In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory

So, in this round I will address Con's remarks, and then provide feedback to Con as Con requested. I hope my feedback is useful. REBUTTAL V: Con says that we should have only the educated vote. But under the concept of free speech, even foolish people can express themselves. In other words, unless Con is going to physically barricade the polls, administer IQ or knowledge tests to potential voters and so forth, then idiots will always vote. To take those steps necessary to prevent the uneducated from casting a ballot would necessarily require an infringement of free speech rights. Furthermore, the Lisa Hill evidence shows that even under a compulsory voting regime, the impact of "donkey votes," including uneducated, blank, and deliberately faulty ballots, is so small that it does not "pollute the polls." Therefore, Con's concerns are baseless. C: Con never warrants why compulsory voting will boost polarization, whereas the entirety of my second contention explains the link between CV and eliminating polarization. C1: Polarization does exist now. A perfect example would be the "defund Obamacare" movement which has brought the government to a standstill. Extend all my other arguments and my attacks against Con's case. They go untouched by Con; Con has no offense on which to vote Con. This means, in terms of impacts, that CV solves for polarization, which in turn achieves our agreed upon value of democracy. Thanks, and please affirm. FEEDBACK Okay, so here are my thoughts. I think you need more research to bolster you arguments. You have a nice foundation in your NC, but you need to find more warrants to further substantiate your claims. Also, it is useful to have some sources which you don't include in your cases, because these sources might come in handy rebutting your opponent. A good example of this was my use of the Lisa Hill card. In your rebuttals, you should try and hit every point, and make sure to be especially vigorous in defense of you own case. Your rebuttal did not defend your own case, nor did it address all the points in my case. And, when you make arguments in rebuttal, always be sure to explain why they are true. For example, you said that compulsory voting won't reduce polarization--why is that correct? Warrant your claims. When attacking a V or C, I always try and do four things: (1) Delink it--explain why my opponent is not achieving his or her Value or Criterion, and/or explaining why a criterion isn't linking to the value. For example, I explained that your V/C relationship was circular--that if the V and C are the same thing, one cannot augment the other, because they're the same. (2) Encompass it--explain why my value or criterion includes and goes beyond my opponent's. I did this by saying that "freedom of speech" was subset of my own value, democracy. (3) Link into it--explain why, even if a judge doesn't buy my value or criterion, how I can still win because I can link into my opponent's V/C framework. (4) Attack it--explain why the value or criterion is fallacious. I did this with my argument about shouting fire in a theatre and with my last two points in response to your criterion. DELA--it's worked for me in several debates. Sometimes not all of these techniques work, and sometimes you don't have time to do all four of these thing, but if you can do at least two of them, you should be good. It's a nice formula to help get you started. Make sure you also impact your arguments; i.e., explain what relevance they have in terms of the V and C. All your contentions and extensions should be connected back to your V/C framework. Try to make at least one attack against each sub-point, that way I can't extend them. Be comprehensive and thorough. If you have any specific questions, just post a comment or message me. I hope I helped!