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

Lincoln-Douglas Debate!
FDR once stated: "The American people will only lose their right to vote if they themselves choose to, and the only way they could do this is by abstaining from voting." In agreement with this sentiment, I support the resolution. Definitions: " Democracy - a nation governed by elected representatives of its citizens (Encarta) " Vote " a decision made in a group setting by casting a ballot for a candidate or issue (American Heritage) " Ought " indicates what should be done (Encarta) " Compulsory " required by law; mandatory (Merriam Webster) My core value is Societal Welfare, defined as the health and functionality of a society and the wellbeing of its inhabitants. When discussing a democracy and its decision-making process, we are addressing issues that impact the entire nation, necessitating an analysis of their societal effects. I propose the Criterion of Evaluative Consequentialism, defined as "that which maximizes the desired outcome." In this case, the desired outcome is democracy, as implied by the resolution. The resolution centers on the concept of compulsory voting and its impact on democratic governance. Thus, what best enhances democracy is the most desirable. Democracy is directly related to my value, as explained by Prof. Michael McFaul: "Democracy ensures that rulers are accountable to the people. Leaders who need popular support to stay in power will respond to citizens' preferences. Autocrats, on the other hand, are more responsive to the group that controls their fate, such as the family, the military, the clergy, or the communist party. The more people needed to elect a leader, the more likely that leader will pursue policies that benefit the majority. As a result, democracies have consistently outperformed autocracies in terms of social welfare." It is my sole contention that compulsory voting benefits the democratic process. Sub-point A: Compulsory voting will increase voter turnout. "Academic analysis reveals that compulsory voting leads to high voter turnout, as seen in Australia, where turnout has averaged 94.5% in the 24 elections since 1946. The Netherlands also experienced high turnout, averaging 94.7%, before abolishing compulsory voting in 1971. Since then, turnout has dropped to 81.4%." [1] "One solution to low voter turnout is to legally require all eligible voters to vote. Approximately 24 nations have some form of compulsory voting, accounting for 17%

This is the last round, so all rebuttal and summing up. I'd briefly like to thank Con for his participation - the question I faced in my exam was almost identical to the title of this motion, and this debate helped me greatly, so thank you!Rebuttal XIII: "In elections, you are electing a person or party based on their perceived ability to determine and carry out the best CoA."You don't just elect based on competence, you elect based on the policies they are promising in their manifestos. In this sense a referendum is no different to a standard election. But this is better because instead of inadvertedly voting for a policy you hate because you're also voting for a policy you like, you're able to pick and choose which policies get enacted. This gives value to referendums - you can pick and choose by issue as opposed to ideology.Rebuttal XIV: "By what criteria do you determine them to be the 'wrong' party?" - clashes with - "If the ultimate goal is to make BETTER political decisions..."These points reflect back on themselves - what do YOU define as a 'better' political decision? Democracy has to be neutral. I judge the 'wrong' party based on hindsight, but democracy cannot say that one policy is 'better' than another. People can argue about it, and the electorate can vote on it, but as far as our neutral political structures are concerned each policy is of equal value.Rebuttal XV: "I submit that making optimal political decisions and advancing the welfare of the country as a whole is a far more important ideal to attain than that of making the populace feel like they are engaged in the political process."I agree with Opposition in that we disagree on what democracy should seek to achieve. Given that democracy exists to guarantee the representation of the people, I believe that it is an inherent feature of democracy that it serves to translate the sentiment of the people into the legislature. My opponent disagrees but we've already discussed this, so I'd ask the voter to see my previous statements in response. I'm not dropping the argument, just saving characters!Rebuttal XVI: "There is simply no interest whatsoever."Look again at my source (note that you have not cited a source for this comment). People are interested in politics and they do care - they just feel that the existing direct avenues are broken as they have no faith in the politicians themselves. So we propose to cut out the middleman and allow people to vote on the actual policies.Rebuttal XVII: "Various factions of Parliament would be spinning their agenda."People would still get the various sides of the viewpoint, and it would be exactly the same as an election campaign for this reason. All the views would still be represented and the various parties would still be trying to undermine each others' views.Rebuttal XVIII: "The electorate would still merely be playing the part of audience members with a vote. And their options would still be held by Parliament."This is still better than the present system where the Government can introduce legislation which was not a manifesto commitment. Moreover, since the First Past The Post system generates large government majorities, leading to suggestions that the UK government is normally an 'elected dictatorship', this is an opportunity for the government to allow a piece of legislation to be voted on by the electorate which they would otherwise be able to steamroll through Parliament.Rebuttal XIX: "If the politics is rotten then the House's efforts would be better directed to addressing the source of the problem."We agree that the politics is rotten to a certain extent, in that MPs are no longer seen as accountable and responsible. By your own admission this is a major wound and will take time to recover. There is no quick fix for this that this House can initiate. So the House should still introduce these new avenues of participation.Rebuttal XX: "Let's put the country as a whole first."We believe that putting the country as a whole first involves giving the people the policies they want, not the policies the small elite class think they should want.Rebuttal XXI: "The people who make policy changes are far better equipped to think through all the nuances..."Surely this is more valid for the much more complicated issues such as economic policy which are decided by manifestos in elections, and not by referendum. I turn this point: is Joe Public really qualified to judge which party has the best economic policy? Because that wouldn't be decided by referendum (as stated by our definition).Rebuttal XXII: "The electorate SHOULD NOT be trusted to make policy decisions!"We don't believe that's what democracy is about. Again, see previous discussions on the disputed purpose of democracy.Rebuttal XXIII: "The REAL problem is that politicians do not speak to the hearts of the masses."See Rebuttal XVI - we're cutting out the politicians (since people have lost faith in them) and letting people have a direct say in concrete policies.Rebuttal XXIV: "Pressure Groups. The great slogan of the Occupy Movement."Occupy's claim to represent the views of the vast majority of the planet is an isolated case. The point still stands that pressure group membership is growing (not denied by Opposition) therefore people still retain an interest in politics but seek to express it in new ways.Rebuttal XXV: "I submit that a government should be a moral, guiding, pioneering authority over its subjects and not a servant of the ignorant masses' whims."In a democracy, Proposition believes that a government exists to enact the views of the people as shown by the democratic processes. People vote for parties, the parties enact their ideological policies. People vote for a policy, Parliament should enact it. Parliament exists to represent the coalition of views in the country, so what right does it have to say "the people have spoken but we're ignoring them because we know better"? That's fundamentally undemocratic.To sum up I will introduce what Proposition sees as the two key Points of Clash (PoC) in this debate.PoC1: What is the purpose of the government?Opposition has argued that the government exists to do the 'right' thing, but this fails to recognise the fact that there is no such thing as the 'right' thing in the neutral eyes of the political process. There is the 'popular' thing, the thing which the people want to see enacted. We believe that if democracy really is government by, of and for the people then Parliament is bound to serve public opinion - as represented more clearly by referendum. We believe that Proposition takes this point.PoC2: Do people still care about politics?Opposition have cited tired and clichéd arguments that people no longer care about politics, they are voting for apathy and they no longer care about the government. We disagree and have cited an academic source which falls on our side of the argument. Pressure groups are growing, people are standing for office, lobbying continues. People DO want to take part, they just don't feel able to fully do so by the traditional method. What Proposition proposes allows the electorate, if they have lost faith in politicians - as we admit we think they have - to cut them out. We believe Proposition has the better argument here.For these reasons, and the many more given in my 25 items of rebuttal, we believe that Proposition wins this debate over the increased use of referendums as we have made a clear and coherent case for their benefits. With that I sign off and urge you to Vote Pro!Thanks again to Opposition - you've helped my revision immensely. I proudly hand you over to Opposition, who I invite to close the debate.

Opening ArgumentThis argument is going to be quite short, apologies in advance. The issue with closing all stores during Thanksgiving is that not all Americans actually celebrate Thanksgiving. This is due to a number of reasons such as immigrants may not want to celebrate a purely American custom or maybe people don't want to 'give thanks' when there is nothing worth giving thanks for. In fact, 13% of Americans say that they do not celebrate Thanksgiving [1]. While in portion to the rest of the population may not need to go to stores due to the holiday, it would be unfair to close down the entire country when 13% of the people don't celebrate the holiday. Another problem is that the origination of the Thanksgiving holiday was not so cheerful after all. In 1637 about 700 Pequot Native Americans gathered so as to celebrate their local Corn Festival. English and Dutch mercenaries surrounded the Natives and shot and clubbed as many as they could to death. The next day the Bay Colony governor called a 'Day of Thanks' because of the ruthless murder of almost 700 unarmed Native Americans. During this day of thanks the English colonists raided and kidnapped as many Native Americans as they could. On that day large numbers of ships with 500 newly captured slaves left Boston Harbor. Therefore, it is clear that Thanksgiving is neither a particularly well understood holiday as often people consider it as a long fest between Native Americans and Colonists. This is completely untrue. Thus one could argue that stores have the right to remain open due that they don't want to be forced to respect an honestly barbarous holiday. Sources[1] http://www.newspolls.org...[2] http://www.manataka.org...

What's up, people? Pro essentially abandoned this debate. And now for why voting isn't a waste of time: George Washington was the first elected president of the USA, and he was awesome. Case closed.

Scream at the sky day is intended "to commemorate the anniversary of Donald Trump's election" and to express "anger at the current state of democracy." [1] It will get people talking about how bad liberals think the Trump administration is, so it is not completely useless. [1] https://pjmedia.com...

Australia Day has lost it respect towards the date, by choosing a new date, we will not only refresh our country but also show that we have aspirations for it to become greater than it already is. 46.3% of Australian's believe that Australia Day is not worth celebrating as it is "a day that represents loss and injustice and just an excuse to drink" 1 in 10 Australians don"t even know the real reason behind commemorating Australia Day on the 26th of January. How would you like it if the day that your ancestors were harmed was celebrated? That is bad enough, why not change it to a day where Australia is proud of their actions and not ashamed of them? All Aboriginal people have drastically changed the way Australia is, the least we can do is commemorate a date to them. Would you celebrate the date on which your ancestors were impoverished, executed and had their love ones stolen? Australia Day should be changed from the 26th of January to another date just simply because even though it is a date that we should remember when the first fleet came to Australia, it is a sad day and a day to mourn and not a day to celebrate

I would like America to be what it was once promised to be, it all sounds really good until you realize the lies, the killing, censoring?! If we have freedom of speech and stuff why do we censor certain things because people are offended or because somehow it's morally wrong?! I mean we have leaders cheating there way into office's? People who are letting money get in the way of whats right?! taking other countries "under our wing" (taking out leaders and trying to put a new system of gov. in). I mean our leaders are so concerned with themselves and what they think is right they aren't even taking care of there OWN PEOPLE. When hurricane Katrina hit it took us like 4-5 days to get water to the super dome, we spent so much money on trailers for those people and then found out the landscape couldn't support them so we ended up giving them to the Indian reservations thinking we were doing good and the Indians started to get sick because they were so cheaply made and the finish on the wood was making them sick. THATS RIDICULOUS. I understand that mistakes are all right but how can you say you're actually happy with the way America is being ran?! now for the second question i don't think it's something to be taught because i don't think it's necessary, it's around us everyday all ready. plus a lot of times when you teach little kids certain things they just accept it as it and they are content with it. I just think it's not something thats needs to be pushed. If you take pride in you're country GREAT but if you don't that doesn't mean that you need to get out?! And i think it's the constitution that lets me disagree in the first place

Having the majority of people involved in elections would be ideal. People need to be inspired to learn about the issues and support someone who they trust in making positive changes. I think this can best be done by eliminating and reprimanding the many corrupt officials that make people distrust the government, and then for the public to commend candidates for their education and experience in public affairs, rather than their charisma and money to promote themselves. None of this can be achieved by making voting compulsory, but by making it appealing and fixing the social problem that lies at its core.

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

The electoral college is not good for our country. It keeps the people from choosing who they want in government roles. Many election results would be different if we substituted popular vote for the electoral college. The electoral college stifles democracy. According to Noam Chomsky, Aristotle once wrote that a democracy poses the problem that lower class people would band together and vote against the upper class. America's solution to the problem was the electoral college, where rich people naturally have the advantage, being able to post more advertisements in their favor. Aristotle's solution, however, was the opposite; he proposed that we give the people more freedom and reduce the upper class. Then, the people would not need to band up against the rich. If we got rid of electoral college, we could do what Aristotle proposed, and give everyone a voice for sure. Thank you.

When considering this topic there is a debate on two levels that I bring up on the word "Should." Whatever-culture "should" not spend that much money on traditions, which I agree with, however I am in disagreement as far as financial freedom. You dont get to say what others can spend their money on.Furthermore, I actually do accept at least some validity in the claim of spending money as some sort of psychological benefactor. I dont think that an extravagant amount of money should be spent on tradition on a fiscal sense, but if I am take the idea of their "catharsis" as ultimately beneficial, then one can see that if more money is spent on something the more meaningful a tradition is and the money spent, in this regard, helps the nation fulfill its sense of purpose. If a tradition is not fully funded than the tradition is not as important, and thus its beneficiality relies upon the impact of the celebration which may or may not serve the means to its end.


Question: Should Voting Day Be Designated as a National Holiday?

The United States government should shift the general election day to the first Saturday in November.

Background: In 1845, Congress had to determine the optimal day for Americans to cast their votes. At the time, transportation was significantly slower, and farmers required a day to reach the county seat, a day to vote, and a day to return home, without clashing with religious observances. Thus, Tuesday was chosen, avoiding Wednesday, which was designated as market day. In 1875, Congress extended the Tuesday voting date for national House elections, and in 1914, this was applied to federal Senate elections as well. However, this historical rationale is no longer relevant in contemporary American society, where travel is significantly easier and no one would undertake a three-day journey to vote. It is proposed that election day be relocated to the first Saturday in November. This change maintains the proximity to the existing date, minimizing disruption to current schedules. Tuesdays are often inconvenient for working Americans, and moving election day to a weekend would be significantly more accommodating. Census data indicates that voter turnout is hindered by the current weekday scheduling, as many Americans find it either inconvenient or impossible to leave work to vote.

Having the majority of people involved in elections would be ideal. People need to be inspired to learn about the issues and support someone who they trust in making positive changes. I think this can best be done by eliminating and reprimanding the many corrupt officials that make people distrust the government, and then for the public to commend candidates for their education and experience in public affairs, rather than their charisma and money to promote themselves. None of this can be achieved by making voting compulsory, but by making it appealing and fixing the social problem that lies at its core.

The government always knows your name, however according to https://www.dmv.org... these laws can be used to keep poor (homeless) people away from the polls and people who live long distances from ID offices and don't have enough time to get there as they are working for the majority of their day. I notice that 17dijones hasn't even argued for his side.

Thanks to whoever accepts this debate, it is going to be on [RESOLVED: THIS HOUSE WOULD MAKE VOTING COMPULSORY]. There are going to be three rounds and they are going to be as follows, failure to follow these rounds (unless amended in the round) will result in a full seven point forfeiture constructive cases (no rebuttals, but you can make points that you expect to hear from the opponent) rebuttals/new points answers to rebuttals/answering new points/telling judge why they win/crystalization of points/no new points -----DEFINITIONS: "this house would" - just a fancy term that means that the house (the judges) would vote in favor of the resolution at hand voting - give or register a vote; used to express a wish to follow a particular course of action compulsory - required by law or a rule; obligatory -----CONSTRUCTIVE CASE:Compulsory voting leads to a better representation of minorities. Oftentimes people that are of the upper class, either by economical, educational, or social gains, vote more than people that are not in these upper classes do. Because they vote more often, this leads to a recurring circle that leads to the disenfranchisement of the lower class, and the disrepresentation of them. The rich will have higher amounts of representation in their local legislatures and public offices, and that means that minority groups that do not vote often do not have someone that is able to listen to their needs. This can all be solved with compulsory voting. How? you might ask, and here's the answer: it forces the lower class (socially lower, economically lower, or educationally lower) to vote, and thus have more representation. Doesn't that lead to the minority holding the majority of public office? you may very well ask again, and the answer is no! Here's an example: there are 5% of people that usually do not vote due to lack of monetary resources, and they align with the ideology of xXx_NoScope_xXx. Under the compulsory voting enactment, they will have to vote for whose ideology they believe in, and lo and behold: xXx_NoScope_xXx is the man for the job! Because compulsory voting leads to a better representation, the party of xXx_NoScope_xXx will hold office 5% of the time, and everyone wins! Compulsory voting leads to less gridlock, as shown in some of my sources down below.Compulsory voting has been implemented successfully before. This is pretty standard knowledge, but I think that this is important to bring up. In Australia, most notably, compulsory voting has been implemented well and has had more fair elections due to it. If this was implemented in the United States or other parts of the western world, it would not be very hard to implement. It has a strong success rate, and thus we can see that it would most likely follow the trend line that has been set by Australia.Compulsory voting will demolish special-interest groups' power. By implementing compulsory voting, it would make it much more difficult for special interest groups to elect themselves into power, since everyone (including the lower class) would have to vote, and thus take away the power that is obviously in the hands of upper-class special interest groups. How? you may ask, and here's the answer: it focuses the power away from the top class and redirects it to the main population of the country. This leads to a more just society, a more fair society, a society that bends to the will of the people. If we had compulsory voting, we often would not have corrupt politicians, since special interest groups often elect these kind of people into office. (Corrupt as how to the politicians do not vote in the ways that their state/community would vote, rather in the way that their special interest groups would vote, thus corrupting and eroding the very representative democracy that we have)Compulsory voting makes more people interested in politics. By making every able-bodied adult vote, we would make them seriously consider who they are voting for, and research more and more about their choices. Citizens will be willing to inform themselves about bad policies, and take them out of the government. Compulsory voting, thus, leads to better legislation that is passed in the community, and because of that, makes a positive impact on society and the world around it. It would also open the door to more foreign trade, since more and more people would research foreign trade and see that the benefits outweigh the harms, which would lead to an evermore expanding economy.[1]: http://www.money.cnn.com...;[2]: http://www.aec.gov.au...[3]: http://www.usnews.com...[4]: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...[5]: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au...again thanks to whoever that accepts this

On the Validity of Voting: Right or Duty? The opponent has stated that voting is a right, not a duty, because you earned a voting status. However, as explained before, many effective democracies hold that voting is a duty. The United States, ironically, holds that a duty of a US Citizen is to “participate in the democratic process” while Athenians held that voting was compulsory in a democracy because citizens of a democratic society must work together as a people rather than persons (in terms of society) for the society to progress. Voting is an ethical issue; we cannot and will never agree on compulsory voting. However, the matter of it being enacted must be looked upon. Let us look at an analogy for a second; if you decide to order, say a salad, at a restaurant and you are alone, your individual decisions does not a affect anyone else. However, say you are the Food Czar, and you have to order food for the whole table. Henceforth, you are forced to make decisions based on the needs of the whole. You wouldn’t order steak, for fear that a Halal-dietary follower would be present. This analogy also applies for an entire electorate and all; every vote counts. Your decisions effect the whole community. Every vote counts. A true democratic society is a society where everyone gathers and makes decisions. Athens is a perfect example of this; its people were educated, very philosophical, and engaged in many public debates (In fact, Gorgias and Republic by Plato were dominated by intense debates). Athens required every person to vote. Singapore is also a highly effective democracy; voting is compulsory there. As we can see, the number of compulsory voting-states that have a highly efficient democratic state correlate, because voters here understand that voting is a civic duty. Henceforth: P1. All definitions of democracy states that democracy is a government elected by the people P2. In many democracies, it is a duty (because of democracy’s definitions) to make decisions C1. Not implementing compulsory voting is undemocratic Australia and Compulsory Voting The opponent has stated that 500,000 Australian voters chose to submit "blank votes" However, this is only 5% of the population we are talking about. The minority. Australia has a very effective democracy when compared with other nations; are we to ignore the efficiency of Australia's democracy just because the minority of the Australian people chose to submit blank votes? Apart from this, voting will create a more educated electorate. Let us take this analogy for example: A student has to study for a test, then he has to study all the resources that are provided to him. If he doesn't do this, then he fails the test and get bad marks. He does not want this; he wants his grades to progress. This makes him study harder and harder until he finally understands all his material. Coming back to the voting issue, the test in this case is voting. The resources in this case are the political parties. Failing the test means that the nation/the people do not progress forward. As state before, Australia has created a highly efficient democracy through the enacting of compulsory voting. Athens also did this; Athenians proved that compulsory voting creates more informed and more philosophical people. As stated before, Athenians loved debating and following their views. Therefore, we can conclude with the syllogism: P1. All countries in which compulsory voting is enforced have a highly educated electorate P2. All countries in which compulsory is enforced have highly efficient democratic institutions P3. Compulsory voting creates this by the want for progress and prosperity C1. Compulsory voting creates a highly-educated electorate and highly efficient democratic institutions The Act of Voting: Follows Democracy Let us look at the two definitions of democracy that I have provided. Abraham Lincoln said that democracy was the government of the people, by the people, and for the people. By saying that compulsory voting shouldn't be enacted is like saying that capitalism should function without money; a democratic society represents the people, of all classes, all races and all sexes. What good is a democracy without the proper representation of the people? This returns to my point on duty and voting; a democratic society was created upon the assumption that democratic states were elected by the people. By the people doesn't mean the "educated voters" but the "voters" Voters run the same ship; the ship of the nation. If voting turnout is low, then the nation fails to gather a politically legitimate government. Class Barriers: Must be broken Many poor people simply do not vote because they are too scared to do so. For example, a poor person wants change, but he does not know how he could change. Compulsory Voting, when enacted, makes the poor seem as if their voices are wanted; the poor want to become rich, or at least achieve a better life than what they have now. They would use their newfound voice to voice change; let us look at Singapore for example. Singapore is not a case of wanting change, but a case of wanting to preserve the status quo; they wanted to keep the PAP in action. In the first elections, the PAP won a huge majority because of the work they had done for the Singaporean people and how the Singaporean people wanted to keep this. A huge majority of the voters voting for the PAP were middle-class and lower-working class workers; quite easily, the lower classes! If voting were not compulsory, they would have thought that they had no voice anyway, so what is the point? Democracy is not a bourgeoisie concept, but many people are anti-democratic because they think so. Time restrictions have deluded the quality of my arguments. I would like to apologize to the opponent for that. I hope this is enough for him to rebut.

Democracy is built upon four key elements In Famous’ round, he introduced the concept that democracy consists of four key elements. He argues that compulsory voting violates two of these elements. I will address each in turn. 1: Does compulsory voting conflict with “Free and Fair Elections?” My opponent claims that because democracy is “built upon a political system… through free and fair elections” that compulsory voting violates the “free” aspect. In addition to being a puerile way to apply freedom; the idea that compulsory voting attacks “free elections” is to misunderstand the concept itself. When “free” is applied to elections, it is typically applied to the idea that an election is “open.” Meaning the electorate is both able to participate and free to choose who to elect. For example; voting is not restricted based on ethnic, economic, or educational factors. Free elections means open to the people. Famous agreed that low voter turnout is undesirable, but claims people “have very valid reason for not voting.” As I see it, he gives three reasons, none of which I find convincing. First, he argues, many are undecided and making them vote will essentially make their votes random. This is a simple fix, all we have to do is allow people to check a box indicating “undecided” so that their vote is counted and are still free to abstain. This solution also solves his second worry, specifically that making people vote will cause them to vote for someone they don’t want. This is nonsense. They merely select “none of the above” or write in who they would prefer. Nothing about compulsory voting limits who the voters may select in their vote. Finally, he argues that people do not care about their vote. Again, this is easily solved by allowing them to select “none of the above.” Next, my opponent argues about bandwagoning. The issue with this contention is simply illustrated by the reality that “bandwagoning” is an issue with or without compulsory voting and thus does nothing to reject the resolution. Rejecting the resolution does not prevent bandwagoning, and supporting it does not result in bandwagoning. The purpose of compulsory voting is not to make people vote for someone they do not wish to vote for, rather to ensure that everyone’s vote is counted. Thus, none of these concerns address compulsory voting directly. It should be clear at this point that Compulsory voting does not conflict with free and fair elections. 2: Does Compulsory voting conflict with human rights? My opponent argues that forcing people to vote results in loss of freedom and effectively makes slaves out of the electorate. This is ludicrous. As explained above, compulsory voting does not result in a loss of freedom, but rather ensures that every vote is counted. Put another way, rather than negatively impacting your freedom, compulsory ensures it. Aside from this, the idea that compulsory voting equals slavery is asinine. The United Nation does not view compulsory voting as a violation of human rights in spite of my opponent attempting to cite them as doing so. Several members of the United Nations have compulsory voting laws, for example, Australia. Cleary compulsory voting does not conflict with human rights. 3: Compulsory voting increases participation in civic life. Now that I have responded to my opponent’s objections, I will now address the elephant in the room. One of the four so called key elements that democracy is made of articulates why compulsory voting ought to be implemented. “The active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life;” is a key element of Democracy. As demonstrated by my arguments compulsory voting ensures this element. Conclusion My opponent’s arguments are based on four key elements of a democracy. He argued that compulsory voting violates two of the four. I have shown it does not. Conversely we see that compulsory voting does help ensure the third key element. Namely, “The active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life.”

I am really bad at this, but hope to improve my debating after this.Let's dive in! I believe voting based on your religious beliefs is wrong. Straight forward. Why? Well someone as a christian believes in God and following his rules is part of believing in him. So when you vote you are voting in what you believe in. Yes, but when you vote its because you believe in something that tells you to follow his rules so is it really your own opinion or just an allusion. In this I am not saying take away your right to religion, but you shouldn't make a voting decision based on your religious belief.This keeps what our fore fathers wanted, THE CHURCH AND STATE SEPARATED.

Australia Day has lost it respect towards the date, by choosing a new date, we will not only refresh our country but also show that we have aspirations for it to become greater than it already is. 46.3% of Australian's believe that Australia Day is not worth celebrating as it is "a day that represents loss and injustice and just an excuse to drink" 1 in 10 Australians don"t even know the real reason behind commemorating Australia Day on the 26th of January. How would you like it if the day that your ancestors were harmed was celebrated? That is bad enough, why not change it to a day where Australia is proud of their actions and not ashamed of them? All Aboriginal people have drastically changed the way Australia is, the least we can do is commemorate a date to them. Would you celebrate the date on which your ancestors were impoverished, executed and had their love ones stolen? Australia Day should be changed from the 26th of January to another date just simply because even though it is a date that we should remember when the first fleet came to Australia, it is a sad day and a day to mourn and not a day to celebrate

That is a very elitist attitude. You believe that only people who have the means to a better education deserve the right to vote. Those people who sweat and work hard everyday in fields to feed families of people they will never ever meet, those people don't deserve the right to vote. Is this your idea of a perfect world where only the rich elite make the decisions while the working class is basically turned into slaves?

if people wont vote their will be imbalance in the democracy . All the people have the right to vote and they should use the right given to them . People should be made aware of the candidates if we wont tell them then they wont get to know abt it ever we shld help our country to become an socialized place . If we wont our country to be at the top we need to bring all of them together .Bring unity among people. voting shld be made compulsary so ppl get to know abt it

Election Day is over, election for this non-debate begins.


Question: Should Voting Day be Recognized as a National Holiday?

The duration of polling stations during elections should be extended beyond a single day.
1. "I often ponder if single-day voting is intended to curb voter fraud. However, I believe it is a form of discrimination against the underprivileged." Response: By providing multiple avenues for voting on a single day (Internet at libraries, shelters, and other government locations), voting would be accessible to all Americans and convenient. 2. "...Those who work multiple jobs to make ends meet and feed their families." Response: Currently, all states offer absentee voting options (vote by mail, early voting, etc.). Here is a link to each state's absentee voting policy: http://www.ncsl.org.... Additionally, if single-day voting were a national holiday, this would eliminate work-related voting issues. Regardless, every state in the country currently allows citizens to vote early with a work excuse. 3. "Improvement suggestion 1 for voting: I propose that when people first register to vote (at age 18 or older), they should be required to provide a fingerprint. This would establish a record to identify individuals without requiring a photo ID. I don't see how a fingerprint would be an invasion of privacy, and it would also be free. You only need to prove your identity once with a birth certificate or other sufficient ID (barring any scarring on your fingers). If this database could be used solely for elections and not accessible to law enforcement (can we trust them?), you'd only know a person's fingerprint pattern, not what they look like, and people would not have to have a photo ID if they didn't want one." Response: Implementing a fingerprint policy would be difficult for two reasons. First, some people have difficulty finding their birth certificate or other forms of ID, which is one argument against voter ID. Second, many people believe it is an invasion of their privacy and denies them their right to vote. Although I support voter ID laws, the fingerprint policy would be a step up in both categories. 4. "Then, you could vote at your own convenience. Currently, it's just a TV spectacle with winners being declared before even 50% of the vote is in for districts and states. It's not as if the incumbent's replacement takes office the next day. Usually, it's like 3 months until the handover. Everything must cater to the TV networks. Too much money for TV. Sports are also slaves to TV." Response: If voting were done over a period of weeks, the drama and

if people wont vote their will be imbalance in the democracy . All the people have the right to vote and they should use the right given to them . People should be made aware of the candidates if we wont tell them then they wont get to know abt it ever we shld help our country to become an socialized place . If we wont our country to be at the top we need to bring all of them together .Bring unity among people. voting shld be made compulsary so ppl get to know abt it

Apologies, I have been suffering from the flu for a few days, and still. I will leave my argument where it stands and let the voting go on. Thank you for having this debate with me!

Non-citizens should not be allowed to vote. It is unfair to the citizens if non-citizens are allowed to vote. They are not legally permanent residents so they should have no say in such matters as politics that can impact the lives of permanent residents in a way they do not like. Even if they are trying to become permanent residents, it still shouldn't be up to them. What if they don't end up becoming citizens?

My opponent is trying to argue his case in the comments section. The voter should disregard those arguments. http://www.debate.org... Recap: -My opponent's evidence is insufficient to affirm the resolution. -My opponent had Burden of Proof. -Such a debate would likely be removed before the voting period (my opponent conceded this in the 2nd round). Notes: -People should not consider the voting when voting http://www.debate.org..., as my opponent intends. Thank you.

I believe presidential voting is pointless and a waste of time. I also believe the election process is only there to give citizens the illusion they have control over their government.

A Final defense My opponent claims that I changed my advocacy and doing so costs me the debate. I am perplexed by this accusation. My initial argument was that compulsory voting increases voter turnout and ensures people’s votes are counted. This is still my argument. There is no shift in advocacy. It seems to me that my opponent is conflating compulsory voting with limiting who people can vote for. As I mentioned in my previous round; the purpose of compulsory voting is not to make people vote for someone they do not wish to vote for. Rather, it is to ensure that everyone’s vote is counted. Thus, as people have the ability in the status quo to write in whomever they want and do not have to select an option presented the same would be true under compulsory voting. Here Famous complains that this makes my proposed system all too similar to the status quo. Not so, as he mentioned in his opening argument there are many reasons why people currently don’t vote. Surely he does not view this list as comprehensive. Compulsory voting ensures that people’s votes are counted for so that we don’t have to guess as to why they did or did not vote. Even in the cases given, someone voting for “none of the above” clearly articulates the voter’s dissatisfaction whereas not voting leaves ambiguity. Con argues that placing an undecided or none of the above box on a ballot is poor conduct on my part as it is a late plan. Again, I find this perplexing, I am arguing for compulsory voting, not for limiting what can or cannot be voted for. These are entirely separate issues. What we have here seems to be a case where my opponent does not have a good response and seems to be rejecting my argument to technicality because he has no response to it otherwise. It seems to me that my opponent is trying to severely limit what I may or may not argue. If anything is poor conduct, I would say this is. My burden in this debate was to affirm that voting in a democracy ought to be compulsory. I have done this. Famous attempts to have his cake and eat it too. Consider he argued that people that are not interested in voting or undecided will simply check the box none of the above, only to later argue that bandwagoning is an issue. This should clearly demonstrate the lack of structure in my opponents’ criticisms. As my opponent concedes the point that bandwagoning is an issue with or without compulsory voting I will not address this further. This brings us to the asinine claim that compulsory voting is a violation of human rights. Here con misunderstands my objection. He claims that because the UN does not intervene in every violation of human rights that the UN’s lack of intervention on compulsory voting means nothing. First, I am not claiming that if compulsory voting was a violation (which it is not) that the U. N. would intervene. Rather, I argued that the U. N. does not view Compulsory voting as a violation. Take notice that my opponent has not cited an example contrary to this, he merely cites the U. N. website and erroneously applies a statement on slavery to compulsory voting. He claims this is a “minor violation. ” Again, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Either compulsory voting is slavery and a severe violation of human rights or it is not. A Brief Summary My opponent’s argument’s are based on four key elements of a democracy. He argued that compulsory voting violates two of the four. First he argued that compulsory voting works contrary to the principle that “A political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections;” I have shown this to be untrue and based on the semantics surrounding the word “free. ” Compulsory voting does not mean forcing people to vote for something they don’t want. Second he argued that Compulsory voting violates the key principle that A rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens. ” He claims this because he views compulsory voting was a violation of human rights and a type of slavery. I have shown this to be a ridiculous accusation. The fact that he even claims it to be a “minor” violation demonstrates how off base this contention has been. I have presented a case for compulsory voting. This case demonstrated that low voter turnout is detrimental to democracy. Compulsory voting has the impact of increasing voter turnout, thus ensuring “The active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life” which con claims is one of the key elements of a democracy. Thus we see the resolution is affirmed. Thanks for reading.

The government always knows your name, however according to https://www.dmv.org... these laws can be used to keep poor (homeless) people away from the polls and people who live long distances from ID offices and don't have enough time to get there as they are working for the majority of their day. I notice that 17dijones hasn't even argued for his side.

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.

http://highered.mheducation.com... I ask the voters to consider this when voting.

First, let me start by saying that I am not sure what we are debating. What do I have to do to win this debate? This sounds like you just wanted to poke fun at atheists, not like you had something interesting the argue about. I searched on the internet for a court case involving the lack of an "Atheist holiday," but could find no reference to an actual court case. What I did find was a myriad of internet JOKES about a case in florida like this, with the punch line of "you already have april fool's day." You say "no joke this has been brought up in many state courts nationwide." Since YOU make this claim, YOU have the burden of proof. Either present evidence for this claim (i.e., the names of some court cases we could reference), or admit that we have no reason to believe these cases exist. Now, of course "the idea of an atheist being upset/discriminated by a theist holiday" makes no sense. In fact I have never heard of an atheist complaining about the existence of a theist holiday. What they DO complain about is government endorsement of theist holidays. Of course whether this is legitimate or not isn't pertinent to the debate. As to the "April Fool's Day" Issue: 1) I have never known an atheist to celebrate or consider April Fool's Day an atheist holiday. I have seen atheists celebrate (as a joke) the autumnal equinox and 11/11 (palindrome day). If atheists do not celebrate a day, it seems silly to think that it is a holiday for them. 2) It is extremely ironic to decide "BY SCRIPTURE" that April 1st is an atheist holiday. Why would an atheist holiday be based on scripture? 3) If Christians are justified in deciding Atheists have a holiday on April 1st by Christian standards (i.e., scripture), then Atheists can do the same thing to Christians and say that Groundhog's day is a Christian holiday, because Christians believe in nonsensical and meaningless rituals. Generally the existence of a group's holiday is determined by the group itself, not internet joke.


Question: Should Voting Day Be Designated as a National Holiday?

Election Day should span multiple days instead of being confined to a single day. Voting in American elections can be quite inconvenient, with the biggest hurdle often being the need to get to the polling station on a specific day. In our technologically advanced society, there seems to be no justifiable reason for having only one election day, other than to create suspense and boost TV ratings. I propose that voting during elections should be open for at least a week. Here are a few key points to consider: 1. All results will be withheld until the end of the voting period. 2. Effective systems will be in place to prevent any re-voting or fraudulent activities. This structured format includes: Round 1: Opening statements Round 2: Rebuttals to Round 1 Round 3: Closing arguments

This revised document maintains the original length, complexity, and semantic style while preserving its relationship to the question. It also generates a semantically similar document that discusses the idea of extending Election Day over a longer period to improve voter accessibility and convenience.

Thanks Seagull. As I mentioned in R1, we’ve debated before and I look forward to debating him again. Clarification The BOP is solely on Pro meaning that I will not be obliged to provide a constructive case (though I will be making a short argument just to make my rebuttals clearer). In order for me to win this debate I must successfully refute Pro’s case. Pro’s case must be standing by the end of the debate in order for him to win this debate. Democracy is built upon 4 key elements, as described by political scientist Larry Diamond. These elements are “(a) A political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections; (b) The active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life; (c) Protection of the human rights of all citizens, and (d) A rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens.” [1]. The elements that I will be focussing on in my rebuttals are elements A and C. Application of Democracy’s Key Elements Element A clearly states that election must be “free” and “fair”. How fair something is can be subjective so I’ll be focussing on how “free” elections will be if people are forced to vote. Free is defined as “Not controlled by obligation or the will of another” [2]. By forcing somebody to vote you are controlling them by obligation since they must vote regardless of whether they want to or not. You are also doing what is there will as opposed to what is your will (which also violates the definition of free). Element C states that democracy’s purpose is to protect the rights of all citizens. By forcing people to vote they lose their freedom of choice [3], since they cannot choose whether they want to vote or not and it also violates article 4 and article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights since these rights regard freedom of opinion and freedom from slavery [4] - a slave is defined as a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them, which is the case here since voting will be compulsory. The harm of a low voter turnout I agree that low voter turnout is undesirable however I disagree that my opponent’s proposed measures are necessary. However there are people that have very valid reason for not voting and forcing them to vote would likely distort the interests of a nation further given that are large percentage of people that do not vote are actually undecided [3]. On average, 70% of men are likely to have an idea of who they are voting and 61% of women have an idea of who they are voting for, meaning that 30% of men are undecided and 29% of women are undecided on average [3]. This is a massive figure, showing that by forcing people that are undecided to vote, you are potentially making them vote randomly, without actually assessing the positives and negatives of every campaign. This can and will be detrimental in achieving a fairer society given that these statistics clearly show that people will not be decided. Another major reason is that people often do not like any of the candidates [5] (which is something that I can say for myself regarding the elections in the UK - which is where I come from). This, again, raises the same concerns as above. If people do not like any candidates, then logically, when forced to vote they will most likely not vote properly which will once again negatively impact the result of elections. Robert Montenegro reports that many people don’t care about their vote. If young people do not care about their vote then, in the scenario that they are forced to vote, they will probably waste their vote due to the attitude regarding the issue showing that they do not care about the outcome, meaning that there is no point (when looking at the issue from their perspective) in taking time to analyze the candidates and vote on who you believe in, if you do not care about it from the beginning. [6] So whilst I do agree that a low amount of people voting is bad. And I do agree that if more people voted (of their own free will), then that’d be good. But forcing people to vote will allow undecided voters, people that don’t like any candidates and people that don’t care to have to vote, causing distortion in election results, thus not making democracy any more accurate or fair, as my opponent claims. Impact Of Compulsory Voting In Australia the same things as stated above are likely to be happening. Also, when analyzing compulsory voting we have to consider the bandwagon effect which is a common issue raised against the system. Given the high percentage of people that do not care about their votes, bandwagoning does occur and many case studies have been written on the topic. Compulsory voting does increase bandwagoning on votes significantly and is identified as a major factor regarding it [7][8]. This data collected regarding compulsory voting, as well as the points made above show that Australia almost certainly experiences bandwagon votes, uncaring votes, random votes, etc. [9]. And with that, I hand the stage back over to Seagull. Sources [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [3] http://www.scotcen.org.uk... [4] https://www1.umn.edu... [5] http://www.zencollegelife.com... [6] http://bigthink.com... [7] https://nyuad.nyu.edu... [8] http://www.theatlantic.com... [9] https://en.wikipedia.org...

So I will first present my arguments, and then move on to rebut to pro's case. ** Definitions: For the definition of democracy, I agree with my opponents Oxford Dictionary definition ought - Used to indicate duty or correctness, typically when criticizing someone’s actions [1] Contention 1: Voting is a right. NOT a duty Africa News Services States: "Voting should be regarded as a right, which must be differentiated from a duty. As a state citizen, it is the government and other elected representatives who have a duty towards me. This is the cornerstone principle of democracy upon which our electoral system and other democratic institutions are, or should be, designed and built. Politicians should remain accountable to the people they represent, not the other way round. " [2] Because voting is a right, there should be no need to compel the citizens themselves to vote. Similar to all other rights, such as freedom of speech, or the right to bear arms, you are under no obligation to carry it out. For example, the second amendment of the U. S. constitution states that we have the right to bear arms. This does NOT MEAN YOU HAVE TO BEAR ARMS. IT SIMPLY MEANS YOU CAN BEAR ARMS IF YOU WANT TO. Likewise, Voting is also a right. This does NOT MEAN YOU HAVE TO VOTE. IT SIMPLY MEANS YOU CAN VOTE IF YOU WANT TO. Contention 2: Compulsory voting does not create informed voters From newbusters. org, an article states: "Common sense tells us that mandating something doesn"t have a profound impact on human behavior. For example, you can require American high school students to study Bach and Beethoven, but no one seriously expects that to supplant their preference for Bieber or the Beastie Boys. Mandates can change behavior, but they can"t change the human heart and mind, no matter how much liberals wish they could. And given that misinformed, disengaged voters would pay no penalty for voting " nor receive any direct benefit for casting an informed ballot over an uninformed one " it"s hard to believe that any call for mandatory voting is anything but a cynical plea for more power. " [3] Due to the fact that compulsory voting does not create informed voters, there is no reason for them to vote. If uninformed voters were to vote, they would most likely just randomly pick a party and just vote for them, instead of actually basing their knowledge on any facts. It is best if they are left alone. Contention 3: If voters are not left alone, then it simply leads to Donkey Votes: "Another consequence of mandatory voting is the possible high number of "random votes". Voters who are voting against their free will may check off a candidate at random, particularly the top candidate on the ballot. The voter does not care whom they vote for as long as the government is satisfied that they fulfilled their civic duty. What effect does this unmeasureable category of random votes have on the legitimacy of the democratically elected government? "[4] If voters are uninformed, Donkey Votes will increase. Because the people that don't want to vote are simply doing it because they have to, and since they will not be penalized for who they vote for, the will be a lot more likely in voting randomly. Contention 4: Encourages Spoiled Ballots In Australia: "Australia also has a much higher rate of spoiled ballots than nearly any other democracy. There were 500,000 such ballots (out of 10 million cast) in this month's election. These include protest votes and those cast by recent immigrants who were confused by the notoriously complicated ballots. It does not include "donkey votes," so named because apathetic voters play pin the tail on the donkey at the polling station, randomly making their selections. " [5] 500,000 blank votes! And that DOESN'T include donkey votes. If that many people are willing to have blank votes, then what's the point of them voting in the first place/? **Le'ts move on to Pro's Case now** My opponent says that Compulsory voting is democratic. But how? Compulsory voting wouldn't make a better democracy! According to an article written by the National Review Online, the author Jonah states: "And it’s worth noting that we are talking about making nonvoting a crime. If a citizen refuses to vote or pay the fine " and countless would " he would be breaking the law. How far would the government go to compel these citizens to pay up or comply? This is how the "experts" would make democracy healthier? " [6] The act of not voting should not be considered unlawful. Once again the fact that voting is NOT A DUTY. It's a right, which means it's not compulsory. Also, compulsory voting is not making society democratic just because it's forcing people to vote. Next my opponent says that compulsory voting is patriotic. Definition of Patriotic - Having or expressing devotion to and vigorous support for one’s country [7] The word patriotic is stated nowhere in the resolution. Also, just because voting is patriotic doesn’t mean we HAVE to do it. Fighting in the military is patriotic. No one is ever forced to go to the military. As for compulsory voting destroying class barriers. I do agree that it gives the poor a chance to vote. HOWEVER, does that mean they will make an informed decision? Just because poor people are able to vote, that simply brings more people to the polls, but I doesn’t necessarily mean that the vote will be an educated one. **I put in a LOT of research into this one. I hope my opponent will come back with a good argument. Good Luck! ** [1] . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [2] [PorchesY4; Should Govt Enact a Compulsory Voting Law? Y4; Africa News ServiceY4; 12 October 2011Y4; Gale Group Databases] [3] . http://newsbusters.org... Y4;retrieved 19 August 2013] [4] [MariaY4; Program DirectorY4; International Institute for Democracy and Electoral AssistanceY4; Mandatory Voting Can Lead to a Range of ProblemsY4; Voting RightsY4; 2008Y4; Gale Group databases] [5] [EricY4; Writer and CommentatorY4; You Must Vote. It's the LawY4; SlateY4; 29 October 2004Y4; . http://www.slate.com...; retrieved 19 August 2013] [6] [JonahY4; Editor in ChiefY4; Coerced voting wouldn"t make a healthier democracyY4; National Review OnlineY4; 27 June 2012Y4; . http://www.nationalreview.com...; retrieved 19 August 2013] [7] . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

Thank you Jdizzle for this intriguing debate. So ladies and gentlemen of the gallery what have we seen in this debate? Throughout the debate Pro has brought forth no actual points of his own besides the racial and sexist issue which is now a thing of the past. But Pro also spends all of his time repeating the same thing over and over in this debate but still fails to effectively counter my points. So once again since Pro has brought forth no new points i will spend the rest of this debate refuting what he has said so far and at the end i will put 1 small final point down. Pro begins off with his own interests in politics, about his own wants and desires, but Pro is not the only child in America and i would like to bring back the point that Pro stated from the ages of 9 and up. Pro himself is around 15 years of age, allowing children to vote at age 9 would not only render useless but also cause inconvenience and an inaccuracy of votes which i will get to later. Pro's second argument is once again undermining what adults do in his life. He states that children could sign the forms themselves if they were allowed to, but i'll bring back what i have been saying in this debate. Why do children have to have it signed by an adult? Because the majority of children are not responsible enough. Pro says that i need proof? Look around you Pro, look at everything around you, you see the evidence everywhere. Things we can and cannot eat or drink, things we can do or cannot do, things we are not allowed to do without consent obviously the whole WORLD believes that people under the age of 18 are not responsible enough. Or your parents could just give birth to you and leave you there to fend for yourself, because according to Pro that is exactly what we can do. Pro some how fails to realize that it is his guardians that pay for the house he lives in, his guardians that pay for the food he eats, and his guardians that send him to school for an education. Pro is going to say, oh well we could do that too if we were allowed. No you could not, unless you want to spend the rest of your life working a minimum wage job, no you could not. You need an education and who provides for that? Who sets you up for your future? Who starts the interest in politics? Your guardians, If your parents did not buy the paper, or buy a TV or receive the news who would provide the interest? You gave life to you so you could do the things you do? You sure as hell couldn't do that yourself. In his next argument Con states that it would not be a problem if we let children vote, i will deal with this simple statement at the end. Con says that the people we vote into power would represent us and have the ability to change the law, well unless you can see the future you will not know what laws will be passed and what your representative will say. It seems that not only does Pro undermine his guardians but also the whole American Government. Children have chances to prove themselves everyday, but the reason we have laws is so that this world can be kept in order and have a chance to keep the world from turning into chaos. Pro either you do not have parents or you do not believe they love you, because if your children ran away, would you send people to look for them? If your parents do not love you they don't have to file a report of a missing child, it's only because they care for you. Pro says that children are assaulted and get away with it, but if that is the case America is one bad country. If you can have 2 17 year olds fighting each other and attempting to kill each other. I'm almost positive the police will get involved, there is your example. The reason the police do not get involved with say younger children is because they believe the parents have the ability to handle the situation, and unless it is 1 young child killing the other one, the problem really isn't that bad. "THEORETICALLY a child should be able to hold a seat in the government." Well then why aren't they holding seats right now? What, because children cannot vote? There are more adults then children out there, and if you say that the children are so intelligent and smart then they would not vote a child to run a country. "Adults are supposed to guide and lead us to PREPARE us for the decisions we are to make in the future." It's a good thing Pro is learning something in this debate... "Well why aren't say 13 year old kids prepared to take part in government?" Never mind. What Pro doesn't see is that parents ARE preparing us for the future, whether you want to be a political leader, a doctor, a lawyer or even a business man. Children are attending school so they can get a education, with that education they can become anything they want to be, and who funds that education? Adults. Can children fund it? Sure if they made an annual salary from a dedicated job, which they don't have. Gallery i am sorry, i fail to see what Pro is trying to say in his 7th argument, i do not believe that Pro has opened his eyes wide enough to look outside his walls and into his surroundings. How can you discriminate an age? if you wait a couple years you will turn to whatever age you wish to be. Saying that people discriminate against age is like saying that because you are 9 years old you are not allowed to drink is discrimination, saying that you can't join a university aged soccer team because you are 11 years old is discrimination. One final analogy is like saying you cannot get retirement income because you are 13 years old. You will grow older and in time you will attain the age requirements. While with your sex or race you cannot naturally change that, So Gallery i hope that you will see the foolishness in Pro's debate and his misunderstanding of the word aging. And for the record Pro, unless you live by yourself, attend school, work a job, pay for your own food, for your house, and for your clothing. No you cannot fend for yourself enough to survive. And of course the final small point that i said i was going to get to. Children like to have fun, it is common nature to have fun, children also have a good amount of time on their hands where they can do a lot of things such as play games, go outside and so forth. So if we allow the children to vote with this extra time they can just vote for whomever they want, whether they have been paying attention to politics or not. This would be devastating to the final result as children would just vote for whichever one looks the nicest but not which one would be the most profitable to the country. The accuracy of the vote of fall dramatically and citizens would have people running who wouldn't be there if it wasn't for children randomly voting for candidates. So Gallery I hope you all see that Pro has done absolutely nothing but waste his time in this debate and he still fails to prove why children should be given the privilege to vote. Pro then ends his debate with " vote pro for equal rights" That is absolutely and idiotic statement, and i hope the Gallery realizes why without my explaining. I will end with a final statement for this already much to long argument of saying that it would not be the peoples best interest if we allow children to vote because of as i said, accuracy of final votes, uselessness of allowing them to vote, inconvenience, and irresponsible children. This resolution surely must and will fall.

Thank you for being very thoughtful in your response, but I found a few major flaws, and I'll explain them in the order you gave them: 1) You said "Well what kid wants to vote and worry about the government? " If you said that sir, then you have seriously underestimated the American youth. Most kids are not just oblivious to what is happening in politics, they are interested in it. And if they will be able to have a say in the government, I would bet that many more kids would show an interest in the government. The reason a lot of kids do not worry about government is because they have no say in it! Why should anyone care about something they can't participate in or influence? This is just talking about the kids that aren't interested in politics now, but a lot of children already are! As you probably already know, I am under the age of 18, and guess what? I'm interested in politics and government! And also you said that kids could just discuss it with their parents; but will that really influence their parents voting? We all think our own separate ways and we all have our own opinions; I don't think those of children are regarded very highly by their parents either. 2) You said ". .. what is a child to do without proper guardians? . .. Who signs those permission slips saying they are allowed to take part in activities? Who registers them in school anyway? " Well couldn't kids do that for themselves if they were allowed to? I think that children could fend for themselves just as well as adults, if given the opportunity. And you also said that the majority of people think children aren't responsible enough. Well how do you know the majority thinks that? And if you are right, well how do you know children aren't responsible enough? 3) In what way would allowing children be a waste of time and increase problems? There would be virtually none, except a minor amendment change. Con also said ". .. how many laws are actually passed that the people get to have a say in? " I'll tell you how many: every single one! Even though one may not have a direct influence on every law, adults get to vote for their representatives, which in turn vote for laws. And yes, the American system IS that simple. 4) You keep talking about how children are not responsible enough, but how do you know? The thing is, people just assume this, and kids cannot prove themselves because no responsibility is TRUSTED in them. You also said that "If you want to run away that is completely your choice, nobody is forcing you to do anything, especially the government. " Actually, yes they are! Adults send police after children that run away, and the children are classified as CHINS (child in need of supervision). And you twisted my words again! I didn't mean that it should be legal to abuse or rape children. What I said is that "Why, children don't even have the RIGHT TO NOT be assaulted! " Which means children CAN be assaulted without punishment. Examples? Spanking, one kid beating up another, and adults forcing a child to do something. All of these things can happen without punishment from the government. Again you have twisted my words to make me look bad, when I clearly said the opposite of what you claimed. 5) THEORETICALLY a child should be able to hold a seat in the government. I hope that answers your questions and complaints. 6) Adults are supposed to guide and lead us to PREPARE us for the decisions we are to make in the future. Well why aren't say 13 year old kids prepared to take part in government? 7) Isn't discriminating against a certain age just as bad as discriminating against a different race or gender? I honestly don't see a difference, and I hope that you, ladies and gentlemen of the gallery, see that point. 8) And wow that was a hard cut at the end but ok but I can fend for myself for the record, and I very much respect the adults in my life. I hope you all see that every point con has tried to prove has come up short, and that it is in good democratic nature to let kids vote. Thank you for your time, Xparks, and thank you gallery for taking time to read this debate.

I accept. I will be arguing that September 2 (end of World War II) should not be a holiday. What PRO fails to understand is that we already have a holiday in honor of anybody who served in wars and all the civilian casualties --it takes place on November 11 and its called Remembrance Day or Veteran's Day. Estimates about how many people that have died from war range from 150 000 000-1 000 000 000 people [1]. Let's suppose that only 150 million people died in wars. PRO admits that 60 million people died in World War II, so all of the deaths in every other wars amount to 90 million. Do you see what I'm getting at?If only 150 million people died in every war ever, making a special holiday for those who served specifically in World War II would be extremely unfair to people who served in other wars, as they aren't getting as much respect and credit for their efforts. Not only that, but 60 million people are getting honored rather than 90 million. Singling out specifically 60 million out of 150 million is unfair to the other soldiers/civilians and ludicrous, especially since it is more probable that a higher number of casualties were a result from wars.Yes, World War II was a tragedy, but PRO's claim that specifically those who were involved in that specific war rather than every person involved in every war should somehow receive more credit, respect and honor than others who were involved in every other war is ridiculous, not to mention we already honor everybody who served and/or died in wars.Therefore, vote CON.Ciatations[1]-http://www.nytimes.com...

First of all, I would like to congratulate Pro on catching my slip stating "the sole purpose", I meant to write "one". However, I would like to point out that pointing out fallacies in my opening statement does not reinforce his argument. In fact it weakens it. My opening statement was to back up the statement that there should be a voting system, not that the DDO system was not fair. This view is shared by my opponent. His proposal to improving the "fairness" of the DDO voting system was not to eliminate the voting system altogether, but to " [assign] 5 judges to vote from the pool of judges, so every debate gets 5 voters that are non-biased". Con argues that having three debates does not protect the integrity of the vote. However, statistics show other. On the leadership dashboard, there are 18, 921 debaters. But by the 62nd page, you can see that the majority of debaters displayed have less than 3 debates in total. By the 100th page, you can barely see any debaters with a debate count of three or more. There are 30 debaters on each page. There are about 3000 debaters that can vote out of the 18, 921 debaters. This rule has been successfully in eliminating random voters, so we can consider Pro"s fifth point void. http://www.debate.org... Pro"s fourth point somewhat contradicts with his other points. Setting a high elo can ensure the integrity of the debate, prevent vote bombs, winning by "getting a ton of friends to vote for you", and prevent random people voting. Pro"s first point, "Not everybody can vote. DDO has a system where you have to give out a cell phone number in order to be able to vote. Not everybody has a cell phone." This is faintly ridiculously. Even Americans that are in the federal level of "poverty" have cell phones. Even if some of the DDO debaters cannot vote, this rate would be quite low. As I pointed out in my last round, there isn"t a system in this world that is completely inclusive. http://www.cnsnews.com... If "pro had better grammar" then pro had better grammar. This is completely objective and not subjective. "Pro had better argument" really isn"t a "real looking reason", as you didn"t give a reason (By my understanding, in the voting system, the voter gets to bubble in which side he/she though had the better argument, then fill in the reason). Even though voters may give "pro had better argument" as a reason, pro hasn"t given any viable alternative for the voting system to make it "fairer". Vote bombs will also occur in any voting system. Getting friends to vote for you is also part of any voting system. I doubt Barack Obama"s friend voted for Mitt Romney in the presidential election. I have looked up the debates of the best debaters (by elo ranking, refer the top link). These debaters give excellent arguments. The overall tendency is that the more you debate and the better you debate, the higher your ranking. Thus the DDO system seems to be working. Although pro never directly stated "we are a bunch of high school students waiting to get evaluated on our world issues assignment", pro proposed method of evaluating debates is remarkably similar to how high school debate competitions are run. The ad hominem statement, "but my opponent seems to be very insecure when it comes to that", is irrelevant to this debate, unsupported, and slightly insulting.

Sorry? I think you may have clicked on the wrong debate. This is about school being bad for children, not how its holidays should be ordered...

I am not going to touch on the court case issue, as it has nothing to do with whether or not April Fool's is an atheist holiday. You have provided no reason for why April Fool's day would be an atheist holiday beside your one reference to Scripture. You must establish why that Scripture should determine when an atheist has a holiday. I could provide you with a citation from Dawkins or Hitchins that says "Christians are fools." Would that make April Fool's Day a Christian holiday? You say "Christians could not take Groundhog's Day as a holiday because it has no connections to Jesus Christ." I the same way, atheists could not take April 1st as a holiday because it has no connection to atheism. Indeed the fact that you link atheism to the date through scriptures is a striking reason why April 1st would NOT be an atheist holiday. Atheist would try to distance themselves from the connection as much as possible. Once again, why would atheists be linked to a date through Christian Scripture? That makes as much sense as setting a Buddhist day of celebration based on the Koran. I have no idea what the Gregorian calendar has to do with April 1st being an atheist holiday. A digression: atheists follow the calendar because it is historical contingency that happens to be used in our society. Some new points: You may be right that atheists are fools, but that does not make April 1st the atheistic holiday. Your conclusion is essentially drawn from the following premises: April 1st is the holiday of fools. Atheists are fools (so sayeth scripture) April 1st is the holiday of atheists. However, a large number of groups are fools (nazi's, flat earth-ists, clowns, people who gamble large quantities of money). So April 1st is their holiday also. This shows that the holiday is not a day designed for atheists "to celebrate their non-faith." The holiday is not exclusively for atheists. Furthermore, as you state the atheist holiday is "to celebrate their non-faith." Yet April 1st has nothing to do with a celebration of non-faith. It is already steeped in traditions of practical jokes that have nothing to do with atheism (please do not try and make some witty jab at atheism in response). In fact, your own argument shows that the link between April 1st and atheists is not "a [celebration] of non-faith," but their apparent foolishness. Finally, what is a holiday? Merriam Webster: "Holiday" 1: holy day 2: a day on which one is exempt from work; specifically : a day marked by a general suspension of work in commemoration of an event 3:chiefly British : vacation —often used in the phrase on holiday —often used in plural 4: a period of exemption or relief Clearly an atheist could not have 1, a holy day, and April 1st isn't one anyways. April 1st does not meet the criteria of a holiday under 2, because there is still school and work on April 1st. 3 also does not apply because April 1st is not a vacation. Finally, atheists do not receive a period of exemption or relief on April 1st, so it is not a April 1st is not a holiday PERIOD, much less an atheist holiday.

My opponent opened up with a quote, and I coincidentally have decided to do the same. My opponent quoted FDR, but I will quote a much lesser known politician. His name was Marc Morial and he served as the 59th mayor of New Orleans. "We must continue to have voting rights in the state, not to politicize this, but they must have a voice in the rebuilding effort in the community from which they have been displaced. " . http://www.brainyquote.com... What does this mean other than that we should expand voting rights? I think it means that the people most effected by the messes caused by the government must be heard, instead of a select few who passed a test. Every vote counts. We cannot allow ourselves to be silenced. Now, before I start arguing my side for legal and moral purposes, I should let my opponent know that the effort to suppress the vote is already abundant in this country. Five states have strict voter ID laws and many more have laws where ID is requested. Voter ID laws are a violation of civil liberties and should not be put in place anywhere. How can we call ourselves the land of the free if we require voter ID laws? . http://www.motherjones.com... . http://www.usnews.com... . https://www.aclu.org... Another huge problem that currently exists in our voting system is felony disenfranchisement. That's right. If you are a convicted felon in this country, you lose your voting rights (usually for life). Of course, this has racist outcomes as well. Felony disenfranchisement was originally put in place in the south in order to silence the voices of black voters. It was and still is much easier to convict poor people (usually poor and black people) and so once they got out of prison, they couldn't vote, and they still can't. Poll taxes were also used for this same racist intention. We should constitutionally restore voting rights to all. . http://www.nytimes.com... Now I shall move on to my legal argument. Now, there is no constitutional amendment guaranteeing voting rights to all, but there are several steps that we have to add on to. Firstly, the fifteenth amendment, which says that voting rights cannot be based on race. The twenty fourth amendment outlaws poll taxes. Finally, the twenty sixth amendment lowers the voting age to eighteen. Now sure, these do not guarantee voting rights to all, but my opponent must agree that these all take steps in the direction of equal voting rights for all. So if we were to add a constitutional amendment to have a test to see if you could vote, that would actually be a step backwards in everything we have fought so hard for to this point. Now for a moral argument. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, " Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. " Notice he didn't say that our lives begin to end the day that educated people become silent. He said we, as in all people. I know this because M. L. K. gave his life for civil rights and voting rights. He knew that if a group of people were silenced, then the country's decline would follow. Are we going to so carelessly give up the right to vote to all, or are we going to be like Dr. King and fight to preserve those rights? I await my opponent's rebuttals.

Thanks Bsh!Framework-Voting is essential to a democracy-Voluntary voting is status quo in democracies in the world and, as it is not forcing anyone to take any form of action, cannot be compared to the status quo nature of slavery, as slavery forced slaves into service. Therefore VV can be considered the standard form of voting-VV is inherently desirableTherefore the point of this debate is to prove which is more desirable: Voluntary, or Compulsory voting?Con's CasePoint 1: CV limits freedomMy opponents points regarding the right to education is indeed debatable. The idea that all people posses the right to an education is accepted by the Con. The idea that all are compelled to receive education, however, is not. That is the matter of a different debate.For the sake of debate I will address my opponents point. Children are not adults and do not enjoy the full gamut of rights that adults do. Therefore it is permissible to compel children to receive education, as you are not infringing upon the rights of an adult citizen. Only because the adult bears responsibility for their child are they compelled to ensure that their child attends schooling.Pro argues that because you have a right to due process, you may compel others to serve on a jury. This, however, is different from compelling one to vote in that serving on a jury only affects you in that your free time is consumed. In voting, however, an uneducated voter may opt not to vote for fear of negatively affecting themselves or others. Jury duty is different in this respect: Serving on a jury only directly affects you by taking time, whereas voting directly affects you by taking time AND by having potential consequences against you. Therefore it is the right of a citizen to forgo their right to vote in order to allow what they may consider more proper votes to be put forth.This is apparent in that it is logical to assume that if one voluntarily chooses not to vote, then logically they put no value in their vote. Furthermore, voting is only a way of measuring freedom of speech, which is a right one may make the choice not to employ.Pro fails to create compelling argument against religious right to not vote. It is not proved that his point regarding forced jury duty is inherently desirable. Although law and church doctrine are typically separated in democracies, the right to practice your own religion is a right that one possesses. If CV forces you to not practice the aspect of your religion that forbids political involvement, then CV infringes upon this right. My opponent did concede that CV limits freedom. I assume my opponent agrees with my previous statement that limiting factors on freedom ought to be avoided, and therefore agrees that limiting freedom is a negative aspect of CV. VV is in this respect superior.My point stands in the respect that Pro concedes that limiting freedom is negative, and that CV limits freedom. Furthermore I have sufficiently disproved my opponents claims against ones right to inaction. This renders VV superior in this respect.Point 2: CV Lowers the quality of the vote.Pro leaves idea that CV guarantees the casting of uneducated votes unscathed. I forward this point. The Italy example is a case of how voters can be manipulated in to casting poor votes. Those who do not vote would be just as easily manipulated, therefore rendering CV less desirable.Pros point regarding political education increasing still lacks any confirmed statistics. "Overall, the median voter could correctly answer only two of the seven statements. Furthermore, just under one in four of the electorate could correctly answer five out of the seven statements, and only 13 percent could answer six. Only one voter in 20 had the highest level of knowledge by answering all seven questions correctly"(1)Voters in Australia have been compelled to vote for over 100 years now but still posses a political education that is comparable to that of the US. The French electorate however exceeds this level of political education. Therefore CV is not more desirable than VV in this respect.Pro insinuates that parties will inform voters, but this obviously lends its self to misinformation and propaganda, therefore furthering my point regarding pollution of the polls. Pro leaves my assertion that CV guarantees that the uneducated will vote not addressed. These points sufficiently prove CV to have major negative impacts not experienced in VV. Point 3: VV Lends to higher quality cotes.Pro Still asserts that that the effects of bad votes is negligible but cites no source to back this claim up whereas I did cite a source to point out that bad votes may indeed harm the electoral process. Furthermore this statistic on "donkey votes" does not account for those who cast votes with little to no knowledge on a subject, but made their choice on minor suggestions from friends/family/etc. or what they saw on an ad (voters who would normally opt to avoid voting because of their own recognition of their own ignorance).Pro misinterprets my point. In saying "votes that would have been cast without compulsion" I meant that the person would have voted whether or not they were being forced to. This does not imply that just because a vote is forced that it is inherently good. CV does however guarantee that all people who pose to provide low quality votes will still vote. CV does indeed "Pollute the Polls" as my previous source states and is therefore less desirable than VV.Pro leaves assertion on "Voluntary Response Bias" unaffected and therefore concedes that self-selection ensures that those who vote are logically those with opinions based on knowledge of the subject.Pro fails to sufficiently disprove that VV provides a higher quality selection of votes. CV is inferior to VV in this respect as well.Pros CasePoint A: CV boosts turnoutThis point is conceded but proved to not be inherently good. furthermore Statistics I've cited previously prove that Australian voter participation is not actually as high as it is expressed to be.Point B: Low Turnout (is) BadPro asserts that higher turnout is a factor in legitimizing a government, but states that it is not the only one. Pro concedes that higher turnout is not crucial to legitimizing, and therefore VV still results in a legitimate government, and CV is therefore not more desirable.Pros perceived benefits of CV regarding " the socio-economically disadvantaged" and "minimization of elite power." are not rebutted, but are not of greater benefit than the harms brought on by CV.Point C: Free RidersPro seems to insinuate that a person who pays taxes on time, works very hard, and contributes to the community well is still a "free rider." This is illogical. Just because the votes of others benefits you doesn't mean that you are necessarily mooching off of their efforts. A person who believes themselves unfit for voting may fear that their vote will harm more than help (I have previously proved that a person who voluntarily does not vote logically does not value their vote) and therefore opts not to vote, leaving the decision in the hands of those whom they perceive to be more fitting to vote.Because the problem proposed by PRO lacks inherency, the point asserted by pro is irrelevant. Point D: PolarizationPro asserts that CV forces moderates to vote but cites no evidence to suggest that the majority of non-voters are moderate. Pro fails to properly prove why polarization is necessarily negativePoint E: Reduces ViolenceMy opponent cites sources regarding violence in countries that are relatively new to democratic systems and some are also allegedly corrupt.(2)(3)(4)Pro then points out non-violence after elections in America, a voluntary voting state, and therefore only adds to the superiority of VVDEBATE SUMMARY1. Con contends that CV limits freedom. VV does not and is in this respect more desirable.2. Con contends that CV Will lower the quality of votes. Pro counters are loose and indirect and do not sufficiently disprove Con's assertion3. Con asserts that VV Lends to higher vote quality due to factors such as Voluntary Response Bias. Pro only rebuts the lowering of quality in CV (but not sufficiently), but does not rebut that VV results in more thoughtful, higher quality voting.4. Pro Contends higher turnout is good. This is countered by Cons points on vote quality.5. Pro concedes that high turnout alone does not legitimize a government. Making CV no more desirable than VV in this respect.6. Pro contends that CV reduces "Free-riders" but lacks sufficient definition of "Free-riding". Con rebuts this point and renders it irrelevant.7. Pro contends that CV reduces polarization, but fails to sufficiently prove how, or how this benefits outweigh the harms set forth by Con.8. Pro Contends that CV reduces violence, but does not point out direct causation, correlation, or proper statistical evidence to prove so. Con rebuts.9. Flaws of CV pointed out by Con are not apparent in VV10. Benefits of VV are reduced or eliminated by VVCON has won this debate as I have proved that the benefits vs. negatives of VV are more desirable than the benefits vs. negatives of CV. I have proved almost all the "benefits" pointed out by pro to be nonexistent,based on speculation, or in actuality a harm. I have also sufficiently proved the numerous negatives of CV and the Benefits unique to VV.The perceived benefits of CV as set forth by the Pro are vastly outweighed by the negatives and flaws set forth by the Con. The negatives of CV are also in almost all cases unique to CV. Massive thanks to Subutai and Bsh1 for a VERY FUN debate! Thank you for your time and responses! Sources1. http://www.aph.gov.au...2. http://en.wikipedia.org...3. http://en.wikipedia.org...4. http://en.wikipedia.org...