Revive DDO Tournament R1: Compulsory Voting

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...