EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

That voting should be compulsory

0 points
0 points
whiteflamewhiteflame (PRO)

Alright, thanks to RM for taking up the challenge, and I will be happy to start off this debate. I am taking the proposition on the topic “That voting should be compulsory.”

Some housekeeping:


This is really a truncated topic, lacking much of the necessary detail for understanding its boundaries. Where is this happening? Voting on what? What does it mean to be compulsory? Hence, I would expand the resolution as follows:


“The United States Federal Government would make voting compulsory for U.S. citizens in national elections.”

Some definitions.

Voting: a method for a group such as a meeting or an electorate to make a decision or express an opinion—often following discussions, debates, or election campaigns.[1]


Compulsory: required by a law or rule [2]


Given that, I will now break down the policy that takes shape to make this possible, as this is not a “should” but a “would,” and therefore implementation becomes important.


Full plan text:


The U.S. Federal Government, specifically the legislature, will require that citizens of the appropriate age who do not have substantial mitigating circumstances (emergencies, mainly) vote in every national election. In order to best accommodate these individuals, election day will become a national holiday, and the government will increase investment in its voting facilities, increasing their number, equipment and distribution. This increased investment would include services to transport individuals to voting facilities. Failure to vote results in an automatic tax increase that applies on a percentage basis, adding on approximately 1% to their tax burdens. This applies if they are not currently paying income taxes, but not to those who completely lack income. This effectively replaces a fine as a method of enforcement.


I will not make any advantages based off of the addendums presented in this case, as they are solely meant to deal with a larger volume of voters. I don't believe it should be my duty to defend a case where everyone is forced to vote with full knowledge that the current system isn't structured to accept so many voters. So my advantages will solely focus on why voting should be compulsory.

1) Voting as a civic duty


On a very basic level, living in a democratic republic like the U.S., there's a significant importance placed on voting. I don't think it's necessary to show how much has been put on the line throughout history to start and continue this government's system intact. To say that it's important is an understatement – it's the reason our country exists, and the reason that our system of government has spread since its inception to so many other nations. 

But democracy isn't just important on a historical basis. It's the basis for how our country continues to function, and an essential component in determining who represents the country. As such, voting is necessary to keep the country functioning for the benefit of the people. It's beneficial for all eligible voters to understand that necessity, and to be aware that their duty as citizens is to be involved in the composition of their government, and thus to be involved in the laws it passes. This is the same reason why jury duty is compulsory, as it ensures that the courts can function properly. It is necessary for a functioning democracy. I think Lisa Hill, a professor of politics at the University of Adelaide, Australia, put it best:

“Being enabled to enjoy the benefits of democratic life, of living in a democracy instead of, say, a dictatorship requires participatory effort. Democratic citizens owe it to each other to vote so that, together, they can constitute and perpetuate democracy and collectively enjoy the benefits of living in a properly functioning democratic society where everyone counts.”[3]


2) Representation


Part of the reason that voting is so important is because it ensures that your views play a role in how your part of the country, and the country as a whole, are represented. Representation is enhanced by having a larger voting bloc, but that's a basic hazard of democracy in any case. What changes in a voluntary voting system? Those sectors of the public that turn out to vote. Who turns out to vote? Those with higher incomes. Voter apathy is inversely correlated with wealth, as those with more wealth tend to vote more often.[4, 5] This means that these groups receive less representation, as the leadership of our political parties has little reason to see to their needs over those of the rich.[6] Compulsory voting ameliorates this problem, making voting blocs the size of their populations, and, perhaps, even reducing the gridlock that we currently see between political parties.[7] This is what we've seen in studies conducted in Australia, a country that employs compulsory voting.[8] In the end, this ensures that special interest groups and extremist subsets of the population have less control, and over the way U.S. policy is conducted, and have to convince broader subsets of the population that their intentions are for a larger overall benefit than simply for themselves.


3) Reduced apathy


More people voting means a lesser effect of voter apathy, but can compulsory voting actually reduce this apathy? Yes it can.  


“Support could be garnered for compulsory voting legislation by bringing this connection to the attention of the general public. It seems logical that if individuals believe that a candidate’s stance coincides closely with their own, they are more likely to express their agreement with the policy at the polls. In order to ascertain a candidate’s views and compare them to their own, the citizen would need to attend campaign events and follow the news closely, which are desirable consequences. Compulsory voting would solve what appears to be the biggest problem with our voting system today: disconnect between politicians’ understanding of the issues and desired resolution of those issues by the general public.

This disconnect creates apathy and reinforces the idea that 'one vote won’t make the difference.' One can enjoy the benefits of living in a free, democratic society whether one expends the time and effort to vote or not. Compulsory voting legislation would simply be a gentle reminder that an element of democracy is the contract between you and your fellow citizens to participate in government.”[5]


What this shows is that compulsory voting is the only way to ensure that everyone experiences a strong reason to buy into national elections, and thus reduces voter apathy by making it a desirable thing to pursue. This means that more voters are willingly engaging in the voting process and, moreover, that those voters are better informed. But to take it a step further:


“...voting is largely norm-driven and highly habitual. Thus, in order to reverse the growing trend of abstention and encourage future generations of potential voters to develop the habit of voting, a drastic solution is necessary.”[5]

Any other solution produces something that is less habit-forming, and creates fewer solid norms. Lesser measures are going to be ineffective, and leaving the situation as it is leads to widespread voter apathy. Only my case satisfies these concerns.

With that, I leave it to Con to establish his case and rebut mine.


1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting

2. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compulsory

3. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/11/07/should-voting-in-the-us-be-mandatory-14/what-weve-seen-in-australia-with-mandatory-voting

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout

5. hosted.law.wisc.edu/wordpress/wilj/files/2014/01/Lund_final_v2.pdf

6. https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/articles/empower.htm

7. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2010/07/08/galston-mandatory-voting-would-loosen-partisan-gridlock

8. www.australianreview.net/journal/v6/n1/louth_hill.pdf

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-10-03 13:53:49
| Speak Round
BlackflagBlackflag (CON)
The notion that democracy exists is laughable in this day and age. True democracy is vicious and whiteflame is outrageous to even suggest we have anything close to it.
In a true democracy, if the majority of people in a room want the rape of the minority of people to be legalized, then it would be. If you go by pure democracy, the entire world should fight in an all-out war where until there is a majority of people with identical views, we keep fighting to the bitter end. This is how democracy would work if it were followed but, thankfully, even the most corrupt societies do not work by democracy.

Instead, the concept of 'majority' wins' is localized to a few one, single point of politics: Who has the power.

They do not vote on how often to vote, they do not vote on how to decide, nor where it is decided. They are limited to one, simple matter: who (out of the parties) is the top dog.

So, when whiteflame suggests that there is somehow a 'civic duty' to vote as if it is some undeniable responsibility of every member of a nation due to the sanctity of democracy, he is very mistaken. It is something offered to those who care which of the parties gain power.

Now, on the matter of 'representation' I would like to point out a major flaw in the case made by Pro. He blabs on about the fact that people of certain backgrounds are represented more than others in nations where voting isn't compulsory. What he fails to realize is that the people opting out of it are doing so by their own free will. They admit that they are too uneducated on politics, or perhaps too irresponsible in general, to make such a decision and are absolutely fine to consent to the will of the majority of those who opt to vote. There is absolutely no issue of people who want to vote not being able to vote but in the system that my opponent is proposing, those who want to not vote are unable to not vote. This is the fundamental reason why, ethically, the latter system is the less desirable one. People under 18 are not permitted vote (or under 21 in certain stricter nations in the middle east) due to the widespread prejudice that younger people cannot make informed decisions well enough. On top of this, almost every nation on Earth doesn't allow convicts to vote as they consider those who are criminals to be too irresponsible to make such important decisions. However, what if there are over-18-year-olds who identify themselves as either too uninformed on politics or too irresponsible in general to make the decision of who has political power? Why can't we appreciate their honesty and be happy that they didn't vote based on nothing more than the fact that they'd be thrown in prison, or at the very least fined, if they dared not to do so. 

On top of all this, do you know what the entire purpose of voting is? It is to see what the people who care about a matter think about it. It is not to then hold a gun to the head.

Do you want a world where one of these is aftermath of choosing to leave decisions to those more informed than yourself?:


This is not ethical at all.

As for the argument that it will reduce political apathy, would you rather a nation of apathetic minority and peaceful voters? Or a world where political apathy become political antipathy?

No one likes to be forced to do things they do not want to but if they are forced to do something, the reason should be for the betterment of society. The proposed policy betters nobody, at all. Instead it gives a voice to those who are shy, or who recognize that they are too ill-informed or irresponsible to make such a decision and then reduces the impact of the informed and responsible on the overall result. This is a zero-benefit, major-loss policy that goes against the very principle of consent (which is the whole reason why people below the age of majority are not allowed to vote in the first place, since they are considered unable to give, or not give, 'consent').

Voting is a right, not a duty.
That is why criminals lose the right to do it and children, who have restricted rights, cannot.

This Australian is legally punished for even speaking against the policy:


This is disgusting.

Direct/Pure democracy: http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Direct_democracy.html

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-10-05 13:34:32
| Speak Round
Rational Madman: Why should those who do not want to vote have to vote?
Rational Madman: Why should those who admit they are too ill-informed ot vote, be forced to make a decision without any formal political education?
Rational Madman: Why should those who admit that they'd just be randomly crossing, or ticking, not opt out of voting?
Rational Madman: why should you punish those who would totally consent to the will of others but do not consent to having to vote?
whiteflame: RM is using his Cross-X to be repetitious with his arguments, but sure, I'll preview my responses here. People who do not want to vote are still a part of this country and therefore still carry the basic duty to vote. Con hasn't responded to the meat of that contention where I showed why that duty exists. Moreover, those who do not want to vote have a vested interest in the outcome, whether they believe it's worth their time or not.
whiteflame: Much of the voter apathy of today is based on the view that a single vote doesn't count, but so many people use that "right to apathy" that 49% of the population never participates. That perception of unimportance removes a tremendously important and huge portion of the population from the discussion. Those who are too ill-informed should become informed, plain and simple. Con doesn't touch my argumentation that compulsory voting pushes people to become informed.
whiteflame: Those who admit to vote randomly would also be more likely to be informed, and therefore be using this as a tactic to vote against their own interests. We can't help people who are unwilling to help themselves, and if those people would vote randomly in any case, it's non-unique. I'm not sure I fully understand RM's last question, but I am not, as he stated, putting a gun to anyone's head. An increased tax burden is not a gun. These people, whether they recognize it or not, have a duty to uphold the system of government under which they reside.
whiteflame: So RM, I'd like some clarification. What system of government do you think we live under today that doesn't have anything to do with democracy? You seem to be insinuating that a democratic republic isn't very democratic, so please, explain specifically what our system of government is.
Rational Madman: "People who do not want to vote are still a part of this country and therefore still carry the basic duty to vote. " Ther eis no such thign as a duty to vote.
Rational Madman: why dont' prisoners have to fulfil the duty?
Rational Madman: it's becaus eit's a privilege and a right that not everyone deserves.
Rational Madman: "Moreover, those who do not want to vote have a vested interest in the outcome, whether they believe it's worth their time or not." What if they are 100% content with others deciding that outcome despite their interest in it?
Rational Madman: "Much of the voter apathy of today is based on the view that a single vote doesn't count" No it is not. This is a prejudiced assumption you have base don 0 evidence. Apathy comes fomr either not caring about the outcome or trusting int he more informed and mroe responsible to decide more accurately.
Rational Madman: "Con doesn't touch my argumentation that compulsory voting pushes people to become informed." No tid oes not. Not even remotely. It pushes those who couldn't give less of a damn abou tthe outcomes to just cross a box because their family member or friend who gives a crap about politics said "HEY! VOTE THAT PARTY!"
Rational Madman: "but so many people use that "right to apathy" that 49% of the population never participates." in one nation. Aside from that, why si this an issue?
Rational Madman: "So RM, I'd like some clarification. What system of government do you think we live under today that doesn't have anything to do with democracy? You seem to be insinuating that a democratic republic isn't very democratic, so please, explain specifically what our system of government is." I NEVER SAID THAT
Rational Madman: I said that no nation is pure democracy. This would be anarchy
Rational Madman: Compulsory voting reduces the impact of the politicaly passionate and informed by increasing hte impact of the people who are being forced to vote.
Rational Madman: "An increased tax burden is not a gun." You never once stated that your method of disciplien would be this. For all we know different nations woudl employ this with different severity of punishment
whiteflame: An assertion that the duty doesn't exist doesn't erase my arguments. I didn't say anything about prisoners in this debate, that's not a part of my argument. If people are content with others deciding the outcome, then they are still neglecting their duties, and are doing a disservice to their subsets of the population. Their duty isn't just to themselves.
whiteflame: I'll be happy to provide evidence for that assertion in the debate proper, though I will point out that all of Con's arguments for why that apathy exists are solely assertions at this point without any warrants or evidence to support them. Similarly, I'll point out that Con's argument that people would just randomly check boxes comes solely as an assertion, whereas I've provided evidence to support my statement that compulsory voting encourages people to become informed.
whiteflame: Read RM's words carefully: %u201CI said that no nation is a pure democracy.%u201D Neither have I. All of his accusations that I am arguing for anything akin to a pure democracy are, therefore, patently absurd. If it's akin to anarchy, he'll have to show how my case leads to anarchy. He hasn't done that, merely asserting that I'm getting there... somehow. He says it will reduce %u201Cthe impact of the politically passionate,%u201D which is the entire point of my second contention, so thanks for agreeing to that.
whiteflame: Do I really have to quote myself? It's... right in my plan text: Failure to vote results in an automatic tax increase that applies on a percentage basis, adding on approximately 1% to their tax burdens. Con is misrepresenting my plan in an effort to make it sound like I'm holding a gun to every eligible voter's head.
whiteflame: One more question: if the entire purpose of voting is to see what the people who care about a matter think about it, why do we need to do anything beyond taking a poll? Is voting not an action that engenders a response which affects everyone, including the apathetic?
Rational Madman: "An assertion that the duty doesn't exist doesn't erase my arguments" YOU ARE THE ONE ASSERTING IT EXISTS
Rational Madman: i will answer the rest of ur nonsense later
whiteflame: Just note that my first contention has several warrants to support voting being a duty, none of which Con has contested. So no, it's not just an assertion. Calling my arguments "nonsense," doesn't make it so, though I would at least appreciate a response to my question.
Rational Madman: The only thing you proved is that letting people decide the party in power is sensible and a way to avoid a maniac ending up in power
Rational Madman: it is not a duty but a right to the law-adbiding over-18-year-olds to have a say in the matter.
Rational Madman: you hav eno remotely indicated it to be a duty
Rational Madman: why would we let prisoners off the hook for a duty
Rational Madman: why are children offered no formal training for this duty
Rational Madman: because it's not a goddamn duty.
Rational Madman: if you don't want to vote why the hell should you be forced to sway the result of the vote with your uninformed bias
Rational Madman: if you truly realize you know nothing and do nto care to know anything who the ehl is the governemnt to shove a gun in your fac enad make you do it
Rational Madman: you can't suddenly say you won't do that
Rational Madman: what if they didn't pay the additional tax
Rational Madman: why should they have to pay more
Rational Madman: if you admit most apathetics ar epoor to begin with
Rational Madman: tacing them mroe is just brutality
Rational Madman: frankly i'm done with this cross sectional nonsense
Rational Madman: formally argue and meet yoru bop or forfeit it's up to you
Rational Madman: o increse th tax on the poor
Rational Madman: who genrelaly are th emajority of apathetics
Rational Madman: is crule
Rational Madman: and unnecessary
Rational Madman: voting shoudl eb consensual
whiteflame: I'm not interested in repeating myself here, so I'm done with cross-examination as well, especially since you seem unwilling to respond to my question - don't worry, that'll feature in the round, you'll get another chance. Also, please, try to type in English. It's not hard.
Rational Madman: Yeah you will be destroyed in debate, you scaredy cat.
whiteflame: Always appreciate the taunting...
Rational Madman: That's exactly what apathetics forced into voting will get.
Rational Madman: so think about treating others as you want to be treated
whiteflame: ...And always nice to see more straw men.
Rational Madman: prov eit' sa dtraw man
Rational Madman: or stop falsely accusing and bsing your way to victory
whiteflame: I'm not going to continue this any further. Have fun spouting off.
Rational Madman: then shut up and back off like the coward you are.
Rational Madman: that isn't ad hominem
Rational Madman: it's blatant truth
Rational Madman: i'm not usign the insult to further my case
Rational Madman: my case is already undefeated by you
Rational Madman: and yours thwarted by my inflalible reasoning

Return To Top | Speak Round
whiteflamewhiteflame (PRO)

That cross-x was... well, it was. RM repeated his points multiple times, declared my argument invalid, and made some personal attacks. I'll spend this round addressing his case. He doesn't break them down into cleanly, so I will.

1) “True democracy”

He suggests that my argument pushes for a “true democracy” to be implemented. Multiple responses.

1. RM never defines what a true democracy is. He simply says what it results in, but without ever linking it to my case.

2. No link. My case doesn't link to his nebulous “true democracy.” I specifically stated that this system is meant to bolster our democratic republic, which is what our country's actual system of government looks like. This whole contention is an attempt to straw man my case without any links, warrants or evidence that my case meets his definition.

3. No warrant. RM simply claims that “if the majority of people in a room want the rape of the minority of people to be legalized, then it would be.” This is utterly absurd in a system with checks and balances that prevent that kind of policy from being adopted. The U.S. Supreme Court, at the very least, would strike down practically any such policy before it was enacted. RM also never provides any reason to believe that the people of the U.S. would pass such a ridiculous law.

4. No evidence. RM provides not a single example of a “true democracy” that has failed, simply stating that it's a failure even before it begins. Without support, his claim that “we keep fighting to the bitter end” is nothing but assertion. Meanwhile, Australia presents a perfect example of a country that is most certainly not a pure democracy with compulsory voting.[3]

5. Non-unique. Majority wins in status quo, that's not something new I'm implementing. All I'm changing is who is represented by that majority, which is an actual majority of citizens instead of an overrepresented subset. Even if you're buying all of RM's claims of harm, they exist in both our worlds, and therefore should be ignored.

6. Turn. “True democracy” is the only way for the minorities that are often unrepresented in status quo to have a voice. Turning out to vote is necessary for their representative government to pay attention to them. Only my case ensures that nearly every member of every minority turns out to vote, ensuring that they have more adequate representation.

The remainder of this argument makes no logical sense to me. All of it seems to be problems inherent to any kind of democracy, so cross-apply my non-unique.

2) Rebuttal to my Contention 1

RM merely states that “[voting] is something offered to those who care which of the parties gain power,” but he never warrants this statement. In fact, I spent a lot of time under this contention explaining why those who “care” shouldn't be the only ones making the decisions, and those points will get extended shortly. Here, however, I'm simply going to extend the untouched points on this contention. Extend my argument that there's a historical basis for the duty – people fought and died for our democratic system of voting to exist, ergo it's our duty to uphold it. Extend my point that eligible voters need to understand the necessity of democracy as a basic component of their lives. Extend my comparison to jury duty, which showcases a specific duty that relates to voting. And extend the quote I provided, which explains why citizens of a democratic country owe their vote to society at large. RM provides no response to these.

3) Response to Contention 2

RM's entire response to my second contention doesn't apply. Extend the following: a) many groups are underrepresented, b) that those groups garner attention and representation through compulsory voting, c) that compulsory voting ensures more policy is passed with less gridlock, d) that Australia suffices as a real world example of this working, and e) that the vocal groups that currently control a great deal of the voting don't always have the best interest of the general public in mind. And just to make the impacts clearer:

“Places with mandatory voting also have less wealth inequality, lower levels of political corruption and higher levels of satisfaction with the way democracy is working than voluntary systems.”[3]

4) Right vs. Duty

Much of this was sprinkled throughout RM's arguments and the cross-x, and yet he provides only assertions, with a single outstanding warrant, which boils down to this: children and convicts aren't allowed to vote, so it must be a right. This point is, similarly, unwarranted. I'd say my example of jury duty is actually a perfect counter to this, as both children and felons are excluded from jury duty. This is a duty that effectively excludes subsets of the population that are deemed incapable of or unfit for fulfilling that duty. I've also provided other, substantial warrants in my first contention for why voting is a duty, whereas RM has failed to support his argument that it's a right.

Fundamentally, RM is wrong when he says that the purpose of voting is “to see what the people who care about a matter think about it.” Voting is not taking a poll. Voting has real consequences for real people. To not vote willingly is to ignore those consequences for themselves and society at large.

5) Gun to the Head

RM states that my policy is the equivalent of holding a gun to the head of every eligible voter. It's apparent that RM didn't even read my case. I pointed out specifically what my policy does (increase the taxes of those who don't vote) and he has in no way linked it to his dystopian interpretation. And yes, it does appear in my plan text:

“Failure to vote results in an automatic tax increase that applies on a percentage basis, adding on approximately 1% to their tax burdens.”

RM has failed to show that this, in any way, relates to holding a gun to someone's head. Interestingly, he hasn't actually pointed out a harm to using a threat of violence to force a vote, beyond an appeal to emotion and some interesting pictures. He's also failed to show (despite his accusation in cross-x) that my policy would engage in taunting apathetic voters, which similarly has no link to my case. These are nothing but straw men meant to make my case look far more sinister than it is, and should be ignored.

6) The Right to Apathy

This is the most pervasive point in RM's case, appearing at several points throughout the previous round and several times in cross-x. I have several responses.

1. Non-unique impact. All RM provides in the way of impact here is that some ill-informed, irresponsible people will vote. This happens right now. People of all sorts vote, often poked and prodded into it by social pressures. My case increases the number of those people who would vote, but it also increases the number of informed, responsible voters. RM will have to show that the majority of that 49% is irresponsible, and will continue to be irresponsible if forced to vote.

2. It's appalling that RM wishes to exclude people on the basis of their knowledge base. What amount of knowledge does a voter have to have about the political candidates and issues before they become “informed”? Is RM suggesting that we should exclude people who lack certain pieces of knowledge? I'd argue that that kind of exclusionary elitism has no place in any kind of democracy.

3. The reasons why most people don't vote actually has more to do with socio-economics than apathy:

“U.S. voter turnout lags other western democracies by about 10 to 15 percent. This has to do with many factors, including the American system of representation, the wide socioeconomic and demographic variation in the public, and the way political parties and candidates engage voters. Apathy plays a role, but it is much smaller than socio-economics.”[9]

Hence, most of those who don't vote now and would be forced to vote aren't exercising any right to apathy.

4. Turn. Only my case ensures that more people are informed. Extend my entire Contention 3, which goes dropped. This shows a reduction in apathy will happen, and how that increased interest will lead to more people being informed.  

5. Turn. Only my case ensures that those who vote randomly have less sway in any given election. A number of people do this in status quo either because they don't think their vote matters, or because they don't like any of the candidates presented, using apathy as a form of protest [9]. With only 51% of the population voting, that has a huge effect on the outcome. That impact is far reduced with more voters.

6. RM doesn't contest the harms of apathy, he just says we should have a right to it. Even if he's right that the right should exist, the harms outweigh the benefits of that right. That's because apathy is bad for society. It's bad for minority groups, which RM himself said shouldn't be swept under the rug. This is particularly true for the black community.[10, 11]

7. If the problem is that I don't give an outlet for protest, I can solve for that. Ballots can include a box on every voting form allowing people to voice their disdain for the candidates listed. It can be listed as “no vote,” to be simple, and that would be a voice all its own. If this group becomes a substantial portion of the population, this is how their voice becomes heard. This turns his impact – I provide a voice for...

Return To Top | Posted:
2014-10-07 17:14:17
| Speak Round

View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
I do believe that there are only two rounds, so this was RM's last round.
Posted 2014-10-09 18:31:38
I can write a continuation argument for the hell of it, but you would have to post it next round.
Posted 2014-10-09 17:47:39
...protesters that doesn't exist in status quo. Only in a system where everyone's voting does this group become sizable enough to garner attention.

8. RM never actually supports any right to autonomous action, which is a glaring hole in his argument. But just in case he decides to get to that in the last round, I'll point out that “mandatory taxation, jury duty and the requirement to educate children. Yet, these are all good ideas.”[3]

Back to RM.

9. http://www.ibtimes.com/why-there-so-much-voter-apathy-us-elections-315494
10. http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/08/voting_rights_or_voter_apathy.html
11. http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/steve-rose/article1278096.html
Posted 2014-10-07 17:16:20
Huh. My argument got cut off. Oh well. I'll provide the remainder here, and if judges don't wish to include it, that's fine.
Posted 2014-10-07 17:15:34
We'll see. I've developed a case for Pro (as you can see), but I haven't figured a solid one out for Con yet. That may just be due to a lack of research on the topic, something I'll have to think on. I'll get back to you after this is done.
Posted 2014-10-05 01:34:34
Whiteflame, he also took two of my debates, which for the below reasons I am upset about. I don't like forfeiting debates, but he kind of forced my hand. That says a thing or two about making a reputation for yourself on this site.

Ironically, I started this debate without an acceptance right before you took this one. If you're intrested, I would be willing to debate you, but as pro. I have this great Cx loophole I want to exploit.
Posted 2014-10-04 23:44:07
You said you wanted to debate every issue on the front page. Doing so means you're going to face down any opponent who might come your way, and any argument. That was your choice, not mine.
Posted 2014-10-03 14:50:16
RationalMadman, you just earned yourself another warning. I count that as calling your opponent names which I warned you for before. I promise I'll ban you next time.
Posted 2014-10-03 14:45:35
poophead wrote essay so long.................... why u mekk me hev to think so hrd?
Posted 2014-10-03 14:29:49
Whiteflame's first debate. This I've got to see.

(inb4 RM forfeits though :( )
Posted 2014-10-02 15:46:42
I'll take you up on this tomorrow, RM, if no one's joined.
Posted 2014-10-02 15:44:50
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

There are no judgements yet on this debate.

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 2 rounds
  • 10000 characters per round
  • Reply speeches
  • Uses cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds does not mean forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Unrated debate
  • Time to post: 2 days
  • Time to vote: 1 month
  • Time to prepare: 1 hour
This is a random challenge. See the general rules for random challenges at http://www.edeb8.com/resources/General+rules+for+random+debates+%28version+2%29