strongly urge vote to vote Pro!




I am waiving this round intentionally in order to maintain an equal number of rounds.
Debate Round No. 4
38 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by fire_wings 5 months ago
Il sera difficile de terminer ce RFD, pas s"r si je peux l'obtenir " temps.
Posted by famousdebater 5 months ago
Thanks for votes guys!
Posted by kasmic 5 months ago
Thanks for voting Tej and N7.
Posted by n7 5 months ago

Pro's main argument is about the harmfulness of low voter turnout and suggests that compulsory voting can fix this issue.

Con claims that in a truly free democratic state, one has the option of not doing something. That would include not voting. Con rebuts Pro's argument by claiming people have reasons for abstaining from voting. Being undecided or not liking any of the candidates. He argues compulsory voting will create bandwagoning. Pro states one could just add "undecided" to the ballot and states bandwagoning will occur no matter what. He also states that a free election means an open election.

Con rebuts by stating that this really makes no difference between the compulsory and non-compulsory voting, so why prefer it? Con states that open entails being available and being available entails being given an option. But compulsory voting leaves us with no option. He also states that the problem with bandwagoning is that it will occur more often in a compulsory voting system.

Pro states with his system, there is no ambiguity of why people would refuse to vote. He doesn't really deal Con's argument that an open election must be one where you have an option to abstain. He also says Con is contradicting himself of bandwagoning, but as Con said, the issue is making it less prevalent. His argument is that bandwagoning will occur more often in compulsory voting. Con's final rebuttal for this is that since we already know why some people don't vote, there isn't an ambiguity for it.

Pro didn't really deal with Con's claim about freedom of elections entailing the ability of withhold a vote. I think Con successfully refuted Pro's argument about low voter turnout. There doesn't appear to be anything special about required voting, nor does there seem to be a problem of ambiguity. He also misunderstood Con's bandwagon objection. It doesn't have to do with removing it entirely, but lessening it.

I vote Con
Posted by famousdebater 5 months ago
Thanks Danielle!
Posted by kasmic 5 months ago
I did not even notice that I use one source through the whole debate, and its wikipedia haha.
Posted by kasmic 5 months ago
Thanks for voting Danielle!
Posted by Danielle 5 months ago
[RFD Part 1]

Thanks for inviting me to vote on this, kasmic.

1. Pro begins by asking how a system of government that is established via voting can truly represent the electorate, when the electorate in discouragingly large numbers does not vote.

2. He also claims that compulsory voting increases voter turn out. High voter turn-out is preferable in a democracy, because it represents more of the constituents and unequal representation.

I believe Pro sufficiently proves these points.

Con responds first by describing "free" and fair elections, which he claims cannot be "free" if voting is compulsory. But Pro later discredits this interpretation of free. While they go back and forth on this, Pro is ultimately correct. "Free and fair" elections means that elections offer equal opportunities for all competing parties and candidates; it has nothing to do with people being free to not vote.

However Con argues that the purpose of democracy is to protect all citizen's rights. By forcing one to vote, it inhibits people's freedom which does not protect their rights. More about this later.

[RFD Part 2]

Con goes on to explain that while low-voter turn out is undesirable, compulsory voting may be worse. He posits that disengaged and undecided voters should not be required to cast a ballot; it would be unfair to have their uninformed and/or apathetic votes count against those who did prioritize participating in politics. I believe these two contentions were also sufficiently supported by Con.

Pro argues, however, that the purpose of compulsory voting is not to make people vote frivolously, but to ensure that everyone"s vote is counted (why?). Pro also claims that compulsory voting somehow protects freedom rather than inhibits freedom. He doesn't explain how something that is forced is free, and Con cites violations of the 4th and 19th articles of protected Human Rights.
Posted by Danielle 5 months ago
[RFD Part 3]

To combat Con's point on uninformed and apathetic voting, Pro says that people can just vote "Undecided" or "Not Saying" etc. This is a fair point, and Con is not at all convincing that Pro's suggestion of voting Undecided (etc.) is bad conduct, especially because the status quo already allows for similar positions.

However Con is convincing at establishing this makes compulsory voting moot. He argues that all the people that would not have voted will simply chick the boxes that don't count toward a candidate (undecided or none of the above). He argues that a vote for abstinence is the same as abstaining all together which makes sense, and Con rightly notes that his opponent needs to state a reason as to why compulsory voting under this new plan is any different than the status quo in regards to elections.

I also accept Con's arguments on compulsory voting leading to bandwagoning; undecided voters and unsure voters who don"t know who to vote for would be compelled to vote for the popular decision. This is human nature. Neither debaters exhibited poor conduct by introducing arguments before the last round when both had the opportunity to respond.

[RFD Part 4]

In his final round, Pro successfully explains why Con's conduct criticism is unwarranted. Indeed Pro also introduced a new argument (bandwagoning). Con also proves that Pro's comparison to slavery is absurd; the circumstances of slavery and voting are not equitable, which negates the supposition of violating the 4th human right that Con cites. But Pro fails to prove that forced voting does not violate the 19th human right to "Freedom of Opinion and Information." WHILE I AGREE WITH PRO, HE DOESN'T EXPLAIN WHY thus I cannot award him that point (caps for emphasis).
Posted by Danielle 5 months ago
[ RFD Conclusion ]

Since Pro has the BOP, it comes down to his 2 original contentions and whether or not they have been negated. Pro began by questioning how democracy can be successful at representing the majority if the majority of people do not vote. He also claimed (and proved) that compulsory voting = higher turn out, neither of which Con denied. Instead Con's argument was that anyone who votes by force would likely not be an informed or responsible voter, so the majority's rightful views might not be reflected anyway. Pro claims their "vote for no one" through one of the choices to check Undecided or what have you, is, in fact, still a reflection of the majority (even if it's an uninformed or apathetic majority). But Con explained how statistically it would not be meaningful.

Still, Pro WOULD have won this point if he explained that it's still reflective of the majority (which Con admitted was good - the majority voting) even if it has no influence... but again, Pro did not argue this, so I cannot award him this point, and instead Con's supposition that it would not be meaningful stands. Pro could have (IMO effectively) argued this, but I think he was distracted by all of the relevant stuff about Human Rights and the poor conduct accusations to focus on the arguments at hand.

SUPER close debate, but ultimately Arguments to Con. I won't award Con sources points because the debate was so close. If my RFD gets deleted for that I'll just c/p the exact same RFD while leaving out that last bit of information. So there. Good job to both!
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by n7 5 months ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by tejretics 5 months ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Pro argues that the electorate isn't represented if a large number of it chooses not to vote, and that compulsory voting (CV) increases voter turnout, which is beneficial. Con argues that apathetic/undecided voters can't be forced to vote, and that doing that would be unjust (control exercised for no reason) - this outweighs any benefit from voter turnout. Pro's response, that "none of the above" is an option, mitigates their own contention on voter turnout. Con's strongest offense is the freedom of opinion/expression, and that the right to not vote is the right to silence, an extension of the freedom of expression. Pro merely asserts that compulsory voting doesn't violate this right, without warrant. Con mitigates Pro's point on turnout with statistics, making it less meaningful, leaving that point outweighed by justice. I lean Con, partially because Pro has the BOP. Vote on behalf of the Voter's Union.
Vote Placed by Danielle 5 months ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Lol @ the last part of my RFD about sources. Whoops! I didn't notice that wasn't a thing. My RFD is in the comments section.