Should election day be a national holiday?

History: In 1845, Congress had to decide when to let Americans vote. It took a very long time to travel. Farmers needed a day to get to the county seat, a day to vote, and a day to get back, without interfering with the time of worship. So they chose Tuesday. Because Wednesday was market day. In 1875 Congress extended the Tuesday date for national House elections and in 1914 for federal Senate elections. This no longer applies to American society because travel is a lot easier and nobody would travel three days to vote. Election day should be moved to the first Saturday in November. This keeps the date close to the other date and does not hurt schedules now too much. It is so inconvenient to leave work on Tuesdays or to generally get around. It would be a lot more convenient for Americans if Election Day was moved to a Saturday. Census data shows that many Americans do not vote due to the fact that it is so inconvenient or unlikely that they will be able to leave work.

The American federal government should move its general election day to November's first Saturday.

The original reasoning behind choosing Tuesday for election day no longer applies. That you have clearly demonstrated in your opening argument. However, this should not lead one to conclude changing election day to a Saturday. Although the original reasons for a Tuesday election are outdated, this does not mean that other reasons have not also come into play as times have changed. First off, many jobs give either an entire day off for election day, or extended lunch breaks on election day in order to allow employees to vote. Typically, civil service jobs and other jobs working for either the city, state, or federal government get the entire day off to vote. Corporations very rarely give workers an entire day off, but there are a great many that still give extended lunch hours to workers in order to vote. In both of these situations, the extra time that such people are given specifically to vote can definitely cause a guilt trip. I have heard plenty of people say in the past that they felt compelled to vote as a result of having the day off or having a much longer lunch break. This cannot happen if election day is a Saturday. Most people have Saturday as a regular day off anyway. This may seem like it would lead to more voting, but this is probably not true. Census data can only show what people claim are reasons for not voting. When a person doing a survey asks a non-voter why they did not go to the polls, how many of those people would be honest enough to answer that they just didn't feel like it? Those that claim that work conflicted with them being able to vote are probably looking for time from their jobs to vote. I don't think they are really trying to move election day to Saturday. That is always a problem with that type of poll. The honest answer is not given. In this census, what percentage said they simply didn't feel like voting? I'm sure the number is extremely small if that answer even appears in the data. Yet common sense and experience would tell us that the number of people that simply don't feel like voting is very high. This is something that has a lot more to do with personality than with the particular day of the week. I believe that most people that refrain from voting would do so regardless of the day of the week chosen. And as a civil servant, I'm glad to have an extra day off. I'm sure that many teachers and students also appreciate the day off when the school is used for voting. And as I mentioned earlier, when a person is given extra time to vote (and a Saturday would not fit this category since it is not extra), it can cause a guilt trip and make that person more likely to vote. But this reason is actually a minor one. There is a much bigger problem with your idea that I will present in the next round.

Opponent>>> First off, many jobs give either an entire day off for election day, or extended lunch breaks on election day in order to allow employees to vote. Typically, civil service jobs and other jobs working for either the city, state, or federal government get the entire day off to vote. >+>+> This is true. However, MOST JOBS DO NOT GET ELECTION DAY BREAKS. Lower class voters often do not get breaks for Election Day. This is unfair to lower class voters. >+>+> Almost everybody has Saturday off. This will increase voter turn out, if it is more conveinent for voters to vote. Opponent>>> In both of these situations, the extra time that such people are given specifically to vote can definitely cause a guilt trip. I have heard plenty of people say in the past that they felt compelled to vote as a result of having the day off or having a much longer lunch break. >+>+> This is an untrue assumption. Many workers do not get this time off so will never expreience this guilt trip and just never vote. >+>+> Many workers who do get this break do not give into the guilt trip, but instead use the time for something else. >+>+> This extended break or entire day off severely reduces productivity. This lowers revenue for the company. In our failing economy, we cannot afford reduction in revenue. Congress just passed a stimulus plan that would try to increase revenue in the country to help the economy. If there is less revenue being generated in the economy, the economy suffers tremendously. And if this break happens as often as you say it does, this break or extra vacation day really takes a toll on our failing economy. >+>+> Also, guilt trips should not be looked up to as a good thing. Guilt trips are bad psychologically and could damage work productivity, therefore, danaging the economy. Also, it will reduce the happiness of Americans. It will also hurt the judgment of Americans when they are psychologically damaged in this way: temporarily or permanently. If Americans judgment is hurt, then they are more likely to drink and drive. Drinking and driving kills innocent civilians. One of these civilians could be a day away from revealing the cure for AIDS. If this potential person is killed, millions of unnecessary people will die. But it is not just this person, but rather any important person. The probability is great and so is the impact. Opponent>>> Census data can only show what people claim are reasons for not voting. When a person doing a survey asks a non-voter why they did not go to the polls, how many of those people would be honest enough to answer that they just didn't feel like it? >+>+> People do not just not feel like voting. There are reasons behind it like political ignorance or most commonly inconvenence. People will express the truth and even if you feel this legitimate source to be illegitimate, you will have to admit that increasing conveinence for voting will get more people to vote. It is common sense. Opponent>>> Those that claim that work conflicted with them being able to vote are probably looking for time from their jobs to vote. >+>+> No matter why, these people claimed that work conflicted with their voting. If they did not have that conflict, the problem would be solved. It is inevitable logic. If you have a conflict of two things and remove one of those things, you no longer have a conflict. Opponent>>> This is something that has a lot more to do with personality than with the particular day of the week. I believe that most people that refrain from voting would do so regardless of the day of the week chosen. And as a civil servant, I'm glad to have an extra day off. I'm sure that many teachers and students also appreciate the day off when the school is used for voting. >+>+> Most people do not even receive this day off. >+>+> The greater good is for Election Day to be more conveinent. This will increase voter turnout, especially among working class voters. Increased voting turnout is good because it will be closer to the voice of the people, rather than the voices of a few. Election Day is inconveinent. This is evident in the fact that my opponent's main argument was that 'It is inconveinent, but the inconveinence is good, because it presents a guilt trip to vote and a day off. ' Everybody here agrees that Election Day is inconveinent, and the census data shows that the inconveinence is the main reason why people do not vote. If it were more conveinent to vote, common sense tells us, more people would vote.

I love potatoes so potatoe day should be a national holiday if anyone disagrees give valid information why it should't

Potato day should be a national holiday for all places

Opponent>>> Now I'm not sure if this is true or not. However, if we assume that it is true, then your argument suffers much more than mine. For if people that are given extra time choose to do something with that time other than voting, then Saturday elections would be meaningless. The people would use that extra time for something else. That statement has not been thought through to its proper conclusion. Rebuttal>+>+> This seems like a nice point at a glance, but it is really turned in my favor. Your argument is destroyed. I do not think that Americans are sent into a guilt trip. I think Americans want to vote, but the reason they are not voting is because of the inconveinence as surveys and Census data suggests. If voting was more conveinent for Americans, they would vote, because it makes people feel responsible and helps them express themselves. People like voting. They do not like going way out of their way to vote on a Tuesday. When Americans have a much more conveinent time voting, they vote. This is what all relevant data suggests. Opponent>>> Your inferences on the economic disasters that occur due to some extra time off or one extra day a year are rather far fetched. First of all, the economy falling apart because of a single day off or a slightly longer lunch break is a ridiculous notion. Rebuttal>+>+> When Americans work they are making money for their boss. The company is also more likely to do well if it is open more often, because it is more time the employees get practice, more money is being generated, and the company name is getting out. A day off hurts that company and if as many companies as you suggest get this day off, millions of company suffer each Election Day. Even if there is a very small probability as you suggest, which there is not, it's only common sense, there is no reason to put our economy at risk, even a small one, when it can all be avoided. You wouldn't take a nap in the middle of the road, because there is a small probabilty a car would come. There is no sense in taking unnecessary risks. Especially, not with our fragile, internationally influential economy. Opponent>>> Psychologically, breaks and days off can make a worker more productive. Never allowing such breaks decreases productivity much more and is far more devastating to the company. Rebuttal>+>+> A break may make them more productive, but a guilt trip will not. Guilt will make people sad or angry and cloud their judgment, which is bad for them and bad for society. Guilt makes people feel unhappy. Why would you send people through this guilt trip and make them sad or angry when it can be avoided by simply rescheduling Election Day. Opponent>>> The direction that you have gone with as far as the guilt trip is highly creative and amusing. But realistically, it is also quite ridiculous. You go from a guilt trip causing psychological damage to a person drinking and driving. Then that person apparently kills someone who was one day away from curing AIDS. Was that serious? This is even more far fetched than your economic example. Rebuttal>+>+> The probability is very high of this happening. Really think about it. Guilt trips will make people think of their guilt. It will make them sad or angry. This will cloud their judgment. (www. nlm. nih. gov/medlineplus/tutorials/depression/mh019101. pdf; www. signonsandiego. com/uniontrib/20080208/news_lz1n8read. html) If their judgment is harmed, they may do something stupid or ease the pain with drugs or alcohol. However, they still have to drive back to work later or sometimes they just drive anyway. This leads to drinking and driving, which kills people. No sensible person would risk lives when they could simply be saved. And if you don't think that they will ease the pain with drugs or alcohol, it is still true that they will have clouded judgment, because they have guilt. This clouded judgment can lead to very bad decisions and definitely bad work, reducing economic productivity. There is no reason to cloud people's judgment unnecessarily when it can simply be avoided. Opponent>>> The United States is a country that was founded on the idea of freedom. The Bill of Rights is often used as an example of the rights and freedoms that U. S. citizens should have. The first amendment reads as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. .. " If there are to be no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion, then how can you justify making election day a Saturday? Seventh Day Adventists and some Jews worship on Saturday. Rebuttal>+>+> Wow. This is pretty funny that you would actually post that. This is really reeaching. It shows how desperate you are to find flaws. Well, the Eastern Orthodox Church celebrates Saint John the Baptist and has special services dedicated to him. So then it should be moved from Tuesday. The fact is that there is going to be a religious service each day, but Election Day has to be some day. Also, Seventh Day Adventists and Jews do not worship all day. They can find time to vote. The vast majority of the population are not Seventh Day Adventists or Jewish. My case outweighs your case. More voters are likely to vote, if the day is Saturday, because it will be more convenient and not conflict with work. If a church service that lasts only a few hours hinders a person from voting, then work on a Tuesday must significantly hinder a person from voting. These voters if they will stay at church all day after service is over for some reason, can use an absentee or mail-in ballot to vote. It does not stop them from voting, and is therefore not unconstitutional. Also, the people have the right to exercise their religion still. It does not prohibit them and is obviously not unconstitutional. Opponent>>> But the polls open up at 7:00 A. M. and close at 8:00 or 9:00 P. M. The lower class will still have time to go to the polls either before or after work. Rebuttal>+>+> The point is convenience. And your statement is untrue. Many lower class voters work mulitple jobs. And ride public transportation, which in most places takes a very long time and will not allow them to get to a polling place and work in time. Why would you deny certain people with tight working schedules and/or less tranportation accessibilty the ability to vote when they could have a chance on a day when most Americans are not working? My case proves to be better. I proved advantages to my plan, which includes much higher voter turnout. I responded to all his arguments. He has no reason as to why Tuesday is a more advantageous day to have an Election Day. The Saturday Plan is much more beneficial than the Tuesday Plan. The Saturday Plan is also more fair to working voters. It gives everybody a chance to participate in the process. Thank you for reading.

Simply changing the day elections are held doesn't make it any more attractive for people to vote. Those people who don't care won't care any more now that an election is on a Saturday, regardless of how much easier it is for them. Just as people have better things (in their opinion) to do during the week, they will have alternative activities for the weekend. Compulsory voting addresses the fact that people simply don't turn up to vote, which weekend voting doesn't.

Weekend voting would be a more sensible solution

In previous rounds you stated that when given extra time to vote, most people use it for other purposes. I rightly pointed out that this hurts your argument, since Saturdays grant extra time and if people use extra time for something else, they would not vote. You say it is a nice point at a glance, but turned in your favor and my argument is destroyed. You did not show how that actually happens. You then state "If voting was more convenient for Americans, they would vote, because it makes people feel responsible and helps them express themselves. People like voting. They do not like going way out of their way to vote on a Tuesday. When Americans have a much more convenient time voting, they vote. This is what all relevant data suggests." What data could this possibly be? The Tuesday election days have been around for a long time. We cannot possibly have data that show people voting more on alternate days. As far as your economics point, we both disagree. You feel that one extra day off per year, or even a slightly longer lunch break during election day will severely damage the economy due to lack of productivity on that one day. Now I am well aware of the fact that our economy is not very good at the moment. But if it is so fragile that an extended hour on election day sends us into a downward spiral, then we are in much more trouble than even the economists claim. Furthermore, I would like to point out that the day off for teachers, civil servants, et cetera has been in effect for quite some time. If such things damaged the economy in the way you claim, then we would not have had such economically prosperous years in the past as these days off and extended lunch breaks were still around back then. Your other claim was that guilt trips can lead to psychological damage which in turn can lead to drinking and driving. The drinking and driving can in turn lead to someone getting behind the wheel and killing a person that is one day away from curing AIDS. Despite your attempts to show that guilt can cause psychological damage, I still stick to my claim that your scenario is far-fetched and a bit ridiculous. I suppose the voters will decide that. Then I point out the main flaw in your argument (i.e. that the Sabbath occurs on Saturday for some religions). To this you reply "Wow. This is pretty funny that you would actually post that. This is really [reaching]. It shows how desperate you are to find flaws." I'm sorry that you feel that excluding entire religious sects from voting is inconsequential. But I, for one, disagree. You also state "Well, the Eastern Orthodox Church celebrates Saint John the Baptist and has special services dedicated to him. So then it should be moved from Tuesday. The fact is that there is going to be a religious service each day, but Election Day has to be some day." You seem to have a huge misconception about Sabbath observers. The Sabbath is not a mere religious service. Followers are forbidden from taking part in any secular activity on that day. That includes voting! They are not merely skipping out on a religious service. You are downplaying the importance of the Sabbath to the followers of Judaism and the Seventh Day Adventists. You also state "Also, Seventh Day Adventists and Jews do not worship all day. They can find time to vote." You are clearly unfamiliar with the customs of such people. They happen to worship from sundown on Friday until sundown on Saturday. This means that they may not be allowed to leave home until after the polls close. Maybe a few years ago you would've had a point that they can vote at night. But on August 8, 2005 as per the Energy Policy Act, Daylight Saving Time was extended into November. Since many polls close by 8:00 P.M. this means that it may still be light out. You cannot select a day for voting that discriminates against entire religious groups. You also state "The vast majority of the population are not Seventh Day Adventists or Jewish. My case outweighs your case. More voters are likely to vote, if the day is Saturday, because it will be more convenient and not conflict with work." This is a dangerous mindset. The fact that the majority of people do not follow these religions does not imply that it is acceptable to eliminate them from the voting process. This notion that you are implying falls in line with a concept known as Tyranny of the Majority. This concept was mentioned by John Stuart Mill in his work On Liberty. The philosophy regarding the rights of citizens took this concept into account and using things like a bill of rights, constitutional limits and electoral colleges has tried to prevent such a thing from occurring. Just because the majority of citizens do not practice those religions, that is not cause to say that we have a right to make election day fall on their Sabbath. You state "If a church service that lasts only a few hours hinders a person from voting, then work on a Tuesday must significantly hinder a person from voting." Once again you show your complete ignorance by this statement. It is not a few hours. It is from sundown on Friday until sundown on Saturday. The absentee ballots, as you claim, could be used for these people. But I still see a huge problem with having everyone of a certain faith apply for an absentee ballot while everyone else can simply vote in person. You also state "Also, the people have the right to exercise their religion still. It does not prohibit them and is obviously not unconstitutional." It doesn't prohibit them from following their religion, but it does prohibit them from both voting and following their religion. They should not be forced to choose. It seems to me that you view a mild inconvenience of the majority more severe than extreme bias and discrimination towards people of certain faiths. I highly disagree.

I accept Imabench's challenge and solemnly promise not to post any pictures of vaginas as part of my arguments.

Resolved: Vagina Day should be a national holiday

I disagree. May the Fourth should be an international holiday. Everyone should be able to celebrate the splendor of Star Wars.

Star Wars Day should be a national holiday.

I am arguing that 'Vagina Day' a day that would celebrate women, honor all the accomplishments of famous women, and honor all women in society today of hanging in there despite all the crap they take from both men and nature, should become a national holiday where businesses and schools take the day off and everything Con is against this resolution - First round is acceptance only. - 4000 characters - No pictures of Vaginas are to be posted. Feel free to make as many Vagina jokes as you want though Now can be accepted :D

Resolved: 'Vagina Day' should be a national holiday

This is my first debate, so forgive me if I"m not exactly sure how it works. Here is my best case for single day polling: I submit that voting should be on one day only and as a secondary statement submit that the day could be moved to Saturday, if needed. No absentee mail in ballots should be allowed either. 1. Internet access is widespread in America (about 75% at home according to US census) that people who cannot make it to a polling location on a specific day can still vote. People who do not have access to the Internet certainly have reasonable means to find access (friend, library, school, work). Anyone who claims they absolutely cannot get to the Internet for any reason probably means they did not get to a connection because they did not value the vote. http://www.census.gov... 2. A single day vote may actually increase voter turnout. If the day is made special like Super Bowl Sunday, perhaps turnout will increase over the current apathetic levels. Last year, television ratings for the Super Bowl were about twice as high as the rounds that led up to the single day game. The reason is that it was made special, the weeks preceding the game lead up to the Super Bowl, and it was limited time frame. Those factors bring in the casual fan. On an anecdotal level, ask people next year after the game who did not watch to provide you a reason. My educated guess would be they did not watch because sports does not interest them, not because they could not find a television or device to watch it on. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.usatoday.com... 3. Inconvenience is not the major reason people don"t vote. As it is now, most states have absentee ballots that allow citizens to mail in their ballots over the course of weeks in some cases. Yet, voter turnout is still low. With the option of mailing in a ballot or showing up at the polls, participation is not low because people cannot get to a physical location on a Tuesday, it is low because the non-voters don"t care to vote for a variety of reasons. Some major reasons are: people feel like the government has for whatever reason let them down, they don"t follow politics so they don"t care to vote and the Electoral College technically elects the president so why bother? 4. I would be in favor of moving the single day from Tuesday to Saturday. Since more people work on weekdays than weekends, the Saturday date could increase voter turnout as well as provide opportunities for local celebrations and parades. If an election day were ever to bring in the casual voter like Super Bowl Sunday brings in the casual sports fan, the aforementioned civic celebrations might be the only avenue. 5. I will admit that computers can be hacked and online voting on a single day could open the process up for fraud. However, I would submit that just because a problem exists does not mean the activity should always be avoided. When cars became faster, engineers designed seat belts, they didn"t avoid driving over 20 miles per hour. Election fraud is rampant now anyway (will the word Florida suffice?). Also, online identity theft occurs but people still shop online and go on social media sites, they just need to be more careful. Since we won"t be eliminating all online activity just because it can be dangerous, why would we avoid online voting?

Polling stations during Elections should be conducted over a longer period than a single day

Heck to the yeah. First of all, it's awesome to be able to debate Imabench. Reading his debate are never boring, so I know this will be fun. Second, I am legitimately opposed to celebrating one gender and leaving the others high and dry. I look forward this!

I trust that Pro wil not post anything related to the debate in round 2. He will respond to my questions in round 3. I hope we have a good debate!

The USA Should Have A One Day Primary and Election Instead Of A Whole Campaign

I do want say something key, I am not completely against the idea, But there is a trend of society overall. Traditions rarely last long, The original ones. July 4th is the day America became independent, And adopted the declaration of independence. Most people don't know that. Originally it was not a holiday, As is is now, Instead it is a celebration, Why, Just to celebrate. This does not apply to everyone, Just a lot of people in America. Also you said "Australians only care if they get a day off. (most)" so if that is why they are making the holiday, Then it should not be one, Also my opinion. My final idea is this. If people don't know about the event as much now, Someone has to announce it. Someone who is power and has influence, Most powerful people would not go through the trouble of announcing it, So it's likely it would not happen anyways. But still, I'm not completely against the holiday, I just think a holiday is a day of celebration then a day of mourning. Not completely against it though

The great emu war should be commemorated by a public holiday in Australia

My opponent seems to be absentee debating.

U.S. presidential primaries should be held on the same day in every state.

I often wonder if the single day voting is meant to curb voter fraud. No I don't think so. I think its discrimination against the poor and those that have to work 2 or 3 jobs to survive and feed their family. Suggestion 1 to improve voting: I think that the first time people register to vote (age 18 or above) they should be required to give a fingerprint, than at least there would be a record to identify an individual without having to require a photo ID. I don't see how a fingerprint would be invasion of privacy and it would also be free. You only have to prove who you are once with a birth certificate or other suffiecient form of ID (barring any scaring on your fingers). If this database could be used solely for elections and not accessible to law enforcement (of course could we trust them?) You'd only know a person's finger pad pattern, not what they look like and people would not have to have a photo ID if they didn't want to. Then, you could take your time to vote. Voting at your own convenience. Currently its just a tv spectacle with winners being declared often before even 50% of the vote is in for districts and states. Its not as if the switch from incumbent to the next elected official is happening that next day. Usually its like 3 months till the handover. Pretty much everything must kowtow to the tv networks. Too much money for tv. Sports are slaves to tv as well. For those that want national ID cards or required photo IDs YET they want total privacy and no records to match who voted for who, you can't have both. Suggestion #2: Better yet, align voting and taxes, then if you want to vote you have to pay your taxes (which should already be the case, even if you owe nothing or expect a refund) No taxes, no vote. Citizens benefit from services and infrastructure provided by taxes and it is their duty to pay them, voting should also be a duty of a citizen. EVEN putting the voting date on Saturday is still going to be impossible for some people. There aren't absentee ballots everywhere. Why not go further and make Voting Day a national holiday? Say President's Day? or Veteran's Day? All non-essential businesses are closed and all essential ones required to only have half day. We have holidays for really stupid crap (some just commercial holidays really), but we should celebrate voting. Representation is what we revolted from England for Still, having enough time to vote over the period of time of a week, a few weeks, or some agreed upon length of time, would be best and not have any more problems than we already have. At least then there could be no excuse for not voting. As of now many people have an excuse and some a legitimate complaint Also, voter intimidation at a polling station would take a lot more effort if it had to be manned for longer than a single day and hopefully happen less

Unfortunately, my opponent has forfeited this round. Hopefully he will return to the debate next round.

https://quizlet.com... . http://www.usnews.com... I ask the voters to consider this when voting on this debate.

There are a number of inconveniences when it comes to voting in American elections, but foremost it is getting to the polling station on the particular day. In our computerized society I see no reason for there to be single election days besides for the drama it creates and TV dollars it generates. I propose that polling during elections be at least a week's worth of time A few assumptions to be kept in mind 1. all results will be held till the end of polling 2. systems in place to ensure no re-voting or fraudulent voting Round 1 Opening statements Round 2 rebuttals to Round 1 Round 3 closing arguments

Maybe my opponent is busy voting.

I do not like potatoes, so using your logic there should be no Potato day. Your opinon is no better than mine, and I am fairly sure there are tons of people who dislike potatoes. I do not mean to sound pretentious, but using the logic of pro against them I technically win.

According to a poll commissioned by the Institute of Public Affairs.", 91% of Australian's are proud to be Australian's. 85% of Australian's also believe Australia day is a day for celebration. Australia day is a time where everyone should come together and celebrated our multicultural and heartwarming country. We are all citizens, not just customers and deserve the best experience in Australia and that is why we celebrate Australia day, to celebrate our achievements. January 26th marks the beginning where the indigenous and those born here celebrated the nation we call home.

The date for Australia day should be changed

This debate is about whether Columbus Day should be a national holiday in the United States. I believe that either the holiday should be abolished or that it should be renamed. Columbus' treatment of the natives was inhumane as his men murdered and raped members of the native tribes. I will wait for a challenger and provide more evidence to support my argument in the next round.

Columbus Day should either be abolished or re-named

I rescind any statements in the comments section. I am not forfeiting and I urge voters to be mindful of the following statements. I would like to make a couple of overarching statements before I respond to some house-keeping issues and line-by-line analysis. I am confident that many of you will take these things to heart, but whatever. If I've lost you by this point I'm not worried about how you respond to this. a. let it be known that there was not a framework established for constructive arguments, clash, or rebuttals in the first round. This is important as my opponent seals his final speech with an underview speaking on my supposed drops and urging you, the voters, not to listen to any 'new arguments' in this speech. The first thing that I said in my second round 'speech' is that I would use that round for constructive arguments and then use this round for rebuttals; I made my intentions clear from the get-go, and there's no reason to ignore that framework since an alternative was not provided. Further, I'd like to point out that my opponent used this speech to respond to my argument, so attempting to block me from responding to his is bull. And if you don't buy that, I still on comparative advantage so drops wouldn't matter anyway. b. U mad bro? Pro is obviously upset at how I've tackled this debate, this is evidence that I've done a good job trolling him. We need to move away from this idea that the only good kinds of 'trolls' are established memes or cliches, that's both boring and lazy. I opponent didn't expect me to respond in the way that I did and it threw him off-guard, I've done an excellent job trolling him. Further, if the issue of entertainment is what you're concerned about I win there too. Reading some dadaist nonsense in the form of a 'debate' may get a chuckle, but the drama that this debate will cause will be much more entertaining to read. Now onto the line-by-line. I'll cover my opponent's constructive by grouping similar arguments and responding appropriately. 1. Women have things they have to put up with? Cool beans, so do men. Primarily the issue of being disposable and the possibility of being financially enslaved following a divorce. [14] [14] . http://bit.ly... 2. Why women and no-one else? Women are a gender, blacks are a race. This issue of discussion that the Con proposes is that of male disposability, something Black men are not immune to. So MLK day doesn't make ground for anykind of argument. 3. Why call it Vagina Day? This is really mute as I never attack it's name. 4. Plan Also mute as my opposition wasn't how we would enact it, but it's ethical repulsiveness. 5. Portion of others without Holiday Men. Now with all that housekeeping out of the way I'm going to tell you very simply why you need to vote Con in this debate a. Instead of being a good troll and continuing to debate in a silly manner, Pro gets butthurt[15] about how I've decided to respond and makes passive aggressive as well as directly aggressive remarks about my conduct. This is not the mark of a good troll, and serves as a substantial reason to vote Pro. [15]. http://bit.ly... b. Pro doesn't even realize how badly he's been trolled as of his previous speech. He doesn't seem to understand that making a serious argument to an obviously silly argument is a brilliant trolling mechanism. If he doesn't have an appropriate response given this reaction, then he deserves to lose. c. Con is winning one every technical round imaginable: I'm winning arguments, framework and sources -- even if you don't buy my argument that a serious response is still a troll, then you'd have to vote for me based on the content of the debate. Finally I'll leave with this: the only possible ground I could see anyone voting for Pro, is by them siding with him that I've 'ruined this debate'. However I'm going to predict that many will largely abstain from voting altogether.

We live in a democracy, Our government has been chosen to present the viewpoints of the American people. But, The majority of Americans claim their views are not represented, This is a problem, Presidency-The voting day for the presidency should be a holiday, This is a huge day for many important reasons, The president holds power over which bill is passed, The president is the commander of the military. In 2016, Donald Trump was elected into the white house. Trump has an unfavorable rating of 55%. 55% of Americans dislike the president, A democracy would not theoretically function if 55% of the population disapproved of the president's job. Senate and House- The senate and house are the most democratic institutions in America. They are meant to represent the will of the American people. 75% of Americans disapprove of congress. The will of the American people should be at utmost priority. If Congress only represents the will of the people, Than this country would turn into an oligarchy.

All Citizens should be required to vote

I believe Australia day should stay on January 26th because it is one of the most unique national days in the world that celebrates the anniversary of the arrival of the first fleet of criminals to Australia in 1788. Although it celebrates the anniversary, the real meaning reflects contemporary Australia, our diverse society and landscape, our remarkable achievements and our bright future. It also is an opportunity to reflect on our nation's history, and what's great about Australia and being Australian.

We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australians

States’ rights

hold all U.S. presidential primaries on the same day.

May the Fourth be with you! The impact that George Lucas's franchise has had on our culture cannot be overstated. Even while they complain about the changes being made to these movies, and about The Phantom Menace, fans have made this one of the most, if not the most, commercially successful franchises in history. This cannot help having an impact on culture. Moral values have been influenced by Luke Skywalker and Yoda. "He joined the Dark Side" has become synonymous with doing something evil. Star Wars changed our culture. I believe that May 4th should be a national holiday. Not a major one like Christmas, but just something recognized by everyone as a tradition. Maybe a few banks can close.

Argument 1: Underfunded Campaigns of Small Candidates A national primary would give a huge advantage to better-known, better-funded candidates since only they would be able to finance the expensive advertising and large campaign operation needed to run a national "get out the vote" effort in all states. Lesser-known candidates without extensive campaign operations would not have an opportunity to reach out to voters in retail-style fashion and build support. Moreover, densely populated states with higher delegate counts would become the dominant focus of the campaigns and the media. In addition, political parties would have little control over the selection of their eventual nominee, and state party leaders would no longer have the flexibility to set their primary or caucus dates according to state-specific considerations, such as redistricting issues, state holidays, or other state and local elections. In 2008, at least 24 states held a primary on February 5, resulting in what was essentially a de facto national primary. Super Tuesday became Tsunami Tuesday. The situation was so bad for overwhelmed campaigns, party leaders, and election officials that the two parties worked together to ensure their rules for 2012 would help avoid a repeat.

Australia day is on January 26th for many reasons, it's the day that we come together as a nation to celebrate the amazing country we live in. On Australia Day, over half of the nation"'s population of 24.3 million attend either an organised community event, or get together with family and friends with the intention of celebrating our national day. Many more spend the public holiday relaxing with family and friend. We come together as a nation to celebrate what's great about Australia and being Australian. It's the day to reflect on what we have achieved and what we can be proud of in our great nation. It's the day for us to re-commit to making Australia an even better place for the future.

The Date Of Australia Day Should Be Changed

The current system is hugely expensive; a national primary would control the scale of spending in campaigns

The United States have developed an institutional tradition of undemocratic mechanisms designed to actually control political processes.These institutions such as the Supreme Court, the Electoral College , the President's veto power have been part of the American Government and have helped preserve democracy since the foundation of the United States.

Primary elections need not be fully democratic

If the purpose is to increase turnout, weekend voting would be the more sensible option. It gives people more free time in which to vote, and doesn't have the problems that coercion brings with it. It doesn't address the wider problem of apathy, but treats the non-voting problem more acceptably than compulsory voting does. Better yet, introduce a public holiday on election days and provide free public transport to and from polling stations.

Regarding United States presidential elections, the electoral college should be replaced by a country-wide popular vote because the electoral college is both unfair and un-American. The United States is a country grounded on equal rights, as shown by the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence. The electoral college gives US citizens of heavily populated states more voting power than US citizens of lightly populated states, and therefore Americans are not equal in this manner. It is also an unfair way of determining US presidency because there have been elections that have gone out of favor of the popular vote, and therefore goes against the interests of most American citizens. With a simple country-wide popular vote, all citizens of the United States would bear equal voting rights as well as a fair election.

Presidential elections should be decided by a popularvote instead of the electoral college.

I understand that my opponent was probably celebrating the holidays, so I extend all arguments.

Resolved: direct popular vote should replace electoral college in presidential elections

Because my opponent forfeited, I urge a Con vote. Please disregard any future arguments my opponents may make as I will be unable to respond to them

Direct Popular Vote should replace electoral vote in presidential elections.

Direct popular vote should replace electoral vote in presidential elections.

Fist I would like to address some problems in cons argument: When people make a holiday out of something it's normally a day of celebration. In Australia, We have a public holiday for Anzac day. This is about our fallen soldiers in the wars. This is not a celebration. I would make a building or a museum to commemorate them, And so Australians know more about the information. Australians only care if they get a day off. (most) A public holiday is the only way to speed to the news. Most Australians don't even know we had an emu war. This is why I believe a public holiday would make it a well known and commemorated event. Also if we did maybe Americans would start pronouncing emu correct.

New South Wales first celebrated January 26th which was referred to as the First Landing Dar or Foundation Day. From the first time this was celebrated it was a time to reflect on the great country we live in. according to historian Dr Elizabeth Kwan the traditional toast on this date was "to the land boys, we live in". The intention of the celebration was not to exclude others but to join in the united celebration of a great land. By 1988 states had accepted January 16th as the official national day. Celebrations of the day has increased considerably since the 1980's. There are arguments from the same members of the community that the date of January 26th should be named invasion or survival day. There are claims that this date signifies damage to indigenous peoples relationship to the land. However many inf=diginious people are achive within Australia day commitees and view this date as an opportunity to recongnise the honoured place indigenious australian in our nations history

The date of Australia day should be changed

Australia day is a day we come together as a nation to celebrate whats great about Australia. Australia day should not be changed as its a day to reflect on what we have achieved and what we can be proud of in our great nation. It is much more then barbeques and parties. It is pride and excitement of new citizens who call themselves Australian for the first time on the 26 of January after being conffered Citizenship.

Yes, you. Resolved, that you are voting on a Wednesday. If you are voting, you are voting on a Wednesday, as you can see by any calendar, and as you are voting on a Wednesday, the resolution is affirmed, and as the resolution is affirmed, you ought to vote Pro. Vote Pro! In case you don't have a quick reference to today's calendar day, this site is quite handy: http://todaysdate.com... Happy voting!

I know what day of the week you will vote.

Australia Day should NOT be changed from the 26th of January to another date. Australia is a national public holiday in Australia. It is the celebration of the arrival of the First Fleet of British Ships at Port Jackson on the 26th of January 1788. It is celebrated annually because it is celebrated on what is means to be Australian and what's great about being Australian and living in Australia as a community. It is a day to reconnect with others as a community and a society and to feel special as a community and family. It is more than any other public holiday, it is a great day to be together as a society or/and a town/suburb. It is celebrated in every town/suburb/city. My two arguments will be that Australia day is on the 26th of January to people can remember/celebrate what being Australian is all about and its history and that Australia day brings families and communities to remind them about Australia's history!

Australia Day should be changed from 26th of January to another date

Voting in local, state and national elections should be compulsory for all who are eligible to vote because it is the best way to judge the will of the people and achieve the fairest or most democratic outcome. Leaving voting up to the most motivated or the most able will only skew the results and give a false perspective on the wishes of the electorate. Voluntary voting also leads to dirty tactics for candidates and campaigners including, for example, legislating rules that would unfairly affect poorer people as suggested in certain states of the USA in their last federal election. The second best method would be to randomly select voters, however this can still lead to skewed results especially in smaller electorates.

Voting should be compulsory.

Before my opponent suggested that Australia day is a time of grief and sadness for the Aborigines but in fact it is a happy day that should be celebrated as we now reconcile with the aborigines and reflect on how we acted towards them back in the days. Australia Day (26th) is a very historical day as it is the anniversary of the arrival of the first fleet of 11 convict ships from Great Britain and the rising of the Union Jack at Sydney Cove commanded by Captain Arthur Phillip, in 1788. Although Aboriginals call this day "Invasion Day" this was when Australia actually became Australia. Countries, for example America have their "National Day as 4th of July" because it was when they received their independence from Great Britain.

Australia Day should be changed from January 26th to another date

Primaries encourage organisation and activity at a local level

The foundation your argument and many others in favour of Australia Day is based upon is that it is a day for celebration and unity. However, every year radio stations and tv programs act as a force to divide our nation in a great debate about the date change. If the reason for celebration is unity of our country shouldn't we celebrate on a date that reflects the views of everyone? While apologies have been spoken to the aboriginal people and supposed "land rights" have been given, land is still seen as something profitable as reflected in the NT minister's decision to support the Uluru climb despite backlash from Indigenous communities (SBS news article), the continuation of celebrating on this date is the nail in the coffin.

cool thankyou

Weekend voting would be a more sensible solution

Voting should be compulsory in the UK

well you will never find another war like this. i have m made my point so let the voting win

should September 2 be a holiday

Before my opponent suggested that Australia day is a time of grief and sadness for the Aborigines but in fact it is a happy day that should be celebrated as we now reconcile with the aborigines and reflect on how we acted towards them back in the days. Australia Day 26th is a very historical day as it is the anniversary of the arrival of the first fleet of 11 convict ships from Great Britain and the rising of the Union Jack at Sydney Cove commanded by Captain Arthur Phillip, in 1788. Although Aboriginals call this day "Invasion Day" this was when Australia actually became Australia. Countries, for example America have their "National Day as 4th of July" because it was when they received their independence from Great Britain.

Whether or not Columbus Day should be celebrated lies in whether or not it is a national holiday. Thus, the resolution should read: Resolved: Columbus Day should not be a national holiday. Definition: Columbus Day: a federal holiday as declared by President Benjamin Harrison in 1892 celebrating the arrival of Christopher Columbus in the Americas. Framework: As my opponent has stated, the BOP for the CON is to show why Columbus Day should still be a national holiday. Thus, the BOP for the PRO is to refute the contentions presented by the CON and establish his own advocating why we should no longer make Columbus Day a national holiday. Additionally, read Contention 3 for the last part of PRO's BOP, where he must prove that there is bad INTENT in celebrating Columbus Day. --- Arguments: Contention 1: America has long admired Columbus Columbus Day marks the arrival of Europeans to the New World, and celebrates the "beginning of a cultural exchange between America and Europe"[1]. America has more Columbus statues and Columbus memorabilia than any other nation in the world. He's admired for his bravery in sailing West at a time when most uneducated believed the world to be flat. Contention 2: Columbus Day is the only day which recognizes the heritage of almost 26 million Italian Americans. Columbus Day became a national holiday in 1971 after Congress passed a law stating that the second Monday in October is Columbus Day. Along with the accomplishments of Columbus, the law passed in 1971 commemorates the arrival of over 5 million Italians a century prior. Columbus Day is thus the only day which recognizes the heritage of a group now nearly 26 million in size. Contention 3: Intent It is important as we judge this debate to consider the intent of Columbus Day. The intent, as defined, is to celebrate Columbus's arrival to the New World. Much like how Manifest Destiny didn't encourage the killing of Natives and much like how Independence Day doesn't celebrate the killing of British in the Revolutionary War, Columbus Day doesn't celebrate the deaths of Native Americans that may have ensued. It's a celebration of the discovery of the New World. In order for my opponent to win this round, he MUST prove that there is bad intent in celebrating Columbus Day. Unless he does so, he cannot win. This is added to his BOP. --- Refutations: ++represent my opponent's arguments ++"It is in my opinion that Columbus's legacy is grossly misrepresented"++ How has his legacy been misrepresented? He discovered two new continents, and that's what he's celebrated for on Columbus Day. ++"His "accomplishments" was nothing more but a failed journey"++ Again, how was it a failed journey? I understand that my opponent is upset over the deaths of natives that ensued after the discovery of the New World, but the intent of Columbus Day is to celebrate the discovery of continents on which 1 billion people now reside [2] [3]. When Columbus Day is described or taught in classrooms, it's taught as a celebration of discovery. No one is celebrating death on Columbus Day. Furthermore, Westward expansion and Manifest Destiny are two deeply rooted American beliefs, but as a result of them many Native Americans were killed. Should we remove the verse "from sea to shining sea" from the national anthem [4] because it hints to those who died in westward expansion? Should we no longer celebrate Independence Day because we killed many British and lost American lives during the preceding war? ++Columbus Day celebrates "genocide and imperialism."++ Basically, my opponent is a) claiming that Columbus Day celebrates the deaths of Natives, b) imperialism is bad, and c) he is upset about it. My responses: a) that isn't the intent of the holiday. and, b) imperialism was the way of the world back then. c) the killing of Natives wasn't a genocide. The primary cause of death was smallpox, which was unintentionally brought from Europe to the Americas. Disease easily traveled across continents thanks to sea travel. and, d) Columbus was merely an explorer, actually didn't do much in the Americas except travel. He made four voyages and stopped at numerous locations on the Americas. It was the later conquistadors who were the ones who enslaved and killed natives on a large scale. The resolution has been negated. I thank my opponent for posting this debate and eagerly anticipate his responses and upcoming contentions. [1] http://www.osia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Columbus Day Should Not be Celebrated.

Re-doing this debate because the last one got accepted by an idiot who doesnt know what a f*ckin troll debate is THIS IS INDEED A TROLL DEBATE. That means if you take it seriously then youre a dumba**. The point of troll debates is to use semantical and humorous arguments to make a case just for sh*ts and giggles. I am arguing that 'Vagina Day' (A day that would celebrate women, honor all the accomplishments of famous women, and honor all women in society today of hanging in there despite all the crap they take from both men and nature) should become a national holiday where businesses and schools take the day off and everything Con is against this resolution - First round is acceptance only. - 4000 characters - No pictures of Vaginas are to be posted. Feel free to make as many Vagina jokes as you want though If you want the debate leave a comment and ill decide who will get it.

Resolved: Vagina Day should be a national holiday

Australia day may be a day for celebration but for some it is a day for mourning, why should we come together as a nation on a day where we mourn? In 2008, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd formally apologised to the Indigenous people who were forcibly removed as children from their homes and parents' care and placed in Church missions or adoptive white family. At the time, the government saw it as a protective measure for future mixed race Aboriginal children, whereby their Aboriginal hertitage would be bred-out in a couple of generations time. For decades, the Indigenous community asked for the Australian government to apologise. Now that's it has finally happened, it's worthy of celebrating every year. Australia Day is the day filled with little more than flag waving and mass consumption of alcohol, to distract us from the fact that we aren"t as great a country as some would otherwise like to think. Keeping Australia Day the same means that we have more respect for the awful past and not enough care to fix this situation up. Would you want our ansectors to mourn a day that should be a happy day for our country?

In the previous round I did mention that the jobs that get days off or extra time can cause a guilt trip, but I also stated that it was only a minor objection to your notion. In this round I will go over some of the arguments you mentioned in your rebuttal, but I will also get to the heart of the problem. In response to my mentioning of time off, you claim that most people will not give in to the guilt trip. You stated in the last round "Many workers who do get this break do not give into the guilt trip, but instead use the time for something else." Now I'm not sure if this is true or not. However, if we assume that it is true, then your argument suffers much more than mine. For if people that are given extra time choose to do something with that time other than voting, then Saturday elections would be meaningless. The people would use that extra time for something else. That statement has not been thought through to its proper conclusion. Your inferences on the economic disasters that occur due to some extra time off or one extra day a year are rather far fetched. First of all, the economy falling apart because of a single day off or a slightly longer lunch break is a ridiculous notion. Psychologically, breaks and days off can make a worker more productive. Never allowing such breaks decreases productivity much more and is far more devastating to the company. The direction that you have gone with as far as the guilt trip is highly creative and amusing. But realistically, it is also quite ridiculous. You go from a guilt trip causing psychological damage to a person drinking and driving. Then that person apparently kills someone who was one day away from curing AIDS. Was that serious? This is even more far fetched than your economic example. Nevertheless, the days off and the guilt trips were only a minor point to reveal in Round 1. Now I will get to the true problem with your idea. The United States is a country that was founded on the idea of freedom. The Bill of Rights is often used as an example of the rights and freedoms that U.S. citizens should have. The first amendment reads as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." If there are to be no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion, then how can you justify making election day a Saturday? A denomination of Protestant Christians known as Seventh-day Adventists celebrate their Sabbath on Saturday. Changing the day of the election to a day that prevents followers of a religion from voting is clearly wrong. Furthermore, religious Jews also celebrate the Sabbath on Saturday. So now we have two separate religions that you wish to eliminate from the election process simply because it is more convenient for you! Well this is not how America works. You cannot place people with a decision between following their religion or voting. In the last round you stated "Lower class voters often do not get breaks for Election Day. This is unfair to lower class voters." But the polls open up at 7:00 A.M. and close at 8:00 or 9:00 P.M. The lower class will still have time to go to the polls either before or after work. This is not the case with the religious denominations mentioned. With them it is not a mere inconvenience to get up earlier, or to go vote after work before heading home. They cannot both practice their religion and vote if the elections were changed to a Saturday. I know of no religious denominations that celebrate their Sabbath on a Tuesday, and therefore it is culturally fair to leave election day as the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November. It is true that most people have work that day, but there is time for both voting and going to work. You ended your last round with the statement "Vote PRO for the better debater and better position!" But in light of the fact that a Saturday election is clearly biased, I don't believe you have the right to claim the better position.

The American federal government should move its general election day to November's first Saturday.

We have holiday 4 teachers. but what about the students? Without us they wouldn't have jobs.

Should Student Appreciation Day Be A National Holiday

Round 1: Pro R2 : Cross Examination R3: Con R4: Cross Examination R5: Rebuttals/Summary/Final Focuses I am aware the rounds are a bit off from a real debate. That's because debate.org only allows so many rounds. I apologize for that. ---------------------------------------------- Be it resolved that, the United States should convert over to a one day primary campaign when it comes to electing a new president. I firmly stand in affirmation for this claim for the following contentions. *Contention 1* The idea of a one day Primary essentially means there would be one day for campaigning and the next day would be the actual election. There would most definitely be a better change in private policy. Even if the representations were to go up, that doesn't mean everyone will benefit. A one day Primary would easily boost political participation. In 2012's Primary, had a 17% turn out. Why? Well according to the University of Mexico, the voters in the outside states rarely vote because they feel their votes don't matter. This is because they are lead to believe the primary states have already decided the election, when in reality this isn't true. Every vote should count! There is a belief that the most votes from the more wealthy and educated citizens, causing the less wealthy and educated to feel below them. Even some Congressmen state, "A one day Primary could close the gap in voter turn out and prevent both political parties from becoming victims to polarization. *Contention 2* At the moment, our current state of election is full of media madness. This takes away from the real idea of voting; electing a new leader to guide the nation. We get so caught up in the, "he said she said" aspect of it that we seem to forget about how much really is at stake here. The media seems to focus on "Horse Race" journalism. This means they only cover, "Who's winning in the delegates?" or "Who's higher in the polls this week? Will it change next week?" You wouldn't see any of that in a one day Primary! Patrick Whithers explains in 2012, "Staggered elections reduce turn out by fatiguing the voters' pattern of the constant political he said, she said mess." The media crowds the main focus on policy and discussion. Out of 63% percent of journalists, only 16% focus on policy positions and records. *Contention 3* Many voters seem to give up their votes because their candidate drops out. The candidates the usually drop out are the less known and wealthy ones. Why? These candidates believe they don't have a chance half way through because the media makes it much harder for them to become recognized whereas Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were widely recognized because of their status in the media! A one day Primary would easily wipe this out, allowing more candidates to enter the race and more voters participating because they have the chance to vote for their candidate of choice. Statistics show that the earlier states were 5x more influential than the outside states causing them to be nearly unrepresentative. This past election, is was very hard to determine the voter turn out and neither state nor candidate could completely balance out their influence to give others a fighting chance. This creates an unbalance of power and harms democracy. This can lead to a division of the democratic ideal of "One person, one vote." Earlier states seem to earn more federal money after the election than outside states, leaving them in the dust. This is why I firmly stand in affirmation for the resolution.

The USA Should Have A One Day Primary and Election Instead Of A Whole Campaign

The people would still be voting through endorsements. But Instead of an election being determined by 3% of the population, it is determined by a national congress, and everyone is weighted against each other heavily. Also if you consider an endorsement a vote this will increase turnout. One of the problems with our system is that people simply can't get to the polls on the appointed day. Then that raises the issue of does that state/ city have absentee voting or not. Also what about people who are working , can they take time off of work? With this system, endorsements are registered on your time not the governments time. Yeah the system would be robust but it would be more efficient in the lives of the individual in the long run. We all understand that sometimes people are just too caught up in life to research all of the candidate's and pick the best one. When thats the situation your faced with voting for a candidate based upon a scant amount of information, or withholding your potential harming or regrettable vote from the election. With this system when you vote for president you will be voting for your Electors whether they follow your party affiliation or they run without a party your voting for them based upon them representing your shoes in that congress. And then if you do find the time to really research into these candidates, you can go and give them your endorsement to bolster up his case before the congress, - and you do that on your own time. I think an elected congress that represents the people and is dedicated to choosing the right person for the job would do wonder for our country and take a load of the citizens, and at the same time it is more representative, because a small percent of the population isn't choosing an official that will serve the entire community.

United States should use an Elector appointment System to solve the problem of low voter turn out.

The Australian national anthem even has words that represent that way that Australia is. It calls on rejoice as we are young and free, it also includes the word home. Above everything, it is freedom that we are celebrating, which is why Australian's are free to spend the day how they want. Our country is lucky as not many countries around the world get the kind of freedom we have. The national anthem tells a story of what Australia is today and words like rejoice, young, free, home say that we are a country representing all. So why should the date be changed if it represents our freedom and happiness and us coming together with the indigenous? Why should we get rid of a day that has been the date of January 26 for many, many years?

The date for Australia day should be changed

Extend all arguments.....

In a similar way that the secret ballot is designed to prevent interference with the votes actually cast, compulsory voting prevents interference with access to the vote. Compelling voters to the polls for an election mitigates the impact that external factors may have on an individual's capacity to vote such as the weather, transport, or restrictive employers. It is a measure to prevent disenfranchisement of the socially disadvantaged. Polls are generally held on a Saturday or Sunday as evidenced in nations such as Australia, to ensure that working people can fulfill their duty to cast their vote. Similarly, mobile voting booths may also be taken to old age homes and hospitals to cater for immobilized citizens, and postal voting may be provided for people who are away from their electorate on election day.

Compulsory voting helps protect voter access.

Personally, I've felt that the electoral college has denied democracy by forcing politicians to focus on electoral college votes, rather than the votes of the people. I would like to have a friendly debate on the issue.

The United States should replace the Electoral College with direct elections

The current system is undemocratic as it gives undue influence to the early states

hold all U.S. presidential primaries on the same day.

My opponent has forfeited. But, as mentioned in the comments, it was due to a personal matter. I opt to defer this round. Thus:VOTERS: only make your votes based on the prior rounds. The forfeit should not affect your decision. Thanks!

Unfortunately, my opponent never provided us with any original arguments, so I am without anything to refute. Having said that, I am still able to make my own argument: Argument: Having the primaries in every state is something we should employ. We should do this because it would increase voter turnout. As it stands now, as it becomes obvious as to whom is going to win each party's respective nomination, people in states that vote later will be less likely to vote because they see it as a waste of time. On the other hand, if each state were to vote on the same day, the future of the nomination would be more in doubt, making it more likely for turnout being higher. Higher turnout ensures that our system of government remains strong, keeping us out of chaos.

U.S. presidential primaries should be held on the same day in every state.

Compulsory voting hides the problem which is causing people to be disengaged from politics; it allows politicians to ignore measures that can tackle the true causes of political disengagement.   States instead should seek on strategies that will eliminate barriers to voting along with reducing the costs of turnout for its citizens, weekend voting, making election days a holiday, simple registration procedures, reforms such as to the party finance rules to widen the playing field, and the creation of a centralized, professional bureaucracy concerned with all aspects of election administration. In the UK, for example, adopting a more proportional system will allow for a political spectrum rather than the three major parties that currently dominate.     improve this

There are alternatives that tackle the real causes of voter disengagement

This is also my first debate so this should be interesting. Voting should not be compulsory because it reduces the quality of the election, does not take into account the possibility of a voter not being able to choose between candidates, and actually contrasts the idea that in a democratic nation the voters are free to choose how want to vote, a choice that includes not voting at all.

In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory.

Hello Heineken. Thanks for accepting this debate. Christmas Day is a holiday under federal law in the United States. On Christmas Day, federal government employees are forced to take a day off to celebrate this religious festival, and they are paid to do so. Each year, Christmas Day costs US tax-payers around half a billion dollars (1). Thus, every tax payer, irrespective of her private religious beliefs, is being forced to subsidize this Christian festival. No other religion is celebrated in this way, of course. Christmas Day is the only compulsory religious festival in the US calendar. The US government has tried, and failed, to excuse this appalling unfairness with the following argument (2), which I’ll paraphrase here: Christmas is a Christian festival, but Non-Christians can join in the activities, so Forcing them to subsidize a Christian festival is a legitimate government activity. The government designates the following Christmas activities as appropriate “even for” non-Christian Americans: Decorating houses and yards with lights Putting up “Christmas” trees Giving gifts Sending greeting cards If the aim is inclusiveness, why not have a government-sponsored solstice celebration on December 19? All those activities for non-Christians would still apply. Then, six days later, anyone who wants to can celebrate the birth of Jesus privately. But why would anyone want to? Not even Christians are pretending that Jesus was actually born on December 25 (3). The winter solstice celebration was hijacked hundreds of years ago. It needs to be returned to the people. However. This idea about winter solstice is just my own suggestion to improve the lives of millions of Americans. There are many other options. Government interference in the “Christmas” festival could be cancelled with no replacement holiday, for example, or the New Year celebrations could be lengthened. The important thing is that the government does not force non-Christians to observe a Christian religious day (by not being allowed to work), and does not force any American to subsidize a Christian religious festival (by using taxes to pay federal employees for the day of observance). The US Department of State claims that religious freedom is a “core objective of U.S. foreign policy” (4). Maybe start at home. The government needs to stop pushing Christmas onto its citizens. 1. http://www.washingtontimes.com... 2. http://www.usa.gov... 3. http://www.christiananswers.net... 4. http://www.state.gov...

The government should be doing nothing to encourage Christmas

Please stop trying your argument by verbosity, it's obnoxious.The negative's argument is essentially that a popular election might be contested for so long that it would somehow go past January 20th.The first example used is the hanging chad recount fiasco. This example, however, is invalid, based on the fact that we no longer use the butterfly ballot. Therefore, because the main, if not sole, factor of the only major recount in US election history cannot ever come into play again, this example does not support your argument.The second example used is the 2016 election, whose quick popular vote resolution proves my point, not my opponent's. The popular vote result was obvious by noon the following day, so backing up the assertion that an election could be contested past the date of inauguration with an election whose popular vote result was decided the next day was a confusing and easily defeated move. Because the examples my opponent used did not support his/her argument(and even supported mine), I urge you to vote for the affirmative(pro) on this issue.

The electoral college should be abolished in favor of direct election.

Round 1: Rules and position clarification. Round 2: Opening Statements. Rounds 3 and 4: Evidence/Rebuttals Round 5: Closing statements. I will be arguing that presidential elections should be decided by a popular vote of the entire United States.

Presidential elections should be decided by a popularvote instead of the electoral college.

Low election turn-outs result in a government that does not truly have the democratic mandate of the population. Compulsory voting would ensure the governing party has the majority of the country on its side, and better reflect the wishes of the people. In my ever so humble opinion voting should be compulsory because I believe (perhaps somewhat niavely) that if an individual is forced to vote they would/should make an effort to become more informed on the issues that the various parties are campaigning about, and the issues that affect themselves and their local electorate. In Australia (yes I am Australian but live in the UK) voting is compulsory. That being said, the only compulsory part of the process is showing up and getting your name ticked of the roll. What you do in the privacy of the booth is entirely up to you. If you dont agree with any of the politicians or parties you vote incorrectly which makes you vote invalid and therefore doesnt count. (stupid but legal)

A true democratic mandate for the government

There are several objections to a national voting identification standard. Firstly, voting procedures are methods for the states and the federal government should not interfere in their affairs. And if uniformity was desirable, it would be better to scrap all voter identification laws, returning to the previous situation that you just register to vote when you move and don’t’ need special identification at the polling booth. Finally, a national identity card is in itself an invasion of privacy, leading the way to a police state and the dangers associated with poor data management on the part of the government, including identity theft.

There are currently very different identification requirements for voting from state to state, meani...

I accept

Should the electoral college be abolished in favor of a national vote

The current system disenfranchises minorities as Iowa and New Hampshire have disproportionately low Black and Latino populations

These militant feminists would no doubt hijack the celebrations and turn them into "Pvssy Pride Parades" where young women would flaunt their genitalia in public, shocking onlookers with their defiance displays of nudity. Naturally, these young women would organise themselves into groups such as "The Labia Liberation Front"; "The Gash Gangsta Girls" and "The Muff Mafia" and send 'snatch' squads into places where men traditionally congregate to assert their femininity on any unsuspecting males they find therein. Think about it, gentlemen, how would you like it if a gang of young women burst into your local pub and asserted their feminine self-confidence on you by pressing your face into their vaginas? Well, how would you like that? You wouldn't like it, would you? Okay, some of you might quite like it, but that's not the point, it's an invasion of your own personal space, and that's why I urge you to vote against my opponent's proposal. Thank you.

Resolved: Vagina Day should be a national holiday

It's Australia day, not white people day it is directed at all Australians January 26 is a very significant date to celebrate Australia day. It is a date for all of us to reflect on the negatives associated with colonisation. It is a date that signifies the resilience of Indigenous australians A date that we can choose to focus on the real issues facing the traditional owners of the land and to work hard to resolve these issues It is a date where we can all celebrate our great nation and be thankful that we live in a free and accepting society

The date of Australia day should be changed

Oh, my opponent forfeited. I'd like to ask the voter who has read this debate so far to reconsider my side of the argument. Please vote on who's argument you think is more logical.

We Should Celebrate Colombus Day.

Participatory democracy is great for those who participate. The electoral college promotes grass roots localized campaigns. Get involved.

The Electoral college should remain the method of electing presidents in the United states.

1. "I often wonder if the single day voting is meant to curb voter fraud. No I don't think so. I think its discrimination against the poor". Response: with all the avenues available on a single day vote (Internet at library, shelters, could provide other government locations) voting would not only be available to all Americans but it could be convenient. 2. "...Those that have to work 2 or 3 jobs to survive and feed their family. Response: currently all states have a form of absentee voting (vote via mail, early, etc...). Here is a link to every state"s absentee voting policy: http://www.ncsl.org.... Additionally, if the single day voting were a national holiday, that modification would eliminate work issues. Either way, every state in the country currently allows citizens to provide their work excuse and vote early. 3. "Suggestion 1 to improve voting: I think that the first time people register to vote (age 18 or above) they should be required to give a fingerprint, than at least there would be a record to identify an individual without having to require a photo ID. I don't see how a fingerprint would be invasion of privacy and it would also be free. You only have to prove who you are once with a birth certificate or other suffiecient form of ID (barring any scaring on your fingers). If this database could be used solely for elections and not accessible to law enforcement (of course could we trust them?) You'd only know a person's finger pad pattern, not what they look like and people would not have to have a photo ID if they didn't want to." Response: with so much difficulty passing voter ID policies, logging fingerprints would prove implausible for two reasons. First, one argument against voter ID is that some have difficulty finding their birth certificate or other forms of ID. Second, many feel it is an invasion of their privacy and denies them their right to vote. Although I support voter ID laws, the fingerprint policy would be a step up in both categories. 4. "Then, you could take your time to vote. Voting at your own convenience. Currently its just a tv spectacle with winners being declared often before even 50% of the vote is in for districts and states. Its not as if the switch from incumbent to the next elected official is happening that next day. Usually its like 3 months till the handover. Pretty much everything must kowtow to the tv networks. Too much money for tv. Sports are slaves to tv as well." Response: if the vote were done over a period of weeks, the spectacle and drama would be dragged out and exacerbated even more than it is now. For example, television shows such as The Bachelorette rely on this type of drama to generate ratings. Presidential elections that only occur once every four years would play right into this type of sensationalism. Additionally, the voting could not occur during the transition period between November and January. During this time, the president-elect needs to conduct business related to a smooth transition between leaders. Therefore, the vote needs to be finalized by early November, it cannot drag on for months. Although the Electoral College process does not officially elect the president until much later, there has never been a President-elect who was not officially elected by the Electoral College. 5. "For those that want national ID cards or required photo IDs YET they want total privacy and no records to match who voted for who, you can't have both." Response: displaying an ID in order to vote but maintaining total privacy on the actual person the voter selected is completely possible. The ID provides the voter the ballot, the voter then votes privately. 6. "Suggestion #2: Better yet, align voting and taxes then if you want to vote you have to pay your taxes (which should already be the case, even if you owe nothing or expect a refund) No taxes, no vote. Citizens benefit from services and infrastructure provided by taxes and it is their duty to pay them, voting should also be a duty of a citizen.(I agree both are duties, but like I argued in Round 1, apathy is the problem)" Response: The IRS is currently backlogged as it is (see link below), so involving them in the voting process would provide an even more significant delay. Additionally, the IRS experiences tax evasion fraud as well as their own surveillance scandals (see link below), so convincing Americans to provide fingerprints would be next to impossible. Lastly, you mentioned single day voting being a burden on the poor. Surely attaching a financial requirement to the vote (albeit a legally assessed tax) could provide a disincentive to conduct both actions (paying taxes and voting) and could also create discrimination similar to post-Civil War poll taxes used to deny African Americans their right to vote. It also could provide the undue burden on the poor that you refer to at the start of your argument. IRS backlog link: http://www.cchgroup.com... IRS scandal link: http://news.investors.com... 7. "EVEN putting the voting date on Saturday is still going to be impossible for some people. There aren't absentee ballots everywhere. Why not go further and make Voting Day a national holiday? Say President's Day? or Veteran's Day? All non-essential businesses are closed and all essential ones required to only have half day. We have holidays for really stupid crap (some just commercial holidays really), but we should celebrate voting. Representation is what we revolted from England for" Response: every state has a policy to allow citizens to vote on a day that is not the national voting day: http://www.ncsl.org.... I think our common ground is, however, to make voting day a national holiday. 8. "Still, having enough time to vote over the period of time of a week, a few weeks, or some agreed upon length of time, would be best and not have any more problems than we already have. At least then there could be no excuse for not voting. As of now many people have an excuse and some a legitimate complaint Also, voter intimidation at a polling station would take a lot more effort if it had to be manned for longer than a single day and hopefully happen less" Response: As I stated in Round 1, the reasons people provide currently are many times just excuses since there are plenty of avenues for citizens to vote under our current system. It would also be easier for people to intimidate voters since the government would have a tough time manning polling locations for weeks or months instead of for just one day. I had fun with my first debate, thanks for posting, this is a great topic.

Polling stations during Elections should be conducted over a longer period than a single day

Nothing new to add, will be happy to respond to arguments counter to Rd #1.

I wish to debate whether or not Columbus Day should be celebrated. It is in my opinion that Columbus's legacy is grossly misrepresented and that his "accomplishments" was nothing more but a failed journey riddled with genocide and imperialism. Thus, Columbus shouldn't be honored with a national holiday. Before going into detail, I await an opponent to accept my debate and agree to only ONE term.... 1. If you accept this debate, as con you must make the argument why Columbus Day SHOULD/REMAIN celebrated. (THAT SIMPLE)

Columbus Day Should Not be Celebrated.

This debate will cover the discussion of whether or not the electoral college should or should not be abolished in favor of electing the President of the United States by a national popular vote.

The Electoral College Should be Abolished

Derp.I won voters, by the way.

Should Monday be a school day

Voters, I know this has not been much of a debate. In fact, it wasn't a debate at all. I just want to state my stance to the voters to garner their opinions. I believe that Columbus Day is a symbolic holiday in which we celebrate the peak of the renaissance, and the improvements of technology that came along with it - medicine, government, etc. I also believe that Columbus Day is an important part of our past - and shouldn't be eradicated from calendars. Famous songs, poems, and other forms of media were created to celebrate Columbus Day. The Pledge of Allegiance is an example. I would also like to state that my opponent's argument is inconsistent. If Columbus Day should not be celebrated because of the treatment of the Natives, should we rename cities like Columbus? Should we dismantle statutes of Columbus?No. Although Columbus did not discovered America, he was the leader of the voyage that put it into the limelight in Europe. He might not have spotted it first - but I believe that we need to remember his braveness, his stamina, his wanting to continue on. If he had been to afraid to cross the Atlantic, America would be much different. No one can deny this; Columbus made a dent in history, and we should remember this by celebrating Columbus Day. Voters, please vote for who's argument is more logical, who had better conduct. I participated in every round. My opponent forfeited two of the three rounds. I provided reasons for why I believe we need to celebrate Columbus Day. My opponent provided very little fact and cited few to no resources. Voters, vote for who won.

We Should Celebrate Colombus Day.

In conclusion Australia day should remain on the 26th of January as it is an iconic day for all Australians. Altho Australia had many hiccups along the way it is an amazing nation, home to over 24.3 million people and to change such an important date would be a mistake. Australia has apologised and made up to the Indigenous Australians losses, and have made sure that they are as much Australian as everyone else living in Australia.

The Date Of Australia Day Should Be Changed

This topic is not going to go away. It is going to be brought up every single year until the date is changed. Every year there are marches, protests and conversations like this one. It will continue to drive Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians apart on the very day that we are meant to be brought together as a nation. The debate has especially begun raging after Kevin Rudd broke his promise - he promised he would change the date from the 26th to another day because he knew what a devastating day it was for Aboriginals, and then didn't see his promise through. Aboriginals are always going to mourn this day - and how could they not? They were invaded: they need to mourn and commemorate their ancestors who suffered. The 26th has always been their Day of Mourning, not just since Australia Day became official in 1994. As they said during a chant on Australia Day: "We won"t stop, we won"t go away, we won"t celebrate Invasion Day". Australia Day won"t truly be a day of national pride, a day that we can all celebrate as one, as many cultures, and recognise as having Aboriginal culture at our core, until it is no longer on the 26th.

Australia Day should be changed from 26th of January to another date

International Waffle Day should be a federally recognized holiday? *** Yes it should http://www.youtube.com... 1) Tastiness deserves to be a nationally sanctified- Who doesn't remember going to waffle house at 2am to eat because nowhere else was open where you could sit down? It's a magical experience, wolfing down that tennis-racket looking goodness. If you're staying at a Hotel in the great state of Texas, the waffles even come in the shape of the state! It's not even an option thing where you *can* get them in that shape, the griddle is shaped like Texas. Why isn't this something we should recognize on a federal level? 2) It would unite a divided legislature- In order to become a federally recognized holiday, a piece of legislation would have to pass through both the house and Senate. Particularly during an election season, this would be non-contentious and provide a much-needed sense of unity to help restore the US population's faith in government. 3) Waffles are fun, and wildly underrated- While Eggo had it's heyday back in the day, we don't really give the waffle the proper credit it deserves today. If we were to federally recognize national waffle day, Eggo would be primed to come back into the spotlight swinging. That would mean we would see the return of Eggo's hilarious marketing team b) If Eggo would come back to prominence the way it was in the late 90s and Early 2000s, it would pave the way for other snacks that got left behind. Conclusion- Waffles are the bomb dot com, and there is absolutely no reason not to affirm. Federally recognizing National Waffle day would be good for our taste buds, government and soul.

You choose the topic

Western countries are Christian societies, shaped over centuries by the Church. Some, such as the UK, still have an official state church and many others (e.g. Germany, France) support churches with money in some ways. In all Christmas Day is a public holiday. Even in the USA many people would argue that the courts have shut religion out of public life in a way that the Founding Fathers never intended. Such Christian countries should not turn their back upon their heritage and the faith background of the large majority of their citizens. This means Christmas (and other Christian festivals, such as Easter) should continue to be marked officially with public displays. The state can also mark other faith holidays in some way, but it is right that Christmas gets most official attention.

The state should not give one particular faith support through its actions. Nor should it spend tax...

Australia day is arguably one of the most unique national days in the world. Rather the unite it seems to divide Australia into two different view points. It is celebrated on the 26th of January as it marks the specific event of the arrival of the First Fleet of 11 convict ships from Great Britain and the raising of the Union Jack at Sydney Cove by the commander Captain Arthur Phillip.

We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australians

I accept your challenge in this debate. I stand to negate your resolution. I hold that democratic elections are MORE won than bought. An electoral victory is NOT a good or service to be exchanged for money. The election is ultimately decided by a plurality and or majority among the community of eligible voters, and each voter is free to decide whom she chooses to vote for. Regardless of how much money is spent on election campaigns, each voter stands alone in that booth on election day, and makes her own decision. Definitions: Democracy: forms of government, both direct and indirect, where representatives or policies are chosen through popular elections or referendums. Bought: Past tense of 'buy,' to obtain [something] in exchange for money or goods Won: (In this context) by achieving a plurality and or majority of votes among the community of eligible voters Majority: 50% +1 Plurality: a countable margin by which a number exceeds another number, especially of votes. Time: The time period under discussion is living memory, say approx. 1950-Present

This House Believes Elections are Bought Not Won.

I would like to start by refuting your case on my hypocrisy. My democracy far outweighs your democracy argument. You say that some voters don't have their vote count because they live in an area that is focused on the opposite party, but in total, the states have an equal amount of support for each candidate, please refer to this picture, which is of the states voting in the Romney, v Obama run. https://www.google.com... i would also like to refute that by saying that majority simply rules. If you are in a room, and asked to choose a candidate among 19 others, and 11 of those people choose democratic, but you chose republican, that isn't a failing in democracy but simply majority ruling. Also, the plan is to replace this electoral college system, as I will state in my third point, which is The U.S. needs this new system for voting. National primary is a new and good way of voting, and has proven to be much better than what we have now. National primary is even more popular with the public than our current system. A CBS News/NY Times poll in 2000 showed 75% of adults favoring a national primary and only 19% favoring the current system. And if that seems outdated, a more recent national telephone survey of respondents in 41 states voting on Super Tuesday or later found that 73% of Americans are in favor of a national primary. This proves that national primary is much, much more favored than what we currently have. A national primary may even bring in more voters because more people are content with the system and think that their vote is actually going to count. Speaking of, when people don"t vote, it destroys democracy, especially when people aren"t happy with the system and are voting because of that. This happens because people who would have had a vote instead don"t vote because they know it won"t count. As USC Professor Geoffrey Cowan in the Los Angeles Times points out that critics have identified countless problems with the current process including campaign finance laws that give inordinate influence to big donors; limits on voter registration and participation; and the power granted to Iowa and New Hampshire as the first states to cast votes. The rules, which differ from party to party, election to election and state to state, are dizzyingly confusing. Moreover, in a country where roughly 40% of the electorate is not affiliated with either party, does it really make sense for some states to have "closed primaries" where only party members can vote?

The United States should establish a national primary.

On Australia Day we come together as a nation to celebrate what's great about Australia and being Australian. It's the day to reflect on what we have achieved and what we can be proud of in our great nation. It's the day for us to re-commit to making Australia an even better place for the future. We are not a country that discriminates and have moved on from our past. What happened over 228 years ago does not and should not reflect or represent that people we are as Australians, therefore, to say that we are not an equal country is not true or fair to Australians that eknowledge the wrongdoing of the British in the First Fleet, and have apologised for this, as we have as a nation. We are an equal country. Australia Day is much more than what most of us celebrate it for. It is more than another public holiday. It is more than the pride and excitement of new citizens who call themselves Australian for the first time on 26 January after being conferred citizenship. At its core, Australia Day is a day driven by communities, and the celebrations held in each town, suburb or city " unified by the celebration of what"s great about Australia and being Australian " are the foundation of its ongoing success.

"We should change the date of Australia Day, as it doesn't truly celebrate all Australians"

You're right, with only 54.2% of eligible voters voting - it's not a real say of the American people with who is elected. However, it would be undemocratic (ironically) in attempting to be more democratic, as forcing people to do something they don't want to do is a violation of the First Amendment. Someone, by not voting, can be saying or implying that the American political system sucks and voting is stupid, this is Freedom of Expression and their means of free-speech. By forcing them to vote, we then deprive them of that freedom and in turn become more authoritarian than we ought to be. It is not the government's role to force people to express themselves, merely to protect their right to do so, and by making voting compulsory the government no longer protects that right but infringes upon it by making people express something they don't inherently want to.

Voting Should Be Compulsory

Allowing recall elections will help to restore faith in politics and encourage active citizenship. ...

Recall elections

I accept, Same rules as your other debate and Con goes first. May the best debater win.

Resolved: direct popular vote should replace electoral college in presidential elections

Good luck. I've been wanting to debate this for a while. Hopefully I get a chance here. The electoral system is more fair and a lot better than what most people actually think.

Presidential elections should be decided by a popularvote instead of the electoral college.

I believe that we shouldn't change Australia Day. Reconciliation means the restoration of friendly relationships. In Australia's case, the restoration of friendly relationships between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians. In the article "Day of Shame" by Andrew Bolt's it suggests that we non-indigenous have done a lot to make up for the wrongs we made towards the Aboriginals and made events to prove how sorry we such as: National Sorry Day (May 26), granted Aboriginal land rights, formal apology for the stolen generations, introduced Koori courts and spent billions to lift Aborigines out of poverty. Andrew makes a clear statement saying "No to the race-baiters. No to laws dividing us by race. No to those who want to shut down debate on all this and let's say yes to judging each other not by the colour of our skin or the race of our ancestors, but by the content of our character. As individuals." This statement clearly states that we should not debate on changing Australia day and to stop labelling people as racists just because of this one National day but say yes to judging other by who we are not our background, race or religion.

Australia Day should be changed from January 26th to another date

There is no other date that best reflects both origins of our country. There is also no better day to celebrate the strong nation Australia has become. People say Australia Day is about the "British Invasion and Occupation" they are just words that reduce the significance and importance of this day as a nation we should all celebrate and it is a day many appreciate. Australians have done many things for the Aboriginal and Indigenous communities our nation. The 26th of January best represents the day we became one and as a country this consist conflict isn't going to help anything and we all need to come realisation that we are all in it together. Australia day should remain the same but out of respect their should be a day that highlights significance the of all of the Ingenious communities and people of our great nation 2015. Australia Day should remain on January 26, but move to a republic must begin. [ONLINE]. http://www.smh.com.au... . Accessed on the 18th of May

Change the date

I am going to first establish the criterion and then bring up my own points. The criterion for this debate is democracy. Democracy is the best criterion for this debate because of topic relevancy, meaning that since this debate is about a presidential election system, and America's presidential system was built on democracy, democracy is the best criterion available. My first point is that implementing a national primary would make every voter count. We are a vast nation, and every voter deserves a chance to express his or her opinion on as many potential presidential candidates as possible, without an agenda being frozen in place by major, early victories in states that are only vaguely representative of the broad mass of the American people. Even the Washington Post has an article named "13 states that matter". If we implement national primary, we can fix this unfair voting system and make everyone's voice have an impact, not just a certain few. The New York Times states a problem with our current system, saying that the schedule has worked very nicely for early-voting states, which have had a steady stream of would-be presidents knocking on their doors, making commitments on issues like the Iowa full-employment program, also known as the ethanol subsidy. The losers have been states like New York and California, which have often gotten to vote only when the contests were all but decided. Issues that matter to them, like mass transportation, have suffered. This means that huge cities are getting tossed to the side because of our current system. Judge, we need everyone to have a chance at getting their problems fixed, instead of just a couple. With a new campaign season upon us, our presidential primaries don"t seem to meet anyone"s standards for popular rule. Tiny, unrepresentative states have outsized power. Billionaires and their money are often the most important factors in the contests. Media coverage rewards extremist rhetoric and partisanship, and only a tiny fraction of American voters end up having a say in the presidential nomination process. (Zocalo Public Square, an affiliate of the Arizona State University) My second point is that implementing a national primary would help the candidates as well. The way things are structured today, many candidates are forced out after losses in the small, earlier primaries, as their war chests dry up before they can ever reach the larger states on Super Tuesday (for those that don"t know, Super Tuesday is the day of February and March where many states are allowed to vote). This means candidates can already be put out of the game, just because the states that are first allowed to vote don"t vote for them (forbes). This can lead to candidates that could have been amazing losing the chance to get support from all people instead of just a few states at first -- a chance they need and deserve.

Before I begin, I would like to state that the first round will be for opening statements and a numbered list of main points that will be expanded on in the second round. The third round will be for responding to the points from the second round. The fourth round will be responding to the responses and for concluding statements. If research is used to further arguments, links to articles should be posted. Columbus Day, an official federal holiday in the United States, celebrates Christopher Columbus' arrival in the Americas. It is celebrated on the second Monday of October, around the date of Columbus' historic voyage. I argue that Columbus Day should not be an official federal holiday because it celebrates a man who was not a hero but a villain, and who was a poor role model for Americans. 1. Columbus' actions led to events that destroyed Native American societies. 2. Columbus committed many human rights violations. 3. Columbus' actions led to events that destroyed African societies. 4. Columbus supported slavery. 5. Columbus never reached territory that is in modern-day United States. 6. Columbus was not the first European to reach the Americas. Although some might argue that Columbus was respectable, that opinion should not be imposed on every American. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.infoplease.com...

Columbus Day in the United States of America