This House would introduce compulsory voting

Thanks for your rebuttal. I shall address your points one by one before adding my final substantive argument. In response to the first point: the Opposition has been quick to cite this "right to liberty", and we do accept that people should be allowed to be free. However simply saying "right to liberty" as a response to our argument is unwarranted unless the Opposition actually justify WHY this right exists, and why it transcends what we believe to be a fundamental in society. As we've already mentioned, compulsion to obey the law seems to transcend the "right to liberty", so why can"t compulsion to vote? I would disagree with my opponent on his second point of rebuttal. People aren't voting, but most people are not apathetic to politics in general, just their democratically elected assemblies. This explains the rise in numbers of people protesting (e.g. the Occupy movement) and also the rise in membership of pressure groups (e.g. the Countryside Alliance in the UK). We believe that mandatory voting, as we've already explained, would increase the accountability and representation of these assemblies and thus give people more incentive to vote for their composition. We'd also like to point out that it is fundamentally undemocratic to label people as "irrational" or "rational", as in the neutral eyes of the political system all voters are equal and saying that some people vote more rationally than others is the first step to taking away people's right to vote. My opponent's final point of rebuttal reminded me that Winston Churchill once said that "democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried." Can the Opposition suggest a better system? (They have the burden of proof to say that democracy is not the ideal system to live in.) We believe that it is, and we believe that the "tyranny of the majority" is fairer and more democratic than the "tyranny of the minority" delivered by other systems. Indeed, as we said in our first speech, if the majority do not vote it is easier for democracy to deliver the "tyranny of the minority" " so democracy only works when people vote, otherwise you might have a non-democratic system. We believe this justifies sacrificing one small freedom for the sake of one's country. Our last substantive of this debate is that, in our view, the introduction of this system will allow the parties campaigning for the election to focus more on the actual issues of the campaign, as opposed to having to focus on "getting out the vote". We have seen time and time again that elections can be decided simply by turnout and not necessarily on the true views of the public. Equally, especially towards the end of election campaigns, candidates have to spend more time on actually getting people to the voting booth than convincing them how to cast their votes there. Therefore, if we remove, or at least somewhat dampen, this issue, candidates will have more time to focus on the issues. This will have two key benefits. The electorate will be more conscious of the issues (which would lower the number of what my Opposition would call "irrational" voters) of the campaign and what the candidates actually stand for. This will link into our second key benefit, which is to make voting less tribal and accelerate class dealignment. People will be made (or incentivised) to vote, but when they get there they will be able to make a more balanced decision on who they want to vote for, as more campaign time will have been dedicated to this. We believe this will make people unlikely to vote "irrationally" - although we would like to distance ourselves from these sorts of references for the reasons we mentioned in our rebuttal. Summarising this speech, we have issued three key areas of rebuttal against our Opposition, which we feel also pose them with some questions which they should answer in order to defend their case. We have also given yet another substantive on the issue of the effect this change will have on campaigning, and we believe the ultimate end point will be a better informed electorate and a more successful democracy. Over to Opposition for their final substantives.