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

May/June Beginners Debate Tournament: Voting should be mandatory

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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/25/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,331 times Debate No: 102735
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)




Greetings to one and all! Finally, it's time for the May Beginners Debate Tournament Finals Match-Up. I am Nuevo and I will be arguing for the resolution. We are all aware of the fact that It is kind of an upset to see that this is the first and last debate of the tourney due to continuing failure in communication, but I assure you that this will be a great debate between me and Deonatus. And, this will not be the last you'll hear our names.

With that being all said, let me advance the rules.

Round 1 is for greetings and acceptance.
Round 2 is for the introductory arguments, no rebuttals.
Round 3 is for rebuttals and, if you wish, new arguments.
Round 4 is for final rebuttals and conclusions and/or summaries.

I wish Deonatus luck. And, may the odds favor the one who compels the best.


I would like to begin by thanking my opponent Nuevo for participating in this debate/tournament. This is not our first debate with one another and I look forward to discussing this new topic with you. I would also like to thank any readers and judges for taking the time to participate in this debate.

In this debate I will be accepting the role of Con. I will be arguing that voting should not be mandatory.

I accept the rules and format offered by Nuevo.

Seeing as Pro has not done so, I will be providing a couple definitions. (1)
Voting- to choose, endorse, decide the disposition of, defeat, or authorize by vote (Merriam Webster)
Mandatory- required by a law or rule (Merriam Webster)

I give my best wishes to my opponent and look forward to an interesting debate.

Debate Round No. 1


I. Mandatory voting (MV) surfaces the general will through wider representation.

Democracy's core value is upholding the right of every member of a sovereign state to voice out their individual will. Once individual wills are concatenated, the general will of the collective, even amidst an intermixture of conflicting ideas, emerges beyond the friction. This philosophy aims to not only allow people to banner their individual interests but also to seek out what the collective thought truly is. Instituting mandatory voting induces a broader voter representation that boldly strengthens this democratic philosophy. It allows every qualifying citizens to cast a ballot, making the results deserving of stature. Outside metaphysics, a larger turnout would find the legitimacy of the elected politicians far from being underminable because of stronger political participation.

II. MV dismantles bad tactics.

Possessing the broadest range of voter representation cancels political strategies to target special interests groups. When politicians see that they could rake votes in this particular group more than the other, fiercer campaign efforts are showered towards that particular group. This, in turn, would make minority groups hopeless to have their needs finally catered, their woes symphatetically resolved. A strong example of this is how Israel pulls liberals and democrats to its favor.

"One person who has spoken candidly about this is Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, who was awarded the 1984 Nobel Peace Prize. Addressing an audience in Boston, he said: "But you know as well as I do that, somehow, the Israeli government is placed on a pedestal [in the US], and to criticize it is to be immediately dubbed anti-Semitic ... People are scared in this country, to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful -- very powerful."[1]

"Two well-known Jewish writers, Seymour Lipset and Earl Raab, point"ed out in their book, Jews and the New American Scene: "During the last three decades Jews [in the United States] have made up 50 percent of the top two hundred intellectu"als... 20 percent of professors at the leading universities ... 40 percent of partners in the leading law firms in New York and Washington ... 59 percent of the directors, writ"ers, and producers of the 50 top-grossing motion pictures from 1965 to 1982, and 58 percent of directors, writers, and producers in two or more primetime television series."[1]

This article tells how compelling Jewish lobby groups and political elites are in getting their concerns catered and desires favored due to their numerical superiority, in which are sourced from being the most influential and powerful people collectively. This is why mandatory voting's impact is needed. The impact of this policy is to seismically level the playing field when it comes to magnetizing votes. Since, the policy renders any sly and unfair tactics undeployable, saving the marginalized groups of political inequalities.

III. Voting is a civic duty.
Voting is more than just a right. It is a civic duty that should be exercised every election. It is a duty for the people to erect a new government with which a reciprocated benefit takes place, citizens vote, elected officials serve. This beneficial mutuality is analogous to taxes. We pay taxes to experience the privileges the government provides. Once we fail to, are we still deserving of its services? I think not. And, that would certainly speak the same for voting the future ruling government. Moreover, MV as a duty is also a tool that when utilized, strengthens yet again, the democracy of the nation. Abiding a civic responsibility constitutes firm discipline, undebased reverence, and trust, that our government will reciprocate what we put forth for its legitimacy and power.

IV. MV increases voter's political knowledge.

Political engagement encourages political knowledge. The curiosity and call to rationalization moves the voter to explore the depths of political knowledge. There may be less knowledgeable and savvy voters, but people will be forced to think rationally the minute they fill up the ballot. And, most of the time, adults get to hear anecodotes and personal experiences regarding the candidate's attitude and track history. So, to deny the onset of disseminating news, and divulged political views, is to deny the intrinsic societal stimuli during a period of election. In the majority of cases, political knowledge doesn't pose a grave threat to the end results. But, implementing MV would pose a threat to social biases ever-present in countries that follow a voluntary voting system.

According to the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES) project, in which data came from 133 election studies, held in 47 countries between 1996 and 2013 states:

"Finally, previous research shows political knowledge, like other forms of knowledge, accrues with age. Here, the interaction of compulsory voting and age has no discernable effect, even with the large number of respondents. If anything, it has an almost invisibly small positive effect on political knowledge. This may reflect the accrual of knowledge over the lifecycle, as citizens in compulsory systems will have voted on average more times than those in voluntary systems and we expect participation in elections has some informative effects.

"In conclusion, compulsory voting " particularly where it is enforced with sanctions or fines " does appear to result in more evenly distributed political knowledge than voluntary systems."[2]

The key findings here was that voters' political knowledge increases gradually over the course of time. So, it may be true that when it is implemented now, the voters will be forced to know facts, but it will be truer then, when the people would finally learn to look at the political spectrum with enthusiasm and maybe out of practice, and have accrued knowledge of what political context genuinely entails.

In conclusion, let me summarize my points. First, the democratic philosophy of the general will as an essential value that perpetually strengthens the newly elected government's legitimacy is unassailable through mandatory voting. Second, through this policy, social bias and marginalization will be dismantled while cultivating political equality. Third, a civic duty such as voting is imperative to abide and helps strengthen our democracy. Lastly, political engagement through voting increases political knowledge ceaselessly and is proven prospective in the long run.

With that, I temporarily end my speech.



I) MV undermines liberty and democracy
Restrictions on liberty should be limited to things that infringe/undermine the rights of others. The Constitution of the United States grants specific powers to the federal government and The Bill of Rights therein contains certain rights that the federal government is obligated to defend. The first amendment states "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". (1) By forcing someone to voice something they would not otherwise voice, we would be abridging their freedom of speech.
This also forces individuals to, at times, violate their conscience. In the 2016 presidential election, 1 in 4 people disliked both major party candidates. (2) Many of these voted 3rd party but many also felt that no presidential candidate was worthy of their vote. In this type of situation it is wrong to force someone to exercise their democratic voice to support a candidate they do not approve of.

II) MV doesn't incentivise political learning
Forcing people to make a decision is not equivalent to ensuring they make that decision intelligently. Many people choose not to educate themselves on political matters because they view such things as unimportant to them or uninteresting and an effective way to address this would be to address the root cause. Rather than compelling people to draw political conclusions (this provides no incentive for actual political learning) we should be educating them on how specific laws will affect their lives. There are many ways to do this and doing so would increase voter turnout and would do so voluntarily.
The other issue that mandatory voting would exacerbate is that of political misinformation which is extremely high. Nearly 1 in 3 Americans believe President Obama is a Muslim. (3) This is one example of the alarmingly inaccurate "news" being propagated on social media platforms as well as seemingly credible media sources. This effect manifests itself clearly as only 40% of the American public trust of media to report "the news fully, accurately, and fairly". (4) Those who are most vulnerable to misinformation and biased reporting are those who study politics least thoroughly which would undoubtedly be those who currently pay the least attention.
Mandatory voting undermines the integrity of our elections by forcing the politically ignorant to vote on things that they don't know much about.

III) MV doesn't lead to better representation for those most affected
We should not force individuals to vote for things that they feel don't affect them. Allow me to illustrate this point with a a personal example.
In my city, a special election was held that proposed a couple measures that I felt did not apply to me in the slightest. For instance, there was a measure that would increase a city tax on gas in order to provide additional funds to the school system. I did not grow up in this city and I will be leaving it in a few months. I have no investment in their school system and the tax would barely affect me because I usually buy gas on my commute to a nearby town. I believe in the importance of voting (and did so in my county, state, and general elections) but when the law doesn't pertain to me I would rather allow those who are affected offer their more knowledgeable and personally invested voice. This allows those whose voice truly matters in that city to govern that city more effectively.
Those that are apathetic are more likely to vote strictly on what is claimed without verifying the claims of the potential representative or law. Therefore, forcing those who lack incentive to verify claims would undoubtedly lead to increased pandering and decreased political honesty rather than actually effective policy. This undermines the integrity of our elections and does not bolster representation.

IV) MV punishes the lower class
Analysts and sociologists agree that socioeconomic success is linked with higher voting turnout. According to Loretta E. Bass and Lynne M. Casper, "Previous research shows that 'citizens of higher social and economic status participate more in politics. This generalization...holds true whether one uses level of education, income, or occupation as the measure of social status'... those with higher stakes in society are the most likely to go to the polls -- older individuals, homeowners, and married couples." (5) This means that those affected most by mandatory voting laws will be those of lower social and economic status. Of those that didn't vote in the 2016 US presidential election, about 1 in 3 said they couldn't afford to or couldn't get the day off work. (6) Most nations and provinces that implement mandatory voting laws rely on heavy fines to incentivise voting which would clearly be devastating to minorities, younger individuals, and those in poverty. Once again we see that instead of incentivising voter turnout and addressing root causes of low voter turnout, mandatory voting discriminates, punishes, and threatens the lives and economic well-being of the most vulnerable members of society.

In conclusion, democracy should never be wielded as justification to force the disadvantaged to act against their will under duress even if some may believe it to be 'for their own good'. Mandatory voting undermines liberty and democracy by unnecessarily restricting freedoms guaranteed them in the constitution. Mandatory voting also undermines elections by failing to address the root causes of low turnout such as political dissatisfaction, political ignorance, and political apathy.

Debate Round No. 2


I thank Deonatus for a comprehensive and well-written introduction. I hope we can both maintain this level of intelligent exchange throughout the match. Without further ado, I shall advance my rebuttals.

I. MV doesn't undermine liberty and democracy
The liberty and well-being of the members of the state remains intact under the implementation of MV. There is absolutely no reason to think otherwise. We must understand that when we vote, we choose not just an ordinary individual, but the future leader of the nation, the grandest of all positions. Once we support our government and vote accordingly, we strengthen our democracy, for there exists a reciprocal manifestation of trust, pride, and benefits. The results of the elections are materializations of our civic service that soon evolves into a democratic cycle of voting the servants of state and serving the state's voters.

Con, in their attempt to use the first amendment to support their position, had unequivocally failed. Under their logic, MV abridges the freedom of speech. But, would jury duty be abridging the freedom of speech as well, given that flawed ratiocination? Governments force people numerous tasks such as jury duty, paying taxes, etc. But, that is because civic duties strengthen the democratic mutuality. And, voting is a civic duty.

II. MV does incentivize political learning
MV does motivate people to pursue needed knowledge about the upcoming election period. Let me reassert what I have said the last round; MV's implementation displays a prospective growth as the years go by. Since it is imposed that citizens are to duly report to precincts and cast a ballot, the natural reaction will be reading and talking about candidates and exercising it traditionally, making it a force of habit. Again, according to the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES) project, in which data came from 133 election studies, held in 47 countries between 1996 and 2013 states, it is strongly proven that political knowledge accrues with age.[1]

Con stated that it is better to teach people about the effects of specific laws and everything that comes along with it. This may be a fair start on educating people, but it is not apropos to the political context of elections. Also, the issue of misinformation will also cease once the people are accustomed to fake news and black propaganda brought by MV. The surest way to educate a massive population about politics is to lead them to it, hands-on, and the effect will be nearly as big as the numbers. For an ounce of practice is worth a pound of theory.

III. MV does lead to better representation for those most affected
In this section, Con had remarked the perceived frivolity of voting to the apathetic, such as himself in the context of the example. However, his transient character is not the right analogue for the permanent figures of the state. These cases are special. But, nine times out of ten, people are permanently staying in a town, also adding the fact that it may be a poor and oppressed community. In that case, the people should vote. And, MV's a divine blessing for their curse since it strengthens representation and broadens the chances of a better life. Spoiled votes, with undertones of pandering and dishonesty, which Con truly despises, are strong political messages that the ruling government should take note. These actually imply an activistic movement against the incumbent and can be taken as essential data for further study and research. Also, pandering is not that big an issue since the right not to vote still remains intact. Ballots can be left blank. This would also banner a significant message of change and people power.

IV. MV helps the lower class
Even without MV, higher social classes tend to vote more than the lower classes. However, this is a meager problem. Longer periods for voting can be imposed along with MV, thus making it more convenient to people who have a hard time traversing from provinces or wherever they are settled. Also, express agreements made between subordinates and bosses are effective measures in dealing natural voting delays. The government can also schedule a later voting session for the busiest businesses or even declare a holiday. Time management can be dealt with, but managing the woes of the people is a different height. Again, MV broadens representation, especially for the poor, abused, unheard, forgotten, and oppressed. MV increases the chances of their burdens finally or insidiously resolved.

With that being all said, I shall wait for the rebuttal.



I will begin by rebutting my opponents opening argument and will follow that with refuting their arguments against my opening arguments.

"I. MV surfaces the general will through wider representation"
Essentially the argument presented here is that more voices will be heard which leads to greater representation. The problem is that there is no reason or evidence to substantiate this claim. Almost 1 in 5 people who did not vote claimed to be too busy, almost 16% actually admitted to simply being disinterested and 4% claim to have just forgotten. These people (almost 40% of non voters) are generally apathetic to the political process. This mean they will not spend enough time sifting through the claims made by politicians to verify that they have an effective track record or that their proposals will actually do what they claim. Additionally, allowing people the choice to vote allows them to decide what issues are important to them which will actually lead to greater representation. Conversely, forcing people to vote in elections that they are apathetic towards will exacerbate the issues of misleading news headlines and political pandering/dishonesty for votes. MV leads to less representation for those who actually want to understand the particular issue while inconveniently forcing people who don't care to vote on things they know little or nothing about even if they start listening to a little more news (which they probably wouldn't)

"II. MV dismantles bad tactics"
My opponent claims that MV would force politicians to appeal to everyone rather than simply special interest groups. He also makes the claim that appealing to special interest groups undermines the voice of minorities. To substantiate his claim he uses an example of how a minority group (American Jews) lobby the government for policy that is more favorable towards Israel. One doesn't have to look very deep to see how this argument is self defeating. Jewish people are a minority. Yes, they are a financially successful minority in the aggregate as was pointed out, but a minority nonetheless. However it is important to note that American Jews are particularly invested in issues in the Middle-East and specifically Israel. It is precisely this attachment that makes their voice especially important because they are far more likely to be more educated on the history and current events of the region. My opponent failed to provide any evidence of harms presented by the existence of interest groups let alone that the harms outweigh the benefits. Interest groups are often minority groups and they are a way for those educated and invested in a particular issue to channel their voice louder than their numbers would otherwise allow.

"III. Voting is a civic duty"
My opponent makes the claim that voting is a civic duty and that they therefore ought to have a legal obligation to vote. He attempts to substantiate these claims by comparing one's obligation to vote to other involuntarily performed civic duties like paying taxes. The difference between taxes and voting are really quite apparent. By not paying taxes, one is essentially refusing to do their equal share of upholding the systems of our government and therefore they are undermining the rights that the government is obligated to protect. With voting this is not the case. Voting is a civic opportunity and by not voting, the only person "harmed" is the non-voter by not putting forth their voice to decide what they want the government to be. Voting is essentially an extension of free speech. Forcing someone to say something is illegal hence the 5th amendment right to remain silent. Additionally, if I do not feel qualified to vote on a particular issue or for a particular office because I don't feel adequately knowledgeable on the subject/candidates then I am upholding my government more by abstaining.

"IV. MV increases voters political knowledge"
My opponent points out that political engagement encourages political knowledge but this obviously ignores the fact that being forced to vote is not the same as engaging in the election process as one requires actually placing value on the election process and the other simply motivates people to check a random box under fear of force or fines. It is wrong of my opponent to suggest that "people will be forced to think rationally the minute they fill up the ballot". Thinking rationally is no replacement for actual knowledge and study on the subjects in question.
My opponent uses the CSES project to substantiate the claim that political awareness increases under MV. After reading through the study, it is quite apparent that the study was far from conclusive in proving an increase in political knowledge under MV. It also does not prove greater political knowledge, only an ever so slight increased political knowledge with age and an ever so slight trend toward more evenly distributed political knowledge between some social groups. Even then it does not prove this for all factors as in the case of household income which has an even more severe impact on voting tendencies in countries that have "moderately enforced" or "strongly enforced" mandatory voting laws. (2) This means poorer people have less political knowledge in comparison to those in higher earning households under MV. Regardless though, we should seek greater average political knowledge rather than focusing on more equally distributed political knowledge. In the study my opponent cites, it was proven that countries with voluntary voting systems tend to have greater political knowledge on average than countries with strongly or moderately enforced mandatory voting laws. (3) This strongly counteracts any accrual of knowledge that may come with age because it shows the negative impact of MV on political knowledge overall.

Having effectively dismantled and refuted my opponents arguments I will move forward with rebuilding my case as I refute my opponents rebuttals.

I) MV undermines liberty and democracy
My opponent claims that MV strengthens democracy because it benefits those who vote by through the positive effects of being represented. I have already explained why MV doesn't lead to greater representation but my actual criticism of MV in regards to democracy in this contention was that by abridging freedom of speech (which includes our democratic voice) we undermine democracy.
In order to justify this attack on liberty/free speech, my opponent uses the example of jury duty. As I already explained however, an individual abstaining from voting does not harm the rights of others to a governmental system that represents them. This separates it from duties like taxes and jury duty which do directly impact the rights of others to an effective government. The only one "harmed" is the non-voter and even then there are plenty of instances where an individual would find less harm in the choice to exercise their free speech to not vote against their conscience for a candidate they disapprove of or abstain due to an awareness of ignorance to the issues of the legislation/candidates being voted on.

II) MV doesn't incentivize political learning
Pro reasserts his point about how political knowledge will increase more with age under MV. I already addressed the flaws in his conclusions drawn from this study. Nevertheless I will restate that the CSES also acknowledges that countries with MV have lower averages in regards to political knowledge. (3) Thus the age point is irrelevant.
My opponent claims teaching citizens the actual effects of legislation is not relevant to ensuring people vote intelligently. I would contend this. It is essential. We can do this through investing in better civics education in schools and through political activism which encourage people to vote and educates them about the topic as well rather than forcing people to draw conclusions and hoping they research it when doing so.
Pro also claims that as people are exposed to propaganda/fake news they will be more equipped to recognize it as such. In making this claim my opponent is misrepresenting the effects of propaganda on society. The more people are exposed (particularly those who are apathetic/inattentive and currently choose not to vote), the more likely they are to start believing and spreading that misinformation.

III) MV doesn't lead to better representation for those most affected
My opponent disregards my example because of trivial details that he claims make my example an exception to the rule. The whole point was to demonstrate that there are many reasons that cause one to be apathetic to a particular election/vote that does not affect the individual. My opponent did not really respond to my point about how politically apathetic/ignorant people are more likely to accept claims made to pander to them without verifying their truth except to say that pandering is not a big issue because the right to vote is still intact. Pandering is a problem because it encourages political dishonesty when groups simply vote based on claims made by a politician to support their cause without verifying those claims.
If people can leave ballots blank then there is no point in MV. Apathetic non-voters will simply leave ballots blank but be inconvenienced by taking the time to go to their ballot box.

IV) MV punishes the lower class (and the incapable)
My opponent attacks his own argument here by suggesting alternative solutions to low voter turnout like extended voting periods and national voting holidays.
The point remains that MV is essentially a threat of punishment to the lower class.
Also, 14% of non-voters didn't vote because they couldn't due to handicap/illness. (1) Punishment isn't the solution.

Debate Round No. 3


I thank Deonatus for an understandable lengthy rebuttal, but let us not be fooled with quantity. In this last round, I shall refute his assertions, expose his fallacious logic, and display what true quality is.

I.The General Will
This metaphysical argument stems from the ideology of Jean-Jacques Rosseau, the general will. My point remains unscathed as Con did not counter this philosophy with another, and by doing so the next violates the rules as I didn't stipulate new arguments in R4, but was available in R3. The contention still holds its might for flagging what the collective will is. Even with a mass of polarized ideas, the result will always be the general desire of the people. The philosophy states that the more diversed, the more genuine the general will is. With less people, more of special groups, and a voluntary voting system, the general will is not at its finest.

Also, the sources here were bent images, inflated.Con did this many times and I shall expose this unacceptable behavior as we go on.Con said almost 1 in 5 people who did not vote said they're busy. The right figure was 18.9%, far from 20%, far from almost. There's absolutely nothing wrong with writing the exact but it was surely done for appeal.

Moreover, the chance to vote shouldn't be dismissed with just an 18.9 or 3.9 figure. There are millions of us that could change the Congress and the future policies of our nation. The people's power to improve the government should be taken seriously. This strengthens our democracy and political will for change.

Also, let me put an end to political pandering that had been such a problem. Pandering basically means to do what one demands even though it's not proper, good, or reasonable. When this occurs, people are sure who deserves the vote more since pandering sheds light upon the misdeeds of coercion and dishonesty. I shall refute more of their assertions herein as we go through where they are most suited.

II.MV dismantles bad tactics
Con asserts that my argument defeats itself because Jewish lobby groups are minorities themselves. However, Con attacks the objective and omits the subjective value, the real focal point that intrinsically links to whether they are singled out from the others in the society in which they live for differential and unequal treatment, and who therefore regard themselves as objects of collective discrimination. Therefore, the minority status is conditioned by questions of political power, not only in cold numerical. Ostensibly, in the context of my arguments, the minorities are the people who are politically weak, oppressed, unheard, and abused. The Jewish lobby groups are strong communities that have power to control running officials and influence votes. With MV, we undeniably level the playing field that constitutes equal opportunities for problematic communities.

III.Voting is a civic duty
Again, voting is a civic right. There are government tasks that infringe the right to freedom of speech, but is needed to support our democracy's health. One is jury duty, we are forced to do this even though it clearly violates the 5th amendment. We harm the potential condition of our nation when we leave it to the higher classes and ruling elites, Con says we don't, but we actually harm the rights of our brethren when sly tactics become available and oppressed minorities are unheard. Even one of Con's sources, the Brennan Center of Justice, states that the right to vote is the most fundamental right in an electoral democracy, which people are sometimes deprived of.[1] When we vote, we not only exercise our civic rights, but also fortify our democratic stability.

IV.MV increases voters political knowledge
Con attacks the CSES data because it helps political knowledge with just an "ever so slight" increase. This is false. The study concludes that political knowledge does accrue with age, and to deny this would deny simple, natural logic and reason. Also, the study showed that men tend to be more knowledgeable about women, but with MV enforced, the gap was fixed with the result of evenly distributed knowledge. This strongly supports the notion of General Will, women representation and equal opportunity. Moreover, Con has used my data wrongly and again proves to my favor since the study proved that strongly enforced and voluntary systems show the same correct answers, but weakly enforced systems show the leading points.[2] Still,enforcement is better than no enforcement.

Moreover, MV highlights a progressive growth through time, it may be effective now, but it will be more effective then. Con failed to refute how habit grows out of tradition, which helps accrue knowledge, and is prospective in the long-run. When there's a presidential election, we are apt to get involved in social media and pour out our thoughts while acquiring some in the process. This is a natural societal stimuli during elections and is arguably hard to perturb and erase. Black propaganda will be there, but in today's time the media can easily provide what's true or not, especially when interviews are made and politicians can explain what is false or not. After the elections, things will go back to normal and the people have 6 years to know what was outrageous and remained precise; the next time there are elections, the people would know. Humans are rational beings.Once we vote, we do things rationally. Again, we may be less rational in voting now, but we will improve as we go on.
I.MV doesn't undermine liberty and democracy
It strengthens the integrity of our government and its valued democracy. I have already explained why by not voting, we harm the future state of our nation, undermine integrity, and prolong the problems of our abused brothers and sisters.

II.MV does incentivize political learning
I have strongly refuted this. Accrual of knowledge will prospectively help higher voter turnout, enthusiasm, and representation.

III.MV leads to better representation for the most affected
MV levels the playing field no matter what happens, it eradicates targeting strategies, and pays equal opportunity for the unheard to rise up and represent themselves. This is the most heroic value of MV, its salvation. Other than that, activistic movements can be deployed with leaving the ballots blank and spoiling votes. This can be essential data for further research and study, which in turn would help better social programs and policies. Especially when it is the presidential elections, there are millions of us who can finally change the congress, the policies, and the nation's future. MV is a transformative tool, that when utilized again and again, becomes the best arsenal for political change and betterment.

IV.MV doesn't punish the poor and disabled
Previously in this section Con said of voters who failed to vote, about 1 in 3 said they couldn't afford to or couldn't get the day off work. The right figure was 31%, not 33.33%. Con failed to be exact and truthful, for '3 in 10' is a whole lot less from '1 in 3'.

Con asserts I attack my own argument, however, it is their own argument that self-refutes.Con provides data from BPC's Democratic Project, which helps election administrators ensure that all voters who are eligible to vote can successfully participate in the democratic process.[3] Con's 14% data remains true, but it turns counter-intuitive for the source supports my argument by giving ways to assist voters with disabilities, from accessible voting machines, polling places, curbside voting options, web-interfaces for completing absentee ballots..they must incorporate available, workable solutions into the process to reduce the number of Americans who report that disability and illness keeps them away from the polls.[3] With the aforementioned, voting holidays, scheduled voting periods for the busiest businesses, and express agreements, voter turnout will increase. It is greatly essential that our people's voice is represented to ensure the uttermost integrity and honor.

In conclusion, I have strongly refuted Con's fallacious and inconsiderate assertions, they remained negative and oblivious to the fact that MV helps in the most profound and sympathetic way. The metaphysics of the General Will remains powerful and unscathed, and is an infallible philosophy. We level the playing field for every eligible voter and dismantle bad tactics, uphold our civic duty, safeguard the future of nation, political knowledge and voter enthusiasm accrues with age, strengthen our integrity and democracy, represent marginalized minorities, and helps the lower class. I have successfully laid out information the most accurate way possible, while my opponent resorts to giving bent images of their statistics, and used sources that were absolutely counter-intuitive and counter-productive in their part.

Thank you for a wonderful match, I hereby affirm the resolution.

And may everyone cast their votes and voice in the future.



I would like to thank Nuevo for the debate, I have enjoyed our exchange.
I will start by briefly addressing the false claims and conclusions my opponent has presented. I will then explain how the Con arguments have outweighed those given by the Pro side in this debate.

I General Will
My opponent presents a philosophical argument that while potentially alluded to was not explicitly stated. After reading and rereading the closest statement to this argument was done in round 2 when my opponent said in his conclusion, "First, the democratic philosophy of the general will as an essential value that perpetually strengthens the newly elected government's legitimacy is unassailable through mandatory voting." Whether or not my opponent is violating debate rules by including an argument that was not stated with any clarity and was not extended through round 3, I will leave to judges. I believe that I adequately responded to this with my arguments (Con I and Con III) which I will elaborate on when I extend my arguments.

The accusations my opponent makes about the supposed abusive misrepresentation of statistics in my argument is, to be frank, absurd. 18.9% vs 20% is not a substantial difference and is within the margin of error for the statistic anyways. Beyond that I wished to illustrate the statistic with a simple, real-world illustration. 1 in 5 people is more accurate than saying 1 in 6. The rounding was insignificant, more accurate for illustration, and it certainly wasn't abusive.
Pro claims 1.1% was significant error on my part ironically, Pro then states that 18.9% and 3.9% are an insignificant portion of non-voters. It is not insignificant, 18.9% makes up the second largest reason for people not voting. He also ignored the 15.7% that said they were not interested. As I stated in my actual argument, together that makes up almost 40% of non voters who were generally apathetic.

II MV dismantled bad tactics
Pro misrepresents my criticism of the Jewish lobby argument. I was pointing out how interest groups can give a louder voice to a minority (by which I mean small group) who are significantly more knowledgeable of their interest because of their investment in a given policy. I was not simply saying Jewish people are oppressed and therefore deserve a louder voice.

III Voting is a civic duty
As I already addressed, this argument falls with his comparison to taxes and jury duty. I have already pointed out that unlike those two duties (which are necessary for government to function) the decision to not vote is an exercise of of free speech that only limits the voice of the individual deciding to not vote. If I decide not to vote, I might not be as represented in government though if anything this gives greater power to the right to vote for others so the only "victim" would be oneself. If I decide to not do jury duty, I am undermining the right of others to a fair trial. If I do not pay taxes, I undermine the right to government protection guaranteed to all Americans under the Constitution.

IV MV increases political knowledge
Pro seeks to prove that the accruing of knowledge with age by a factor of 0.2 (with a .1 margin of error and only when strictly enforced) is significant. It really isn't because as I pointed out MV is linked to lower overall political knowledge unless the MV was weakly enforced. Pro didn't specify what level of enforcement they support but it seems that Pro will need to choose between lower political knowledge (strict) or no accruing knowledge with age (weak). As I stated before the evidence is far from conclusive that MV has any significant effect on political knowledge as evidenced by the inconsistencies between levels of enforcement and the small sample size (particularly in the weakly enforced sample group of 2 countries).
Pro focuses again on how MV seems to close the gender gap in political knowledge but totally ignored that it increases the political knowledge gap between rich and poor. Regardless, overall political knowledge is more important than decreasing gaps between social groups. Averaging out the political knowledge of all countries with implemented MV laws shows that they have equal or even slightly less overall political knowledge than those with voluntary voting systems.
Pro then suggests that the longer MV is implemented the more effectively knowledge will accrue with age. Their is no evidence of this not does Pro present any. Instead, he talks about how people who voluntarily (though he doesn't acknowledge that as a factor) engage in voting tend to be interested and research more. This ignores that almost 40% of non-voters are apathetic to the process and force does not make someone suddenly care about anything other than avoiding the potential punishment.

I will now move on to my arguments and why Con should win this debate.

I) MV undermines liberty and democracy
Pro's argument against this ignores liberty and focuses on how democracy will be strengthened but fails to prove this in their arguments. We should not force people to vote when there is no candidate they feel they can vote for in good conscience. This infringes on constitutional rights of free thought and speech without any cause except to force them to do what Pro believes is in their best interest. Government shouldn't make life decisions for people, it should preserve peoples rights and Pro did not explain why that should not be the case.

II) MV doesn't incentivise political learning
Pro's only attempt to substantiate his claim against this was an inconclusive study that I already refuted and used against him.
Pro does not successfully refute the point that apathetic people do not become engaged with force, especially if they have the option (as Pro asserts) to leave ballots blank. In my arguments I have suggested other methods to increase voter turnout that do not infringe on constitutional rights and that would be more effective such as investing in better civics education and political activism which educate and motivate apathetic voters far more than threats. Pro has neglected to explain why these methods would not prove effective while being more moral in its preservation of constitutional freedoms.

III) MV doesn't lead to better representation for those most affected
MV does not eradicate targeting strategies, those always exist in elections. Furthermore, Pro suggests that leaving ballots blank under MV is virtuous even though it destroys the whole point of MV by giving an easy cop out for the apathetic (almost 40% of non-voters) that results in them being inconvenienced and their rights infringed upon without their voice being heard anyway. Not voting says the exact same thing as a mandatory blank ballot but without restricing freedoms. I would also add that this is where propaganda, pandering, and political dishonesty come into play. People who don't vote tend to be significantly less educated on current and historical politics. This means they are far more susceptible to political dishonesty and media dishonesty/bias. The politically ignorant are politically ignorant because of greater apathy to politics which means they are less likely to verify the validity of claims made by media or politicians. They will instead sway in favor of empty political promises (or pandering) rather than doing the research to better represent their values. This is where Pro's "General will" argument fails as well. Uneducated and apathetic voting does not lead to greater representation or a stronger democracy. I'm not sure why Pro doesn't recognize that the arguments I've made throughout the debate under this contention as well as my first contention (MV undermines democracy) are sufficient response to his "metaphysics of the general will" argument. I suppose I will simply trust the judges to see his claim for what it is, empty.
People will be more represented when they care enough to represent themselves. My personal anecdote about not voting shows this. When it affected me (federal, state, county elections) I educated myself because I knew it mattered. When the special election occurred I looked at the measures and knew they did not affect me so it was unimportant for me to educate myself on those issues and I decided not to vote. Had I been forced to vote I would not have researched because I was not going to be affected. Therefore my voice would have potential to stand against others who were more invested in and educated on the issues.

IV) MV punishes the poor and incapable
Once again, instead of addressing the actual argument, Pro chooses to nitpick my rounding of a statistic by 2%. Again, I rounded because 1 in 3 was more accurate than 1 in 4 and I wanted readers to be able to picture actual people rather than unillustriative percentages. My argument stands that many were unable to vote due to financial obligations and MV would simply increase that burden thus punishing the poor.
To refute my argument about those that couldn't vote due to illness or disability, Pro provides many solutions to the problem. I would like to thank Pro, because in doing so they perfectly illustrate that the problem of voter turnout can be cured by other means. If those people will now vote because their reasons for not doing so have been satisfied then there is no need to bully them into doing so.
Voter turnout can be addressed without threatening our most vulnerable (poor and disabled). That was the whole point of this argument and Pro proved me right. Pro solved the problem MV aims to fix with things other than MV and in doing so substantially removes any benefit from MV policies, leaving only the threats and restrictions of freedom.

Pro failed to substantiate claims of stronger democracy and greater political knowledge under MV. Pro failed to justify infringements on freedom. Con has promoted more moral and effective alternatives which Pro acknowledges. MV is immoral and ineffective. For these reasons, vote Con.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Deonatus 3 years ago
9 hours left to vote everyone!
Posted by Hayd 3 years ago
Great debate guys, you should be proud
Posted by adesh.epixel 3 years ago
good luck for both.
Posted by TUF 3 years ago
Good luck to both debaters!! :)
Posted by TUF 3 years ago
Good luck to both debaters!! :)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: See comments for my RFD, which is linked in a Google Document.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.