Vote Contest

I negate. The voters have to follow the standards for voting because an RFD is required on this debate (when I checked the debate parameters). This means that my opponent is advocating for voting for his side under the guise of breaking the TOS of debate. org and having your ability to vote restricted. C1. Democracy is good. My opponent is advocating for restricting the rights to vote of other users. Voting is something that is fundamental to a democracy; without a power in place for the people to air grievances and to say who is right and wrong, then the forum in which they talk is not democratic. This means that by affirming democracy I am negating the resolution and the advocacy of my opponent. A. Economy The democratisation and furthering of democracy has a net benefit on the economy. This is because consumers are able to purchase more because they feel as though they have a say within the economy. Elias Papaioannou, Gregorios Siourounis in October 2008 says: "First, compared to the pre-transition period, average growth (indicated with the purple dashed line) seems to be higher in the democratic years. Second, compared to the world average, annual per capita GDP growth in democratisation countries drops significantly during the transition; yet after the consolidation of representative rule growth fluctuates at a higher rate. It seems that as democracy consolidates, growth rates stabilise at a higher rate (compared to the non-democratic years). The graph suggests that in the short run there may be non-negligible transition costs, but in the long run growth stabilises at higher rates. " This means that there is a net benefit in the economy when there is an increase in democracy or a democracy is established, empirically. Countries with higher rGDP per capita have higher interest rates: this means that while the marginal propensity to consume is the same, there is a higher benefit for those that choose to save: an increase in cash available - people are positively effected because they are able to consume more under the same amount of income. A lack of democratisation or a lower amount of democracy means that interest rates are low: hurting consumers for choosing to save their money. Inflation rates often outpace the interest rates, meaning that people are losing money and can consume less with the same income. B. Democracy solves terrorismFoot, Professor of International Relations, St. Anthony’s College, Oxford, 2003 says: "gross violations of human rights generally tend to be the mark of a state that might, wittingly or not, provide the base from which terrorist cells can operate, or be hospitable to the establishment of links with transnational terrorism, or through it actions foment violent unrest that spills over its borders" This means that by restricting democracy in this forum we are allowing for terror cells to operate within this forum. The impact of this is human lives being lost. C. Democracy solves genocideHoffman, Chair of the International Executive Committee of Amnesty International, Nov 2004 states: "History shows that when societies trade human rights for security, most often they get neither. Instead, minorities and other marginalized groups pay the price through violation of their human rights. Sometimes this trade-off comes in the form of mass murder or genocide, other times in the form of arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, or the suppression of speech or religion. Indeed, millions of lives have been destroyed in the last sixty years when human rights norms have not been observed. ' Undermining the strength of international human rights law and institutions will only facilitate such human rights violations in the future and confound efforts to bring violators to justice. " This means that we solve for genocide if we advocate for democracy within this very forum. The advocacy of the pro is to reject democracy and have voters be restricted - the advocacy is the con is for wider-spreading democracy within this forum. The impact of this is millions of lives lost. In conclusion I have shown you that if you vote pro you are voting for: economic failure, terrorism and lives lost due to it, and genocide and lives lost to it - the numbers of lives lost in the millions. By voting con you are advocating for widespread economic growth that is beneficial to all, saving thousands of lives from terror cells, and millions of lves to genocide.