Question: Should the Sale of Bottled Water be Prohibited?

The quality of water should not dictate our right to consume it. Just because something has high quality doesn't mean we should be denied the choice to drink it if we want to. If we were to ban bottled water on the premise that "we don't need it," where would this lead? Consider that we don't technically need toasters since we can make fire, washing machines because we can use the river, or cars as we have legs. Banning bottled water could initiate a slippery slope of prohibiting items that can be debated as unnecessary, potentially setting a precedent for an irreversible trend of banning more things we don't necessarily need.

Hello! I understand what you're trying to argue, but what am I suppose to argue? Do students and parents really have the final say for the kind of food and beverages that are sold on campus? If so, please post a link for me to read about it, because it seems like a one sided argument at the moment. I don't think anyone but the schools themselves will argue that junk food should be sold on campus and usually their motives are for financial reasons. I hope you can clarify some of my confusions! Thanks!

Thank you for responding. I shall now list my three main arguements. First of all, I think we can all agree that fracking is beneficial for our economy. The USA is now the lead producer of oil, ahead of even Saudi Arabia. Fracking is a 385 billion dollar industry that supports 1.7 million jobs. North Dakota is a profound example of this. Ever since the Bakken Shale has been discovered, there has been only 3.1% unemployment compared to the national average of 7.7%. In North Dakota, there are 40,000 people who have fracking jobs and average salries have grown 1.4%. Fracking is not bad for the environment. Actually, fracking produces half the emissions of coal. Also, 90% of the hydraulic fracturing fluid is water, and around 5 to 7% sand. Most of the alleged chemicals in frack fluid are slickeners. Hydraulic fracturing surprisingly uses less water. Fracking requires just 0.6 to 5.8 gallons of water per million Btu of energy produced. By comparison, “renewable” and “sustainable” corn-based ethanol requires 2,510 to 29,100 gallons per million Btu of usable energy. Biodiesel from soybeans consumes 14,000 to 75,000 gallons of water per million Btu. Also, in a study of 200 water wells near fracking sites, the water quality stayed the same before and after except in one case. The myth about fracking causing earthquakes has not been confirmed.The process of fracking is not the problem, but rather poor maintenence. 6 to 7% percent of wells are built incorrectly, causing the leaks. A mobile water evaporator, for example, can eliminate the wastewater before it leaks. I agree with the fact that their should be stricter regulations for building and watching over the wells. But banning it outright is not the correct way to go. References: http://www.frackingjobs.co... http://blogs.wsj.com...http://www.motherjones.com... http://www.fool.com... http://online.wsj.com... http://www.livingstondaily.com... http://www.washingtonpost.com... http://www.washingtonpost.com...

I believe that smoking should be made illegal in all public places because smoking kills, plain and simple. In fact if we wanted to get a sense of how dangerous cigarette smoke actually is we could look to a study provided by info research lab where they say that around 6 million deaths a year can be atributed to tobacco [1]. Of these 6 million deaths 600,000 are people who were killed by second hand smoke [2]. The WHO continues and states that 40% of children are exposed to second hand smoke regularly [2]. So not only is tobacco polluting our air, air that we all breathe, it is directly harming our children. The impacts of this new research are so shocking that for the first time ever, a majority of Americans support a public ban on smoking [3]. However my number one argument for banning smoking is that when used according to the directions smoking kills you. There are no benefits of smoking that can outweigh this fact. Smoking kills. We know the dangers of smoking, it's time that we do something to make our future a little less hazy. I apologize for ow long it took for me to post this second round. I promise it won't happen again. [1] http://www.inforesearchlab.com... [2] http://www.who.int... [3] http://www.gallup.com...

Obviously, tobacco is bad for you. But that doesn't mean it should be banned. People should still have a right to do what they want to themselves. We've given them several warnings. Now, it's up to them to see if they help or harm themselves.One problem that arises from a total and complete smoking ban is this:HOW COULD WE ENFORCE IT?There's really no way we could. It would just be a continuation of the failed war on drugs. Finally, if people want to smoke, they deserve the consequences.

In this debate I will taking the position that smoking should be banned, whilst my opponent will be assuming the position that smoking should remain legal. Round 1 will consist of opening arguments solely and any definitions either side wishes to post. Round 2 will be for rebuttals and any further arguments. Round 3 will be for defences and further rebuttals. Round 4 will be for a summary of arguments and conclusion with final point. Round 1: Smoking - The inhalation of the smoke of the burning of tobacco encased in a cigarettes, pipes or cigars. (1) Point 1 -- There can be no doubt that smoking is harmful to ones health. Each year, nearly 6 million people die from tobacco, with 600,000 of those people non-smokers who were exposed to second hand smoke. One person dies every 6 seconds from a tobacco related illness (2) and the American Cancer Society has stated that more people die from smoking than AIDS, car crashes, alcohol, drug abuse, fires, suicides and murders combined each year. This startling fact should not come as a surprise to anyone who understand the effects that the some 4,000 chemicals in a typical cigarette have in the human body. Tar is a sticky black substance that forms deposits inside the lungs of those who inhale the smoke, causing lung cancer and a myriad of respiratory diseases. Carbon monoxide is a compound that reduces the amount of oxygen carried by the red blood cells leading to respiratory problems and can also damage the linings of the arteries, allowing fat to build up inside them, leading to a potential heart attack. These are just 2 of the other 200 "toxic" chemicals found in tobacco smoke. (3) Smokers are 22 times more likely to develop lung cancer. Moreover, smoking accounts for 14% of premature deaths and 10% of all infant deaths. It is clear from this evidence that smoking is extremely harmful to the human body and a responsibility of governments is to protect its people from harmful things. It is for this reason that cocaine, rape and speeding are all illegal and if the same logic was to be applied to this subject than tobacco products would join that group. Point 2 -- As briefly alluded to in some of the statistics above, smoking doesn't just effect smokes, it also affects those around them too. 600,000 non smokers die every year due to inhaling someone else's tobacco smoke. Why do they have to die? Moreover, 28% of children who died in 2004, had deaths attributable to second hand smoke. Is it fair for someone who wants to remain healthy, to have to share the street with a smoker who has no regard for the problems that their disgusting "habit" causes. If the claim to personal freedom is made, then why is the claim of non smokers being ignored? Point 3 -- Smoking also leads to impoverishment of those in lower income countries. 80% of smokers live in middle to lower income countries where the health care is at best, inadequate and therefore they carry the greatest burden. (4) In families from countries that fall into this category, children are sent out to work on the tobacco in order to gain money for the family. They are exposing themselves to the risk of contracting green tobacco sickness which is caused by absorbing the nicotine through the wet leaves. Additionally, the plethora of deaths caused by smoking means that families are left without a means to provide an income and this leads to them being trapped in the poverty cycle as a direct effect of smoking. All the while, the CEO's of these multinational tobacco companies are living green of the billions that they are making from this sickening trade. If political leaders condemn the actions of Mubarak and Gaddafi, then they are guilty of first degree hypocrisy if they do not include Michael Szymanczyk in the same breath. I wish my opponent all the best in this debate. References: (1) - http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... (2) - http://www.who.int... (3) - http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... (4) - http://www.who.int...

Banning "fortune-tellers, feng shui practitioners, soothsayers, witchdoctors, astrologists, exorcists, Shaman priests, spiritual healers and holistic medicine sellers..." would be a bad idea. These people are all full it. I won't argue with that... The mere existence of so many forms pretty much cancels each other out. All religions should be added to the list as well. If the Christians are right, then how could a Native American spirit-worshipper be right? Is one just dead-wrong? This is all nonsense. Some people just aren't committed to rigorous examination of reality and settle for a good story instead. With that aside, we obviously cannot actually ban these activities. Contention 1: Banning these practices would be impossible to achieve, and would only make them stronger. That is, ALL one of these people would need is for their practice to be forcibly banned. Some people would understand, but a lot of them would only get a more... supernatural... feeling about the subject, like the government was trying to hide something from them. It would be more of a government endorsement then anything else. While the main stores would go out of business, inevitably, a black market could be created and it would be nearly impossible to regulate. You see, the devil is in the details. What EXACTLY are we regulating? If people got together without an official store-front, what items would we look for to "make a bust"? Are we banning candles, symbols, chants... What would a trial look like for one of these people? What evidence would be brought against them? The fact that they received money could be shown, but they would probably catch on quickly and create a suitable cover - like giving customers a cheap item that they would have essentially bought from them for the money they paid - like a small work of art. A trial for one of these people would make the Salem Witch Trials look like the OJ Simpson Trial - It would be so ridiculous that all we could possibly achieve is embarrassment and strengthen the cause in dispute. You can't regulate stupidity, my friend. Contention 2: Separation from religion. I am not religious, but I am also aware that I can't force religion to be nonexistent. There is nothing in the thesis that prevents religion from being dismantled. Religion is just organized superstition, after all. Churches are strong across the nation, and many millions of people, probably more than half of our US population, consider themselves Christian in some capacity. A priest at a church collecting "offerings" is in absolutely no logical form different than a sleazy soothsayer making it up as she goes along to get whatever money she can out of her customer. The logical implications to religion would harm one of the most basic civil liberties we have: freedom of religion. Even a stout Atheist cannot say that the religious should not even have the right to consider religion. I agree that religion has many indirect negative effects in our country (just listen to an episode of Sean Hannity), but these cannot be forced out at the end of a gun. They have to be reasoned out. Contention 3: What if we ban the "right" religion/superstition? What if one of these superstitions is actually the right one? Maybe it was astrology! Christianity, Buddhism, Islam... they were all wrong. But the Astrologers were right after all! This is ridiculous, mind you, but it does present a logical flaw. There is no logical support for superstition, but there is also a lack of proof that superstition is non-existent. If someone wants to take a chance with Tom Cruise and Scientology, then they have that right. But before we go arresting Tom Cruise, we should stop and make sure we aren't being worse than he is by our actions to prevent him. Contention 4: The strong will continue to prey on the weak no matter what laws are passed. There are no "perfect laws", as far as I have ever seen. The only way to perfection is a society without laws, and that only works if everyone is playing fairly. No matter what laws you pass, these people will find a way to take advantage of them.

I also enjoy debating this topic, sir. Thank you.You stated that your main stance is that banning alcohol will only increase drunk driving rates because people will have to go out in search for it, and also it should not be taken away from those that drink responsibly. You also mentioned that alcohol has health benefits, which I whole-heartedly agree with. I apologize, I should have defined alcohol at the beginning of the debate and what exceptions there might be, that is my fault. I should have stated that alcohol for medicinal purposes is acceptable.The CDC article you mentioned stated that 1 drink per day for women and up to 2 drinks per day for men is considered moderate. I ask you, what is considered 1 drink? A tankard? A shot glass? Many people have different standards when it comes to size, and end up on the floor as a result."A majority of people consume an average amount of alcohol, or no alcohol at all." You did not attach a source to this, but if it is true it only supports my argument. If many people drink moderate to no alcohol, most people wouldn't miss alcohol once it would be illegal, thus making your argument for more drunk drivers void. "It is basically the same as banning knifes because some, but not all, abuse their rights to own knifes and hurt themselves or others."Knives, in my opinion, cannot be compared to alcohol. For one thing, knives have far more purposes than alchohol. Also, banning knives would be next to impossible to enforce. Practically anything short of a blunt stick would be considered a knife. I fail to see how that compares. "What I am getting at is that making alcohol illegal will put more people on the streets, drunk, because they must go out of their home in search of it."This goes back to my argument for enforcement. If we had more than 3,000 agents nationwide, and the government truly cared about enforcing new prohibition, those numbers would not be as high as you might think. Although I wouldn't know since this is only a prediction on what might happen. The same laws that apply to drunk drivers today would still apply, if not be even more strict. That would discourage drunk driving considerably in my opinion. "Banning alcohol would be an economic disaster. The alcohol industry makes billions each year. The tobacco industry also makes a quite a bit as well: "You seem to have the idea that banning alcohol would bring the country to a stand still, yet, sir, you have already stated that a majority of people consume little to no alcohol. This means that consumer taxing would not be that high to begin with. Tobacco on the other hand I can see as a considerable tax source. How many people do you see smoking on a day to day basis? And yet it kills many Americans. I won't quote the statistics, but we all know the numbers suffering and dying from lung cancer is far greater than we would care to know about. Why not raise the tax on tobacco and end the problem? If anything, this would drop the number of those with lung cancer and give hospitals the chance to treat others rather than those who abuse their bodies. If anything, I ask how tobacco companies can justify the production of tobacco to begin with since it holds zero health benefits."Now, how much exactly do you plan to tax this industry? Because if you take it too high, it will collapse as well - resulting in two huge industries falling."I'm not an economist, but in short taxing done in moderation and an increase in other sources would make up for the absence of alcohol."Yet, the policy of prohibition wasn't fully enforced in good times - how would we pay for it in times of a poor economy like the one today? If the riches of the 1920's couldn't afford to end the illegal sale of alcohol, how could we manage it now?"This goes back to those 3000 nationwide agents and enforcement. The riches of the 1920s had nothing to do with it. It was simply the number of those enforcers that weren't doing the job to begin with. If anything, prohibition mended families that were suffering from alcoholics and brought together broken homes. I believe the benefits would far outweight the cost involved. Alcohol does have health benefits, but people can live long happy productive lives without it. The old saying goes, eat right, stay fit, die anyway. I would rather stay away from the consumption of alcohol than say it is good for my health and become an addict. Also, the number of those suffering from "alcoholism" would drop to zero.Prohibition did work. It simply wasn't put into effect in the right way.

I just want to apologize again for round two. "Ultimately, a government's core obligation is to the welfare of its people" Their job is to also protect the freedoms and rights of its people. My opponent, it, arguing that because smoking can be dangerous to the smokers it should be banned. Yes, it can be dangerous, but it should not be banned. People should be taught about the risks, but banning it won't make everyone stop. The people should be able to make the choices that they want to do. My opponent also brought up the idea that if tobacco products are banned that basically the spending would go down. Yes, some people will stop buying which will cause it to go down, but not everyone will stop. They will find a way to buy or make it even if it's banned, like during the prohibition of alcohol. They said in their implementation they said "Years 6-15 I would allow sales of tobacco to users who could demonstrate that they were clinically addicted to tobacco and needed to continue to purchase the product to avoid withdrawal." How would they be able to prove they are clinically addicted. They also said "I would also subsidize programs to help people go through withdrawal, just give those people an alternative to smoking." What sort of alternatives would give to the people? The war on smoking is almost as useless as the war on marijuana, except it's not as ridiculous. My opponent wants to ban smoking, and if we do that history will repeat itself. Even though states are starting to legalize marijuana, its still illegal in a lot of states. The ban has not stopped people from smoking it. There was the prohibition which later failed. http://www.history.com...

Where are the morons! ? But I think medicine and science shouldn't take seriously these frauds and swindlers who sell water and market it as a cure all or whatever they may claim that it cures. Feeling better is all fine and dandy but these companies/people/quacks lie and mislead the public and need to be actively punished like any other business that would do so. These claims must be taken seriously, because they are scientific claims- false scientific claims. They cannot market water as a drug and sell it for a large price. Homeopathy does not work, though just thinking something works might make people feel better or even produce some type of artificial well being, it is not a drug and does not cure anything. I could just as easily sell sand and say that by putting this sand in your toilet, you will feel better. You might in fact feel better, but the claim is no less garbage and not proof that the sand has an effect as anything but 'delusional'.

As I have already stated, I agree that marijuana is a good herb that can benefit a lot of people. I also agree that it should be legalized. This is not what my primarily issue is with Pro’s statement: my issue with it is that he wants alcohol to be illegalized. I agree with Pro, in that alcohol can be a very bad drug. I do not think anybody can deny this. However, I would like to point out how outlawing it will cause significant problems in this country, as it did in the 1920s’. The Eighteenth Amendment On December 18th, 1917, Congress in the United States passed the eighteenth amendment to the United States Constitution. This bill’s full text is as followed [1]: “Section 1.After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited. Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.” As you can see, alcohol has already been prohibited in the United States. If Pro is aware of United States history, you likely know the consequences brought about by this prohibition. I will submit to the debate several graphs and charts, proving the obvious consequences that came about through the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s': Per Capita Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages (Gallons of Pure Alcohol) 1910-1929. [2] http://www.albany.edu...As you can see from this graph, the conception of alcohol was severely stunted for a year. However, afterwards, the consumption of alcohol skyrocketed back to its average levels. The problem with this chart should be obvious: if alcohol was outlawed in 1919, and it was not repealed until 1933, how did alcohol consumption skyrocket back to its normal levels almost immediately after its ban? This graph proves that the prohibition of alcohol did not prevent anybody (but the most law-abiding citizen) from actually drinking alcohol. It was a useless law, and, in other cases, a detrimental law. Inmates at Sing-Sing Prison: 1917-22. [2] http://www.albany.edu... As you can see, the amount of prisoners sharply increased due to this prohibition. This prohibition, as we have already established, not only did not stop alcoholics, but also steeply increased prison population, which costs a lot of money to maintain. This law did not stop alcoholics, it simply made alcoholics criminals, which only hindered our system, but actually increased crimes other than alcohol: Homicide Rates: 1910-44. [2] http://www.albany.edu... Take note of this chart. Murder rates are fairly high before the prohibition. But take note: directly after the 18th ammendment was enforced, murder rates skyrocketed until its peak at 1933; Franklin D. Roosevelt legalized alcohol almost immediately after going into office. Then, crime rates significantly lowered from 1934 on. What does this tell us? It tells us that not only was prohibition uneffective and costly, but it also actually increased crime rates. The reason these crime rates increased was because the American Mafia took over the bootlegging industry after alcohol industries went under. Bootlegging is the act of smuggling in illicit drugs - in this case, alcohol - and selling it on the streets. By doing this, the Mafia became incredibly rich (just as gangs are incredibly rich selling drugs, pornography in the '70s, and illegal firearms, which is why I am against the criminalization of all drugs, and certain firearms today), and incredibly powerful.[3][4]Conclusion:In conclusion, the prohibition of alcohol has never, and will never, work. It will increase murders and other, more horrible crimes; allow criminal organizations to flourish; destroy jobs by shutting down alcohol producing factories; and it never has nor will it ever stop the drinking of alcohol, just as the War on Drugs has not nor will it ever stop the recreational use of illicit drugs.-- [1] Government Archives: 11th - 27th amendments: http://www.archives.gov... [2] "The End of Prohibition: What Happened and What Have We Learned?": http://www.albany.edu... [3] Report on the Enforcement of the Prohibition Laws of the United States. National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement. Dated January 7th 1931. [4] Wikipedia: “Prohibition [of Alcohol] in the United States”: http://en.wikipedia.org...


Question: Should the Day of Elections be Recognized as a National Holiday?

Autumn Regular Tournament: In a democracy, compulsory voting should not be the norm.

Thank you, Philo. The Pro side argues that the only concern in policy should be whether it is "democratic." This is a flawed perspective; democracies are forms of government that must balance individual rights with the common good. Good governance involves making acceptable trade-offs between these two principles. The Pro side fails to explain why we should prioritize a "good" democracy over other forms of governance. It is preferable to be governed by a just king than a tyrannical president, even if the latter is more democratic. Good governance should be the priority.

The question is whether the practical effects of compulsory voting outweigh its infringement on individual autonomy. High voter turnout is not inherently good; in Weimar Germany, it would have been better if the Jews had higher turnout than the Nazi party, regardless of the broader electorate's opinion. We should value good government over strict adherence to democratic principles.

The Pro side argues that democracy requires "all" people to be involved in the governing process, but then contradicts itself by claiming certain people are unfit to rule. This undermines the argument that democracy is invalid without universal participation. I do not want people who cannot name the vice president to decide elections.

The Pro side claims that without high turnout, a government lacks a mandate. However, there is no evidence that governments with compulsory voting have greater legitimacy than those without. Even in nations without compulsory voting, it is rare for the majority of eligible voters to endorse the ruling party, yet this does not affect the government's ability to rule. In a multi-party system, it is unlikely for the winning party to gain a majority even with compulsory voting. The Pro side fails to demonstrate that governments without high turnout are less legitimate.

The Pro side's argument for compulsory voting assumes a two-party system, but this is not the case in many countries. In a multi-party system, high turnout does not guarantee a majority for the winning party. The Pro side's argument also assumes that high turnout is inherently good, but this is not necessarily true. State coercion is not the best way to achieve high turnout when there are alternatives like tax credits.

The Pro side argues that compulsory voting will increase accessibility to voting, but this is not unique to compulsory voting. Governments can easily pass laws that remove hindrances to voting, such as making election days national holidays, extending early voting, and implementing same-day registration. Compulsory voting is an overreaction to the issue of voter accessibility.

The Pro side argues

http://www.youtube.com...Thanks, Philo. In a classic South Park episode the character Stan, uncomfortable with his choices for an upcoming school mascot election, chooses to abstain from voting. After being pressured to vote by his friends, threatened into voting, and ultimately shunned from his community Stan finally returns and registers a vote only to find out that it didn't even matter in an extremely lopsided election. The episode lampoons our cultures view on voting: that despite the stupendous improbability of any individuals vote actually mattering, and even if an individual dislikes or has no opinion on the candidates, it's still viewed by many people as some kind of obligation. However even in their wildest, most cynical dreams the creators of South Park could not have envisioned a world where their "Vote or Die" song would become actual government policy. This is the world Pro wants. Puff Daddy would probably make an excellent enforcer in the Pro world. Don't have an opinion? Don't like the choices? Have a sincerely held moral objection to voting? Too bad. Vote or die.=Framework= What values should we enshrine into law? Pro believes that the only important value is democracy, a manifestly absurd view that would allow 51% to vote to exterminate the other 49%, but it's clear that good governments, including democracies, have higher values--ultimately governance is a balancing act between individual rights and the common good. Pro totally ignores the individual rights part of the governance equation. Obviously compulsory voting violates individual rights, but is it in the interest of the common good to mandate citizens to vote? The answer is clearly no, and whatever minuscule benefits it manages to bring to the table are vastly outweighed by the complete destruction of individual rights brought about by this policy. =Counterplan=Assuming that we want to drive voter turnout as high as possible, democracies should make it easier to vote and institute tax credits for individuals who cast a ballot. This economic incentive would be extremely easy to put into practice and would drive up turnout without any of the ethical implications that stem from compulsory voting. I. Undemocratic Pro wants us to value whatever is most democratic. By far the more democratic option is to allow individual societies to determine voting policy themselves rather than making a blanket declaration that they have an obligation to force their citizens to vote. National nuances, opinions, customs, or autonomy be damned--Pro may not know anything about Nauru or Monaco but he still views those nations as his to rule. This is the height of totalitarianism, not democracy. In the United States, the overwhelming majority, 66%-26%, opposes compulsory voting[1]. This statistic is utterly devastating for Pro, who wants the entire debate to come down to whatever is more democratic. I'll get to Pro's specific arguments later, but it's absurd on its face to suggest that it's more democratic to overrule the vast majority of the population on this issue. Ultimately, the Pro position relies upon a fatal conceit: the idea that from our vantage point in the first world we can legislate for everybody else just as well as we could for our own nations. This kind of thinking is what provided the justification for colonialism and indeed Pro's intellectual framework relying on the assumption that we in the West have the right to dictate policy for the rest of the world is blatantly neocolonialist and must be rejected, to vote Pro is to perpetuate this kind of thinking. This neocolonialism is the antithesis of any kind of lofty democratic ideals and to reject it requires also rejecting the resolution. In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory if that is the policy that is best for their society and we don't get to decide that for them. II. Freedom of Speech and ExpressionArticle 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights[2] protects an individuals freedom of expression. The right to free speech is declared in the very preamble. Article 19 specifies: "this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." I argue that both the rights of freedom of speech and expression protect an individuals right to refrain from voting. Voting is inherently a speech act, it's a citizen voicing his opinion on who he wishes to hold the position in question--but freedom of speech itself contains the right *not* to speak. The US Supreme Court in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette[3] took the obviously correct position that the freedom of speech protects the right of silence as well, protecting the right of schoolchildren to *not* salute the flag if they chose. The court ruled that forcing everyone to salute the flag created a "Compulsory unification of opinion". Forcing everyone to vote would violate free speech in much the same manner, and, in the US at least, would mean completely undermining court precedent and the rule of law. An individual has the right to refrain from voting as a speech act--perhaps the individual wants to make a statement about how they disapprove of every candidate on the ballot or if they do not support democracy and favor another system of government such as a monarchy or anarcho capitalism. Refraining to vote is also an act of political expression. Article 19 protects an individuals right to hold an opinion "without interference". Many individuals feel that voting is immoral for various reasons, such as they do not want to perpetuate a system they oppose, and they are allowed to hold and exercise that opinion. Many individuals also believe that by voting for a politician they are implicitly responsible for the actions those officials take. As George Carlin once said[4]: "I believe if you vote, you have no right to complain...If you vote and you elect dishonest, incompetent people into office who screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You caused the problem; you voted them in; you have no right to complain." If an individual disapproves of every candidate for office, or every choice on a referendum ballot, forcing them to vote is forcing them to violate their conscience. Governments have to have a compelling state interest before they can override individual rights and force an individual to violate his sincerely held moral beliefs. Pro's arguments don't come anywhere close to meeting this litmus test as we'll see in the next round.III. Freedom of ReligionArticle 18 of the Universal Declaration gives every individual the right to "to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." Jehovah's Witnesses, due to religious reasons, are required to maintain political neutrality[5]. Pro would bulldoze over their right to observe their religious teachings. The US has a really great litmus test for what laws violating religious freedom are to be allowed, called the Sherbert Test[6], which requires that if the government is going to violate an individuals sincerely held religious beliefs it must prove that both there is a compelling state interest behind the violation AND that the policy is the *least intrusive* method of achieving this compelling state interest. For example, if the government has a compelling interest in promoting contraception, forcing the Catholic Church to distribute contraceptives after every Mass would not be the *least intrusive* means to achieve this interest. Other democracies have similar policies and I will defend the validity of this test should Pro choose to engage it. If one rereads Pro's arguments with the Sherbert Test in mind it's quite clear that even if there is a compelling state interest in bringing voter turnout as high as possible (there isn't), forcing Jehovah's Witnesses to violate their beliefs is not the least intrusive method of achieving any of these benefits.IV. Nonvoters are less informed Those who choose to refrain from voting often make a wise choice. According to Pew[7], 76% of the people who report rarely voting admit that don't feel they don't know enough about the candidates to cast an informed ballot. Pro argues that forcing people to vote will improve education, but there can be no denying that some people are simply too busy or too lazy to properly inform themselves on politics. The counterplan of providing tax credits for voters would be superior to crafting a high turnout, educated electorate because only generally nonvoting people who actually have an income and pay enough attention to politics to learn about the tax credit would be motivated to vote. We can have high voter turnout without forcing the 29% of Americans who cannot even name the Vice President of their country[8] to cast a ballot and expecting the results to be beneficial to the nation as a whole. Maybe in other democracies with a more informed electorate this policy would make sense (although, I would argue, even in those the tax credit system is preferable) but not in the US. Not in a lot of other democracies. In conclusion, those who refrain from voting are generally less informed than those who choose to vote, compulsory voting grossly violates actual human rights and a tax credit system could achieve similar results without any of these impacts. Don't empower Puff Daddy to force you at gunpoint to vote. Vote Con. Sources:1. https://today.yougov.com...2. http://www.un.org...3. http://www.oyez.org...4. 5. http://www.jw.org...6. http://definitions.uslegal.com...7. http://www.people-press.org...8. http://gawker.com...

New election system: - Each mentally able adult citizen(in further text: MAAC) has 1 electing point - Each MAAC can give his election point(s) to any other MAAC during the non-voting period. - Everyone can see to whom every individual gave election point(s), on the official website. - Each MAAC can take away same number of election points from MAAC that he previously gave his election points to, during the non-voting period. - Each MAAC that has over 150 election points may vote on suggestions of new laws and suggestions of removing old laws and suggestions of changing laws(in further text: altering laws), during the voting period. - Everyone can see how MACCs with voting right voted, on official website. - Only congressman can suggest altering laws. - Congressmen election is done every 3 months. Simply, 535 MAAC's with the most election points at the end of election time become congressman. - President election is done every year, simply, the guy with most votes of congressmen wins. There are much more details, but I think I named all important stuff. Here is why this system is better: - It is cheaper - It is much more harder to bribe voters - People can change their representative, if he is not doing as they like Why term limits are not welcome: - If people consider someone to be the best person who represents their interest the best, then that person should. - If someone was voting for bad altering laws, people can take their election points back. Person will only have his term again if people who elected him are satisfied.

Excellent I'm glad this debate can continue! Since we're not discussing my alternative to the democratic system discussed I will focus round 3 on rebutting the statements promoting compulsory voting. My Rebuttals "In compulsory voting, the people would be more politically involved" This is simply not the case, the public isn't suddenly going to get more involved in politics just because voting has become a legal sanction. The public doesn't really know where their tax money goes but they pay the government anyway because it's a legal sanction the same can go for voting. A person may not know what the candidates stand for but they'll vote anyway because they legally have to. "Nobody is going to vote for someone named Bob Johnson if he stands for eradicating puppies and kittens, even if he has access to all the commercials and media" This is a flawed statement as candidates will often lie in order to win their elections and the media will just make it easier for them. The public generally depends on T. V. to get political information more so than anywhere else, you can't just expect people to look into every candidate running for office and then just vote for them. Not to mention some people are just fundamentally opposed to all politicians (myself included) so that will also be a problem in a system of compulsory voting. Compulsory voting simply will not change how people will be willing to gain information about candidates. In what possible way can violating a person's autonomous right not to vote have an affect on people being politically involved. "In a two party system, such as that of the United States" The U. S is a perfect example about how my previous statements are accurate. The U. S is not technically a two party system but the public only votes on two major parties because the media limits their coverage on those two political parties, this problem will not change with compulsory voting. "Also, what you said about them being funded by a lot of large corporations, what is bad with that? " These corporations are the special interests of the candidates, because they are funded by them they are more interested in doing their bidding than that of the working class or significantly smaller businesses with much less money. This is exactly why Capitalism is a major part of the problem, the structured inequity of it perpetuates the corruption that occurs within the state. "Not having compulsory voting won't fix this" A part of the solution to ending the status quo is to eliminate the business government power elite that inevitably comes from Capitalism and the state as well, and once you get rid of the state voting all together will become obsolete!

Ideally, every citizen would be familiar with the candidates, would take a liking to one available on the ballot, and turn out for voting. By making voting mandatory, we're only ensuring the last part to be true. People *should* be aware of the candidates, but that doesn't mean they are, and having misinformed or careless people vote is much worse than not having them vote at all. They will just skew the results of those that voted willingly because they were passionate about the issues. Some people don't vote because none of the candidates eligible to win the election are people they are willing to support, whether for religious or personal reasons. We would be forcing those that don't agree with the majority to go against their principles and beliefs, in exchange for a vote that will be chosen with resentment. For the disabled, sick, and those without transportation, they may be reprimanded for something out of their control.

I don't now what you celebrate Australia day for but i believe it has a meaning. It's one ay a year to show how much we love our country. As i said before the indigenous Australians were not kicked out in fact they have many good privileges such as education, housing, clean food and water etc. Without all of these resources i don't know if the Aboriginals would even be here in our world

I understand. I'm currently in the process of moving myself, and only put together weak arguments one hour before the deadline each of the last two rounds. I hope we can revisit this debate at a later date, one where my arguments are better and where both of us have more time.

Con argues compulsory voting creates a "false democratic representation" and feels not voting is a valid option for citizens. I argue that, even though an uninformed vote could be damaging, the extremely low voter turnout of recent elections needs to be addressed. Low voter turnout creates to a very ineffective style of governing, where governments do not know the true needs of their citizens. Compulsory voting combined with an education of the political process for all citizens, would be a more effective form of government. *side note* Technology is extremely good at connecting people and allows data to be transferred from almost anywhere. The US possibly could create a secure form of mobile voting almost ensuring high voter turnout

Encyclopedia Britannica says that "Whether made compulsory in law or through social pressure, it is doubtful that high voter turnout is a beneficial indication of an electorate"s capability for intelligent social choice." America"s first amendment is for the freedom of speech, which then also gives you the right not to speak. Compulsory voting is taking away this very important right. This is why I stand in firm negation in today"s resolution: "In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory." "First I would like to clarify some terms in today's resolution: Democracy: A government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and is directly by them or by their or elected agents under a free electoral system. "Dictionary.com" Ought: Expressing obligation Compulsory: Required, or mandatory. Obligatory "I would now like to turn to my value for today's debate: Value; Freedom of Speech. 1: The right of people to express their opinions publicly without governmental interference. My value applies to today"s debate because our first amendment right is the freedom to speak. With the freedom to speak also comes the right not to speak. A democracy is all about freedom. With compulsory voting, the government would be restricting our freedoms, by forcing citizens to take a position. "My value criterion is: Protecting Rights Definition of Value Criterion and how it applies to the debate: By enforcing compulsory voting, you would be violating the freedom of speech, the freedom that all citizens have. Making a law that directly affects our rights would be counter to the tenants of democracy. Contention I: Cite 1: Stoilov, Vassia. "No, Compulsory Voting Laws in the United States Would Not Work." Points of View Reference Center. EBSCOHost, n.d. Web. 17 Sept. 2013. Compulsory voting interferes with individual liberty and violates the principle of free elections. Compulsory voting violates the U.S. constitutional "right to refrain from speaking" famously set forth in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, which is widely held to be the classic statement of the belief that the First Amendment encompasses both the right to speak and the right not to speak. Contention II: Cite 1: Piero Moraro, PhD Professor of Philosophy in New South Wales, Winter 2012, "Why Compulsory Voting Undermines Democracy," Living Ethics, Issue 88, http://www.ethics.org.au... (accessed 8/15/13) compulsory voting does not guarantee a better democracy. Australia is one of the 19 countries in the world that legally enforces the vote. For Australian citizens voting is not merely a right, but also a duty. First introduced in Queensland in 1915, extended to the whole country in 1924, compulsory voting is a salient feature of the Australian electoral system. But is it democratic? The main argument in defense of compulsory voting is the importance of raising citizens" participation in elections. Australia"s turn out rate has never fallen below 90% since 1924, in striking comparison with most Western countries that struggle to reach 60%. These are nevertheless, merely quantitative considerations: the fact that more people go to vote is not a better thing for democracy. In fact, it could be argued that compulsory voting is likely to do more damage than good, by reducing the quality of the electoral outcome. Forcing everyone to vote means that the voice of those with no interest in politics will influence the decision about who rules the country. This generates what author Jason Brennan calls "pollution of the polls" in his book The ethics of voting, and is one of the main causes of the actual crisis of democracy worldwide: incompetent politicians winning elections through media control (the recent case of Italy under Silvio Berlusconi epitomizes this phenomenon). If one is to assume that compulsory voting will create a better democracy, there is no evidence to illustrate that this is true. Freedom of speech is one of the most important rights that a citizen withholds in a democracy. Compulsory voting stands in violation of this right by making voting a must, rather than a choice. In a democracy no law may be created that violates a citizens inalienable rights. Therefore compulsory voting cannot and should not be used in a democracy.

Yea..... I believe that all wars should be declared by a vote in the branches of the military. With this being said, it can still be proposed by the president or congress. If 3/5 of the military votes for war, then war will be declared. This will ensure that the war is for the direct benefit of the american people instead of congress. If we look back, since WW2 most wars have been political instead of for the preservation of our lands. Votes in the military symbolize and ideolize the power of the everyday american to make decisions that Congress only has the power to now. Challenge if you want. This is a friendly debate, so don't insult me or things like that. I had an experience with that once. So yea, lets do this.

Thanks to Wylted for taking me up on this important debate! The outcome of the voting reform process could have a variety of wide-ranging impacts on the health, direction, and tenor of DDO's politics and community affairs, and so it is important that this topic is discussed in our community. In this debate I will examine the problems of the current voting system that necessitate change, and then I will discuss how my proposal effectively and efficiently addresses those problems. I will also discuss the BOP before I launch into those arguments. With that, let's launch into the debate!BOPSince Wylted has agreed to split the BOP, judges should approach this debate keeping in mind the question of "which system is better?" Whichever system is better is the one you should vote for. There should be no presumption in favor of the status quo.PROBLEMS WITH THE STATUS QUOThere are five big issues that I see in the current voting system: (1) that people in the polls are largely disenfranchised, (2) that users who are barely part of the community are able to vote, (3) that users with no interactions in the forums can vote, (4) that users are often bombarded with unwanted communications from the candidates during the campaign process, and (5) that voters who have already voted are often pressured by various campaign teams to change their votes. I will now review each of these five points and explain why these are problems under the status quo.(1) People in the Polls are DisenfranchisedFirstly, it is important to note that just because a user spends a lot of time in the polls section that does not mean that they are not good users who are invested in the site. Two particular users come to mind: PetersSmith and Bblackkbbirdd; both of these users attempted to cast votes or wanted to cast votes in the last election, but were barred from doing so because they did not meet the voting eligibility requirements. By all accounts these users were invested in the site, promoted exemplary polls, exhibited good conduct, and were all around benefits to the DDO community. (2/3) Users who are barely part of the community are able to vote/Users with no interactions in the forums can voteI just want to point out that 2 and 3 are different insofar as a user can be invested in the community without spending much time in the forums, but for the sake of saving valuable character space, I will be addressing these points together. The investment comments have more to do with (2), and the latter have more to do with (3), but I think they're all interrelated to some extent.Let me construct a hypothetical to demonstrate my point. Let's say that user X has received a PM asking him to vote. User X has done 3, 1-round debates. Each of his rounds in all of his debates was one or two brief sentences. He has never posted in the forums, never created a poll, and has been on the site for a few weeks (let's specify and say 21 days). This user is eligible to vote. There are several problems with this. Firstly, this user has not demonstrated any investment in the site. There are many temporary users of DDO, who flit in, do a few debates, and leave. They are not long-term users, and so have no stake in casting a wise, prudent vote for the site's long-term investment. This means that they will likely not care as much about casting a good vote if they choose to vote. Alternatively, they may stick around for awhile, but only be on the site in short bursts and leave for months on end. Here again, their frequent absence diminishes the stake they have in ensuring the best outcome. To me, the impacts of this are that they are more likely to vote for whoever asks them to vote (regardless of the quality of their positions), are more likely to not get informed about the issues before voting, and are thus more likely to cast careless or bad votes.Secondly, even if this voter is invested for some reason, they are likely not well informed. This most recent election cycle, big issues that the candidates discussed included forum reorganization and revitalization, reducing flamewars in the forums, trials, and other issues outside of the debate section of the website. These are things that users who spend little or no time in the forums are not going to be informed about, so it will be hard for them to truly assess the importance of these issues to the welfare of the site as a whole. In fact, it is quite possible that they do not even know many areas of concern in their own section of the website due to the lack of effort they put into it. Finally, it is also possible that they do not even know what they are voting for. Of the voters I talked to when I campaigned, those who were not involved in the forums seemed more likely than other groups to conflate the position of mod and president. It does not seem fair that two users who are aware of community issues should be denied the right to vote in the community's Presidential Elections simply because they frequent the polls section more than other sections of the site. In fact, the polls section as added to DDO after the eligibility requirements were created, so it seems logical to update those requirements to reflect such changes to the site.Thirdly, it seems that X could very easily be a multi-account created in anticipation of the election. With voting requirements that are easy to meet, it also becomes easy to craft alts with the specific purpose in mind of casting illicit votes.(4) Users are often bombarded with unwanted communications from the candidates during the campaign processI experienced this problem firsthand when I was campaigning this election cycle. Several users clearly did not want to receive messages, and were irked that they would often find their inboxes filled to the brim with notifications and PMs from multiple people on both sides of the race. One user in particular, Beastt, noted that he was fed up of receiving these messages. Clearly, this can feel harassing to some users, which is not what DDO wants its users to be feeling.(5) Voters who have already voted are often pressured by various campaign teams to change their votesThis issue sparked several debates in the forums, particularly after Mikal posted his thread accusing campaigners of harassing people to change their votes [http://www.debate.org...]. Wylted himself has admitted this is a problem--and it clearly is a threat to the integrity of DDO's electoral process (voter intimidation), but also to DDO's values and positive community atmosphere.HOW MY PROPOSAL SOLVES(1) My proposal solves for the disenfranchisement of poll-usersUnder my system, Bblackkbbirdd would have been eligible to vote per the fourth bullet, having at least 200 posts and 50 polls, and could thus have cast ballots. PetersSmith would have been very close to being eligible (less than 40 comments away, which could have easily been made up before voting began). Another disqualified voter, Zyloarchy, would have been much closer to qualifying too. Ultimately, my system makes it much easier for these types of users to become qualified voters.(2/3) My proposal solves for community involvement and forum useBy raising the bar on eligibility requirements, we can cut down on some of the members who are merely transient being able to vote. We can also make it harder to create alts simply to garner more votes. Moreover, by ensuring that everyone has to have at least 100 posts to vote, we ensure that voters have some exposure to the heart of the community and increase the chances of their being informed about other site issues.(4/5) My proposal solves for harassmentMy proposal mandates that if someone asks not to be PM'd further, campaigners must stop PMing them. A no-contact list could even be created to this end. Furthermore, my proposal explicitly bans contacting voters after they vote to lobby them to alter their votes.Prefer my System. Over to Con...


Question: Should the Day of Elections be Recognized as a National Holiday?

Voting on weekends would be a more practical solution. If the aim is to boost voter participation, conducting elections on weekends would be a more reasonable choice. It provides individuals with ample leisure time to cast their votes, while also circumventing the issues associated with coercion. Although it doesn't tackle the overarching issue of voter apathy, it addresses the problem of non-voting in a more palatable manner compared to mandatory voting. An even better alternative would be to declare a public holiday on election days and offer complimentary public transportation to and from polling stations.

I do not think stores should be open on Thanksgiving because Thanksgiving is the day to be thankful of what you have and not what you can get for a cheap deal at a store. Some people don't have anyone to spend it with or the people they spend it with they hardly see so they cherish those moments.

Informed? Many studies have been conducted where impulse voting, voting based on party alone, and name recognition based on propaganda alone were primary triggers. Aside, 38% of the voters in the last presidential election did not attend high school, when you add in those who didn't graduate as well, the number increases. The voters, or at least the ones that do vote, can statistically be well defined as uninformed. It is a sad truth and outcome of our voting system. Undervalue politics? I undervalue what politics has ultimately become, a monetary game. The corruption and deals in politics have existed for years, think of the 1800 election, but what has changed is the influence of money from what power it had once held. And this debate is not to establish the specifics, yet the concept. But one way this could work is after the pool of funds has been in place for the campaign, half it then. If the campaigner truly feels that his campaign is more valuable than a reputable charity, that would show the true value of that candidate. Again, this is for the concept.

Thanks, thett3.South ParkWhilst I do like South Park, I'm afraid its inclusion isn't helpful to the debate. Obviously, having compulsory voting does not entail that the punishment for not voting is to die. 'Vote or die' is therefore a hyperbolic strawman of my case.FrameworkCon postulates that individual rights and the common good are both important things to consider within a good democracy, and I agree to an extent. But I maintain that how democratic a democracy is remains an important factor that contributes to whether a democracy is good or bad.But I argue that compulsory voting is neither a violation of individual rights nor is it detrimental to the common good.CounterplanWhilst Con's plan would probably increase the voter turnout, which is a good thing, it would be extremely costly to implement. For the economic incentive to be compelling enough to increase the turnout, the tax credits would have to be in the region of at least $50 (even this value might not incentivize enough people). Considering that there are 218,959,000 eligible voters in the USA (1), and that we would want the voter turnout to increase to around 95%, that would cost the government $10.4 billion just for a single election! With that amount of money, around 5500 primary schools could be built (2) or 13 large teaching hospitals (3). Compulsory voting would cost far less - only requiring the law enforcement necessary to ensure that voting is indeed compulsory.In other words, Con's counterplan is worse than my plan because it fulfills the same role as my plan (increasing voter turnout) but costs far more. Considering how my plan doesn't involve any ethical problems either (I'll expand on this later), it is clear that Con's counterplan is inferior.Undemocratic?Con writes that, in the USA, the majority opposes compulsory voting and therefore it is supposedly undemocratic to enforce it. But this is incorrect, since it is possible for majority opinion to favour something that is undemocratic - the fact that the majority support or oppose X does not necessarily mean that X is either democratic or undemocratic respectively. For example, in the 18th century, it was probable (I cannot locate the exact statistics) that the majority of people supported denying women the right to vote. However, women's right to vote is democratic in principle, since it conforms to the democratic principle of all citizens being able to vote. The fact that in the 1700s the majority opposed it did not render it undemocratic.Regardless, Con's statistic only applies to the USA, I could easily respond by highlighting that the majority of Australians support compulsory voting (4). Why, I ask Con, should the statistic from the USA take precedence over the statistic from Australia?To summarise, just because something isn't supported by the majority, it doesn't mean it is undemocratic. Therefore I can maintain that compulsory voting is more democratic than optional voting despite it not garnering majority support.Con's second point is just fallacious. He presumes that, because I come from a first world country, I cannot argue in favour of changes in third world countries. Aside from this being a blatant ad hominem fallacy (whether I live in a first world or third world country is irrelevant to my arguments' veracity), it is a strawman argument. Just because I argue that compulsory voting ought to be the case in a democracy, that doesn't entail that I am 'dictating policy' - I am not advocating the forcible adoption of compulsory voting against a country's will, that would be ridiculous.Furthermore, advocating changes in other countries is often a justified stance. For example, I would advocate for the removal of the one-child policy in China; yet this stance isn't refuted by the accusation that it is 'blatantly neocolonialist' and that 'we don't get to decide for them', the only valid rebuttals would have to pertain to the moral status of the one child policy.Freedom of speech, religion and expressionCon states multiple concerns:1. There is a right not to speak2. People should be able to refrain from voting for moral reasons3. People should be able to express their disapproval of all candidates4. Jehovah's Witnesses have a religious obligation to remain politically neutralHowever, none of these are problematic. Why? Because one can still spoil their vote even if voting is compulsory. By spoiling one's vote, one has the ability to refrain from giving their opinion, express their moral opposition to voting, express their disapproval of all the candidates or, if one is a Jehovah's Witness, remain politically neutral.Therefore, none of Con's concerns harm my case for compulsory voting.On a side note, moral objections do not, by themselves, allow someone to be exempt from compulsory action. For example, someone may have a sincerely-held moral objection to paying tax, but this does not justify their tax evasion. Furthermore, someone may have a sincerely-held moral objection to acting as a juror, but this does not justify them avoiding jury duty. If Con's stance is to be consistent, then he would have to be against any policy that requires people to perform an action, since someone could have a sincerely held moral obligation against that action and, according to Con, such policies would therefore violate their rights. But clearly this logic would entail anarchy.Political educationThe principle of democracy is that every citizen is involved in the election of government, therefore the level of knowledge held by someone should have no affect on whether they should vote or not. Con imagines some arbitrary line between those who should vote and those who shouldn't vote (even if this line isn't enforced). But democracy is where all are involved in the political process, if we have a system where only the intelligent are voting, then this is an aristocracy, not a democracy - yet this debate pertains to democracy.It is an elitist notion that it is preferable for the less-educated to not voice their political stance, one that flies in the face of the egalitarian nature of democracy. It prompts us to ask: why should the more educated be given more political representation than the less educated?Anyhow, as I have argued in round 2, compulsory voting will most increase the amount of people who are politically educated - resolving the problem of political apathy and ignorance.ConclusionCompulsory voting is preferable to optional voting for the reasons detailed in round 2. Con says that this is undemocratic because the majority oppose it, but as demonstrated by the case of women's suffrage, something can still be democratic even if it isn't supported by the majority. Moreover, Con only gives a US statistic, but this debate isn't just about the US.Then Con proposes his counterplan, which turns out to be very expensive and has no advantages over compulsory voting.Next, he claims that compulsory voting would violate human rights, but I pointed out that one can still spoil their vote - avoiding all the problems raised by Con.Lastly, Con makes the elitist assertion that it is a preferable situation that the less-educated don't vote. But this is contrary to the principles of democracy (which make no mention of education). Secondly, making voting compulsory will actually help remedy the problem of political ignorance/apathy. (1) http://www.statisticbrain.com...(2) http://www.building.co.uk...(3) https://www.quora.com...

I accept your challenge in this debate. I stand to negate your resolution. I hold that democratic elections are MORE won than bought. An electoral victory is NOT a good or service to be exchanged for money. The election is ultimately decided by a plurality and or majority among the community of eligible voters, and each voter is free to decide whom she chooses to vote for. Regardless of how much money is spent on election campaigns, each voter stands alone in that booth on election day, and makes her own decision. Definitions: Democracy: forms of government, both direct and indirect, where representatives or policies are chosen through popular elections or referendums. Bought: Past tense of 'buy,' to obtain [something] in exchange for money or goods Won: (In this context) by achieving a plurality and or majority of votes among the community of eligible voters Majority: 50% +1 Plurality: a countable margin by which a number exceeds another number, especially of votes. Time: The time period under discussion is living memory, say approx. 1950-Present

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! Sources [1] https://en.wikipedia.org...

I'll first go over my opponents case then back over my own.Refutation for Contention 1: When looking at the history of our great nation, it is easy to see that the Founding Fathers played a very significant role in shaping the outcome of our nation. However, they were human. An integral characteristic of humanity is to make mistakes. We cannot pretend that our Founding Fathers were omnipotent, all knowing gods who could never make a mistake. That would be illogical. Rather, let's take each of their ideas and decide upon them individually.They came up with the Electoral College as a way to vote on presidential elections. However, back in the 1700s, they were unable to envision the future of our democracy. They could not have seen the distortion created by the electoral college. Yes, maybe the Electoral College was a good way to go in the 1700s, but times have changed. And it's the time the United States adopted a policy where every vote counts equally: the direct popular vote.Refutation for Contention 2:My opponent seems to believe that with a direct popular vote, small states will disappear from the map. This simply isn't the case. In an era of mass media, very few citizens actually get to meet a candidate, much less talk with them. Small states will still be vitally important to each and every election as there are millions of undecided voters within each state. Small states will still have a voice, yet with the direct popular vote, that voice will become more porportionate.Back to my own case:Contention One: The goal here is to get every state to have a porportionate voice, something not achieved by the Electoral College. A porportionate voice is exactly what the Direct Popular Vote would give us.Contention 2:In the Bush v. Gore election of 2000, the votes in Florida were still up in the air. The decision of the presidency came down to just a few people. Imagine had these few decided to go against popular opinion. They would have changed the course of this nation. Though yes, it is a rare occurence, we still should not chance the fate of our nation with just a few people. Let's not take the risk. Vote for the Direct Popular Vote.Contention 3: My opponent fails to realize that the Electoral College also has integral flaws. Look to my Duke Chronicle evidence, it shows that states like Indiana are still left out of the races. Instead of arbitrarily mandating which small states should recieve a disporportionate amount of power, we should allow candidates to freely choose where to go and give all states a porportionate voice. I'll simply list my questions, my opponent must answer each question.1) Were the Founding Fathers always right?2) Could the Founding Fathers have predicted the distortion in our democracy today? 3) You said "Any form of democracy is not desirable because it assists in the gradual destruction of a republican government...". So please explain why our citizens vote at all if democratic voting is inherently detrimental. 4) Please cite an instance in the U.S. that democracy has turned "into a government rule of the few that denies individual liberties"?5) Was the Bill of Rights not meant to protect individual liberties?6) Can we not have democracy and liberties?7) Why do smaller states have to be represented disporportionately?8) Wouldn't small states shall have their voice, their vote, during elections?9) Shouldn't the most citizens be represented? a.k.a the larger states?10) In an era of media, it is necessary for all citizens to get up close and personal to each and every single candidate?11) Is the Electoral College not, in essence, a direct popular vote by state? 12) Why should a vote in Wyoming be worth 4 times as much as a vote in California?13) What is the ideal vote value?14) As you well know I'm sure, in the Bush/Gore election, the crucial votes in Florida came down to a few electors. Would we even want to chance the outcome of an entire presidential election by giving all the power to just a few people? 15) Should voting power be porpotional to population?I urge an affirmative vote.

I Did not go off topic at all, I contended that Trideism is the inferrior choice and I laid out the reasons why quite clearly. But for your sake, I will repeat why the system is obsolete and niot fit for nations in this century. Democracy :As i said above, every one has an opinion and in democracy we "vote on it"... Look at the Gobal warming issue in the United states and how long it took us to get over science denial by conservative elements. I repeat my earlier statements, It does not matter how much a people deny science- science is true regardless. You can Vote all you want but the opinion of the majority doesn't change anything in the real world. Democracy is an outdated system, designed to meet the needs of people who lived in a low energy civilization which was in the midst of a technological revolution that brought us into the industrial era and the eventual end of the colonial age.Nationalism :There is no way the children fo the future will be localized in this way. Already on our generations you see far less respect for nations and their borders, everythign about our culturue underminds the idea of having imaginary lines people that cannot or should be crossed. You music is global, our news is global, our movies and sdhows are global. Everythign about the 21st century culture is global and there is no room for artifical bounderies between people in that culture. Nationalism is detrmental to our society and serves only to slow down progress of a unified culture. General welfare :its a wonderful concept but Trideism is woefully inadequate to proporarly meet the needs of its people. The very anture of being a democratic national system puts it at cross purposes between serving people and the industries which power the nation. The "vote" must be considered ablong side the economic system with out these three systems being intrinsically atached. Its like playing 3 way table pong. In short, Trideism was a great system forthe 20th century. It would still benefit many nations who adopted it for the next few years while the developed world begins to make its transition into a more scientifically midned stage of development. There is a better way.

Thank you for accepting this challenge. Although, in the past, I have been queried as to my observance of some religious holidays, I must make it clear that I have not felt compelled by anyone to either observe nor abstain from observing any religious holiday so far. But, then again, I do not carry picket signs and march in protest of them, either. My opponent has stated, "To come strait [sic] to the point [,] One should not observe any holiday...They have no logistical providing purpose for you personally...because overtime on holiday's pays a large amount compared to whatever your standard income is." To Refute: I am Retired (as I state in my profile) and have absolutely no problem eating a meal provided by somebody else and I do not intend on purchasing gifts for anyone I do not want to. As for Halloween, I have yet to have anyone come to my unlit doorway begging for candy and if someone did, I would no doubt assess their need rather than their desire to determine if I would donate anything to them. However, on the positive side, I do enjoy listening to music and find much of the traditional Christmas ("O Holy Night" is particularly beautiful) music thoroughly enjoyable, especially when sung by a choir or chorus when accompanied by a church-type organ. I may listen to this at home, on my stereo or attend a concert on Christmas Eve and it really only costs me what I feel appropriate to give. Being an atheist does not mean I am totally mercenary or pecuniary, nor does it imply that I have no taste for good music. I also enjoy the feeling of giving someone I cherish a gift that brings joy to that person or offering charity to someone less fortunate than I. These, to me are more profitable than asking the government for additional Social Security Benefits for not attending some customary holiday function. (Which I would not receive, anyway.) As you have implied, most of what is considered traditional or customary is secular and does not directly promote a spiritual message, thus would not, or at least should not raise the ire of anyone of the underlying faith to which the specific holiday is dedicated. I do wonder, though, if some Fundamentalist Christians might not take umbrage... I eagerly await my opponent's response.

Notwithstanding necessity and hypocrisy and an overburdening of U. S. Politics with Judaism. The State of Israel was recognised only by those with a vested interest in recognising Israel. And one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. And who is Pro, To decide which is which? And the worship of the Billion Dollar God exceeds all rationality.

I"d like to start off this debate with a quote from a . http://www.usnews.com... article entitled "The Electoral College Serves the Interests of All People" by Trent England, the vice president of policy at Freedom Foundation, "Americans are fortunate that through debate and compromise, the framers of the Constitution created the Electoral College. While it doesn't work exactly as the founding generation thought it might, it probably works better than they could have imagined. It doesn't tip the scales in favor of Democrats or Republicans"but instead serves the interests all the people. " Assertion 1:- Gives minorities a voice in the vote The Electoral College gives fair chances to racial minorities, particularly Blacks and Hispanics. Since these minorities tend to live in larger cities "of the bigger states, their votes are important in tilting all the electoral votes of their state, thus encouraging candidates of both parties to appeal for their votes. (1)" This makes all the races equally important to the candidate and he will look into minority interests. If there is no Electoral College candidates will only focus on the interests of the majority (White people) and minority needs won"t be satisfied. Assertion 2:- Might cause unfair play "A purely popular vote would encourage some states (particularly one-party states) to change their voting requirements to increase that state"s influence nationwide. For example, a state could drop the voting age to 17 or 16, because more people voting would allow that state affect the national vote, not just the electoral vote. (1)" "The benefits of the Electoral College come from the need to win state-by-state. This means candidates can't just go to their strongholds and drive up turnout"or stuff ballot boxes. The Electoral College makes candidates go to the most evenly divided parts of our country to make their case to those voters. Over time, this has made American political parties less extreme and more inclusive than they would have been without the Electoral College," says Trent England. Stuffing ballot boxes (putting in "extra votes") won"t work in the EC because states are designated a certain amount of points. Putting it all on one region or state won"t do much in the EC because you need the help of multiple states to win. Now, on to my refutations: My opponent"s 1st point about the EC being outdated makes no sense since the people still had to vote to the same sort of pledged electors that we do today making the argument about communication senseless since the circumstances for both the popular vote and the EC the same. The real reason why the EC was created was to protect the rights of the small states and encourage "moderation, compromise and coalition building. (3)" My opponent"s 2nd point states that minority groups are favored because of the EC. It is true that minorities get a bit more attention than they deserve, but if we switch to a popular vote the minority vote will not exist anymore and they will not be able to make their interests be satisfied. In the EC however, both Whites and minorities have a fair say and are able to get what they want. My opponent"s 3rd point is about haw votes disproportionate from area to area. It"s true that in the EC some states are made more important than others but if there is no EC Wyoming gets almost a zero value while candidates start doing the stuff mentioned in my second assertion in big states. Also, we should remember what will happen to minorities. Voters, I have proven that the EC is here to stay; vote con. Sources: (1). http://www.cato.org... (2). http://www.usnews.com... (3). http://www.aim.org...