Question: Should election day be a national holiday?

Title: Resolved: 'Vagina Day' should be a national holiday Content: 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.

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

Title: Polling stations during Elections should be conducted over a longer period than a single day Content: 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.

Title: All Citizens should be required to vote Content: 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.

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

Title: Resolved: Vagina Day should be a national holiday Content: 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.

Title: Resolved: Vagina Day should be a national holiday Content: I would like to respond to my opponent's further arguments as follows: "We already have women who flaunt their genitalia in public with defiance..... We call them whores." Sex-workers, or "whores" as my opponent crudely terms them, have no choice but to advertise their wares in order to attract punters: if they don"t turn enough tricks they won"t get their fix of crack and, also, their gash-broker is likely to give them a proper slap. This is different from the educated, middle class young ladies who seek to intimidate conservative Christians and other prudes by flaunting their minges in public. "I dont see how having a woman come in naked and asserting herself on unsuspecting males is a bad thing.... Im pretty sure thats the backstory behind every porno ever made actually. " But what about conservative Christians and other prudes? Don"t their sensitivities matter? "That depends entirely on the smell.... It would be nice to have the opportunity to eat out and then leave, but Im not going in if it smells like regurgitated tunafish smeared in broccoli." I"ve often wondered why ladies" tango batter smells like fish, but it"s never reminded me of the smell of broccoli"I wonder where my opponent picks up his women" "Personal space is just a liberty that people invented that they can dispose of temporarily at any given time, in fact the disposal of liberties is something that this country was founded on! Ben Franklin once said: 'Anyone who sacrifices a little liberty, to gain a bit o' dat p*ssy be BALLIN NIGGA, PARTY AT FRANKLINS!!!!!!!!'" It is true that American citizens have, over the years, been forced to concede numerous human rights and I assume my opponent has in mind former civil liberties such as the right to own slaves, the right to hunt buffalos and the right to shoot any troublesome Indians one might encounter I am sure these rights are much missed by many Americans today. Therefore, it is important that the right to enjoys ones" own personal space down the pub without having some quivering quim thrust in one"s face doesn"t go by the wayside too. Thank you.

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

Title: Resolved: Vagina Day should be a national holiday Content: "The answer is that they never stop complaining. Whine, whine, whine, whine, moan, moan: they never get tired of carping on about how hard they're lives supposedly are"Well of course they whine, whining is the only way that women can get a guy to do ANYTHING anymore. "A woman's work is never done" they grumble, but if that's true who are all those women's shows on daytime TV aimed at then? The advertisers wouldn't fund them if nobody was watching them."Women turn on those tv shows just so that it can serve as background noise while they do their things around the house when nobody else is home. You know how guys like to turn the tv on in the background while they masturbate to whatever they are looking up on their computers? Same thing except women do that to get stuff done while men do that just to masturbate. "It wouldn't be so bad if husbands had nice sexy wives to come home to but most don"t because the majority of women - 62% in America- are overweight, just because they have so little physical work to do. No wonder strip clubs are booming these days."But then women invented anorexia and bulimia to start fighting back against those numbers, and so far its working! We just need to give them time and sooner or later, all women will be thin and sexy.... If they arent dead. "True, blacks get a public holiday in America, but women already have Mother's Day, and although it's not a public holiday, they still get cards, presents and breakfast in bed. That should be more than enough I would have thought."That only applies to mothers though, while all the single proud independent women who dont need no MAN in her life are left out in the dark when they shouldnt be. They deserve a day of appreciation too!""Vagina Day" sounds a bit clinical, don"t you think? Why not something a little more poetic like Lady Garden Day, Hairy Clam Day, Gates of Heaven Day or Map of Tasmania Day?"They can go with 'map of tasmania day' in Australia if they want but Vagina just has a melody to it that 'lady garden' just doesn't have. Walk up to any teenage boy in America and ask him about his opinion of Vaginas, then do the same about Lady gardens and hairy clams, I guarantee that they will give different opinions and wont start drooling over themselves like they do at the sound of 'Vagina'"A week before Valentine"s Day is just about the worst possible day"Valentines Day always falls on a friday, Vagina day would be the thursday before Valentines day, meaning that Vagina day would always be the day before Valentines day, not a week before it! That would be suicide"My opponent might as well have proposed a "Cowboys and Indians Day" We call that Thanksgiving I think. "Hamburger Day" Every day is hamburger day in Americaor "Raccoon Day" hey are natures adorable bandits <333or "Atom Bomb Day" We combined blowing sh*t up day with the Fourth of Julyor "NASA Day" That would really only work in Floridaor "College Shooting Day" or "Soda Pop Day" or "Tornado Alley Trailer Park Day" or "Hollywood Day" Im sure they will work outor "Wall Street Greed and Incompetence Day"Every day is wall streed greed and incompetence day in capitalist America! All of these holdiays already exist or should exist in one way or another, why not actually go through with making 'Vagina day' a holiday?"The last vagina I checked had a gash right down the middle of it and, clearly, this feature would not aid buoyancy in a balloon."Believe me, men will work until the end of time to build a giant balloon vagina once they are given permission to do so. "These women all had vaginas and, as such, would be celebrated, but to do so would be an insult to the memories of their victims."A vagina is a vagina no matter which woman it is on my friend.... "A feminist studies graduate once expalained to me, fireworks are phallic symbols which rape the sky and pollute the air that women have to breathe."LOL, feminists arent even people though!

Title: Resolved: Vagina Day should be a national holiday Content: I accept Imabench's challenge and solemnly promise not to post any pictures of vaginas as part of my arguments.

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

Title: Resolved: Vagina Day should be a national holiday Content: " I have realised that there may be one very serious unforeseen consequence of Vagina Day, that is, the emergence of vagina vigilante groups. 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. "We already have women who flaunt their genitalia in public with defiance. .. .. We call them whores. "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. "I dont see how having a woman come in naked and asserting herself on unsuspecting males is a bad thing. .. . Im pretty sure thats the backstory behind every porno ever made actually. "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? "That depends entirely on the smell. .. . It would be nice to have the opportunity to eat out and then leave, but Im not going in if it smells like regurgitated tunafish smeared in broccoli. "Okay, some of you might quite like it, but that's not the point, it's an invasion of your own personal space"Personal space is just a liberty that people invented that they can dispose of temporarily at any given time, in fact the disposal of liberties is something that this country was founded on! Ben Franklin once said: "Anyone who sacrifices a little liberty, to gain a bit o' dat p*ssy be BALLIN NIGGA, PARTY AT FRANKLINS! !! !! !! ! "I rest my case.

Title: Resolved: Vagina Day should be a national holiday Content: 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.

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

Title: Resolved: Vagina Day should be a national holiday Content: My opponent highlights the supposed plight of women but we should ask ourselves why we perceive that women suffer so much. The answer is that they never stop complaining. Whinge, whinge, whine, whine, moan, moan: they never get tired of carping on about how hard they're lives supposedly are. "A woman's work is never done" they grumble, but if that's true who are all those women's shows on daytime TV aimed at then? The advertisers wouldn't fund them if nobody was watching them. The fact is, these days, housewives have it even easier than ever what with modern appliances such as vacuum cleaners, microwave ovens, washer/dryers, dishwashers, food processors, they hardly have to lift a finger around the house. Furthermore, with the wide availability of ready-prepared meals and affordable clothing housewives no longer have to cook or sew. So, instead of doing something useful they lounge about all day watching TV or go out and spend their husbands' hard-earned cash on clothes, shoes and make-up. It wouldn't be so bad if husbands had nice sexy wives to come home to but most don"t because the majority of women - 62% inAmerica- are overweight, just because they have so little physical work to do. No wonder strip clubs are booming these days. Now, to address my opponent's specific points in turn. "Why should women get a holiday when others dont?" This is positive discrimination gone mad. True, blacks get a public holiday in America, but women already have Mother's Day, and although it's not a public holiday, they still get cards, presents and breakfast in bed. That should be more than enough I would have thought. "Why does it have to be called vagina day? why cant it be called women's day or something?" "Vagina Day" sounds a bit clinical, don"t you think? Why not something a little more poetic like Lady Garden Day, Hairy Clam Day, Gates of Heaven Day or Map of Tasmania Day? "When would Vagina Day be?" A week before Valentine"s Day is just about the worst possible day: think about all the time, effort and expense men will be expected to go to in order to appease their womenfolk on Vagina Day only to have to waste even more time and money buying chocolates and flowers a week later. "Why cancel work on that day?" People would always welcome a free day off work and, therefore, might vote for my opponent"s plan for that reason alone. My opponent might as well have proposed a "Cowboys and Indians Day" or "Hamburger Day" or "Raccoon Day" or "Atom Bomb Day" or "NASA Day" or "College Shooting Day" or "Soda Pop Day" or "Tornado Alley Trailer Park Day" or "Hollywood Day" or "Wall Street Greed and Incompetence Day" or anything else all-American. "How is it celebrated?" Giant balloon vaginas? My opponent hasn't thought this through. The last vagina I checked had a gash right down the middle of it and, clearly, this feature would not aid buoyancy in a balloon. And, while there have been some great women through the years but there have been some rotten ones too: let's remember Elizabeth Bathory, the Blood Countess, who tortured and killed hundreds of young girls so that she could bathe in the blood of virgins in order to keep her younger, or the 'Bitch of Buchenwald' who was the wife of Karl Koch, a Nazi concentration camp commandant, and who reveled in torture and obscenity, or the evil tyrant Margaret Thatcher who brought misery and despair to millions of decent, hard-working British people through her vile political campaigns against the working classes in the 1980"s and 90"s. These women all had vaginas and, as such, would be celebrated, but to do so would be an insult to the memories of their victims. Finally, fireworks would be wholly inappropriate: as a feminist studies graduate once expalained to me, fireworks are phallic symbols which rape the sky and pollute the air that women have to breathe. Thank you.

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

Title: Resolved: Vagina Day should be a national holiday Content: Vagina Day. It just rolls off the tongue doesnt it?I will start by saying that women deserve a day to recognize all of their hard work. They have to deal with periods, trying to find bras that fit well but dont chaffe their nipples, staying in shape, wearing heels, looking good in a bathing suit, usually are the ones who have to keep the house in order, spend an hour in the morning to look good, do the same work as men yet get paid less, etc etc. One of the things that most women do that deserves recognition though, is that women are forced to put up with men. Do you know how much of a pain in the a** it is for women to put up with guys in their life? At just about any age all women usually have one creepy guy obsessed with them, four hot guys she wants to date but no matter how hard she tries cant get them to take the hint, deal with either an overbearing father or not having one at all, and just being forced to live in a world that is run by the dumbest men you can find. Women deserve a day to themselves because they have it hard, and it use to be a lot worse....Remember back in the day where if a man cheated on his wife, both the man AND his wife would be punished even though the wife literally did nothing wrong? Even though women only have it moderately bad today, it used to be WAAAAAAAAY worse then that just a couple of generations earlier, and they have not received their credit for it when many others have. "Why should women get a holiday when others dont?"Name one other group who have had it just as bad as women and didnt get compensated for it. You may think that blacks should get their own day right? THEY DO. Its called 'Martin Luther King Jr Day', and if you compare rights for blacks to rights for women youll see that blacks received the right to vote earlier then women did, and youll also noticed that blacks have become president while women have not. "Why does it have to be called vagina day? why cant it be called women's day or something?" The reason it shall be called Vagina day is because 'Women's Day' sounds f*cking stupid and there are stereotypes associated with women that would take away from the meaning of a holiday for women. When you think of 'Vaginas' though, you cant immediately think of anything bad about them, am I right? Lets face it, God was taking his sweet time when making the Vagina and its probably his best work too, so it deserves to be celebrated and idolized. Vagina also just sounds more upbeat and happy too. Just sing it to yourselfVaginaaaaaaVaaaaaaaginaaaaaaVa-Va-Va-ginaaaaa daaaaaaayyyyyIts just so catchy isnt it? much more then just 'women' which doesnt really celebrate women since it has the word 'men' in it...."When would Vagina Day be?"It would be the Thursday before Valentines Day, so that when women come back to work after their day off thanks to Vagina Day, then it will be Valentines day and they will be showered with the chocolates and flowers of men desperately trying to get laid. It also gives men one last warning that valentines day is coming so they can prepare for it and everything rather then be caught off about it. "Why cancel work on that day?"Why? Because f*ck you thats why. If we get a day off for 'Labor Day' which is the stupidest sounding holiday ever made then people should be able to have a day off for the wonderful and splendid 'Vagina Day'"How is it celebrated?"There's parades in cities and towns everywhere and there could be giant balloon vaginas in the air for everyone to see, there will be TV coverage of some of the greatest women in history like Susan B Anthony, Martha Washington, Kelly Clarkson, Beyonce, Michelle Obama, etc to honor their legacy. There will be fireworks at night too because why not. Imagine if the Fourth of July combined with the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade, but with way more Vaginas... Thats basically what Vagina day would be like. Over to you now Con :D

Title: Resolved: 'Vagina Day' should be a national holiday Content: 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!

Title: Star Wars Day should be a national holiday. Content: 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.

Title: Weekend voting would be a more sensible solution Content: 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.

Title: Resolved: 'Vagina Day' should be a national holiday Content: 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

Title: Resolved: 'Vagina Day' should be a national holiday Content: Jesus Christ, way to f*ck up a troll debate dude....The point of a troll debate is to use semantical arguments to argue your stance in an attempt to humor the voters, NOT TAKE IT SERIOUSLY. Using serious arguments in a troll debate is the equivalent of a full forfeit too.... Ill see what I can do to restore the humor in this but seriously you gave me NOTHING to work with and now the whole debate is shot to hell. "The pay gap between men and women is a myth[1], Men have to deal with their image just like women[2] and men have far fewer health benefits than women do"The man who claimed that the pay gap is a myth was arrested in 2008 for trying to sharpen his penis in a pencil sharpener so that when he has sex with women he can stab them to death. The man clearly has it out for women and tries to discredit them whenever he can. He actually published a book about how Hitler was secretly a woman just to try to disprove feminism.... And men dont deal with their image JUST LIKE women do. No guy in the history of guyness has ever had to spend more then 30 minutes in the bathroom making sure they look good before going out to a dinner, or had to put that icky green stuff on their face to exfoliate their skin or whatever. Lastly OF COURSE men have fewer health benefits then women. Last I checked men dont bleed out of their penis once a month"Our society akins breast cancer to women, and supports it so as to help women. This is proof that we value women"Oh yay, we value women enough that we want to keep them alive, HOW THOUGHTFUL OF MEN. The point of Vagina day is to celebrate all of the good aspects that women offer society BESIDES BEING ALIVE, like having good taste in decorations, making sure us men have good hygiene, doing all the stuff guys are too dumb to do in the first place, everything. "So from this you can take home that we already place a huge value on women. There simply isn't a need for another holiday to express our gratitude towards them"How typical for a MAN to convince himself that we already shell out enough for a women.... Men always think that they satisfy women but women know damn well that men never shell out enough, they go good at first but then finish early and then take a nap." It's for that very reason that a such a huge gap exists in college enrollment between men and women"No its not, its because men are IDIOTS. Look up 'dumbass stunt' anywhere on youtube or the internet and I guarantee you that 99 out of 100 results will feature something a guy did. Hell, look at any episode of Tosh.0 and all the stupid stunts they feature are done by MEN. The reason women are enrolled in college more then men is because men are idiots, not because women are somehow favorited voer men. "Men would go out an do backbreaking labor which ultimately put them in very poor shape physically and health-wise, whereas women would stay in the safety of the home so that they could be healthy enough to raise children."How in the hell does doing intense labor make somebody in POOR shape? Doing hard labor makes men STRONGER not weaker, thats why there are gyms ever two blocks in America! This Doctor is clearly an idiot, and no surprise HES A MAN. I guess they just let anyone be a docter these daysForfeited arguments: - Con forfeits that it would be cool to have parades with giant balloon vaginas - Con does not dispute the title of Vagina Day - Con forfeits that "Vagina Day" rolls off the tip of the tongue - Con fails to give a single Vagina Joke - Con failed to give an example of other groups of people who dont have some holiday like women do (only a fraction of women are mothers) - Con forfeits that God spent a lot of time first making the Vagina and that he did a damn good job at it - Con forfeits basically everything since he decided to take a troll debate seriously and new arguments cant be introduced in the last round....You know what, just tie it. Ill redo this debate and debate someone who knows what a troll debate actually is.

Title: Should Student Appreciation Day Be A National Holiday Content: Teachers have holidays for us students to show our appreciation towards them being hard-working and patient in teaching us. Students Appreciation Day shouldn't be a National Holiday because of the following reasons. 1. Students still hadn't prove much of themselves yet. They are still in the process of learning. 2. Students go to school to study and some are even forced to go to school because they do not want to or too lazy to attend. They do not work hard that much unlike teachers. According to Deno Machino "Every day you go to school, you have the chance to learn something that will change your life forever.You are rewarded with knowledge. " Are you so self centered that you need acknowledgement for making a better life for your self? Most of your teachers had the chance to be anything in this world, but they chose to pursue a career that helps you. While most professions help society, none are quite like a teacher. While a doctor may save your life once you become ill, a teacher saves your life by giving you the knowledge to be able to live. Without teachers, you could not afford a house, car, or the doctor. Without a teacher, this doctor would not have the knowledge to save your life. (Source: http://www.smallworlds.com...) And besides, without teachers, we wouldn't even learn a lot of things.

Title: Resolved: 'Vagina Day' should be a national holiday Content: Vagina Day. It just rolls off the tongue doesnt it?I will start by saying that women deserve a day to recognize all of their hard work. They have to deal with periods, trying to find bras that fit well but dont chaffe their nipples, staying in shape, wearing heels, looking good in a bathing suit, usually are the ones who have to keep the house in order, spend an hour in the morning to look good, do the same work as men yet get paid less, etc etc. One of the things that most women do that deserves recognition though, is that women are forced to put up with men. Do you know how much of a pain in the a** it is for women to put up with guys in their life? At just about any age all women usually have one creepy guy obsessed with them, four hot guys she wants to date but no matter how hard she tries cant get them to take the hint, deal with either an overbearing father or not having one at all, and just being forced to live in a world that is run by the dumbest men you can find. Women deserve a day to themselves because they have it hard, and it use to be a lot worse....Remember back in the day where if a man cheated on his wife, both the man AND his wife would be punished even though the wife literally did nothing wrong? Even though women only have it moderately bad today, it used to be WAAAAAAAAY worse then that just a couple of generations earlier, and they have not received their credit for it when many others have. "Why should women get a holiday when others dont?"Name one other group who have had it just as bad as women and didnt get compensated for it. You may think that blacks should get their own day right? THEY DO. Its called 'Martin Luther King Jr Day', and if you compare rights for blacks to rights for women youll see that blacks received the right to vote earlier then women did, and youll also noticed that blacks have become president while women have not. "Why does it have to be called vagina day? why cant it be called women's day or something?" The reason it shall be called Vagina day is because women's day sounds f*cking stupid and there are stereotypes associated with women that would take away from the meaning of a holiday for women. When you think of 'Vaginas' though, you cant immediately think of anything bad about them, am I right? Lets face it, God was taking his sweet time when making the Vagina and its probably his best work too. Vagina also just sounds more upbeat and happy too. Just sing it to yourselfVaginaaaaaaVaaaaaaaginaaaaaaVa-Va-Va-ginaaaaa daaaaaaayyyyyIts just so catchy isnt it? much more then just 'women' which doesnt really celebrate women since it has the word 'men' in it...."When would Vagina Day be?"It would be the Thursday before Valentines Day, so that when women come back to work after their day off thanks to Vagina Day, then it will be Valentines day and they will be showered with the chocolates and flowers of men desperately trying to get laid. It also gives men one last warning that valentines day is coming so they can prepare for it and everything rather then be caught off about it. "Why cancel work on that day?"Why? Because f*ck you thats why. If we get a day off for 'Labor Day' which is the stupidest sounding holiday ever made then people should be able to have a day off for the wonderful and splendid 'Vagina Day'"How is it celebrated?"There's parades in cities and towns everywhere and there could be giant balloon vaginas in the air for everyone to see, there will be TV coverage of some of the greatest women in history like Susan B Anthony, Martha Washington, Kelly Clarkson, Beyonce, Michelle Obama, etc to honor their legacy. There will be fireworks at night too because why not. Imagine if the Fourth of July combined with the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade, but with way more Vaginas... Thats basically what Vagina day would be like. Over to you now Con :D

Title: Scream at the Sky day is useless Content: Thanks for accepting the challenge. First of all, scream at the sky day is a sort of holiday made to protest 'the current state of our democracy', and/or the election of Donald Trump. America's voting system however, has been operating like this for hundreds of years. Both Hillary and Trump played by the rules and Donald won. Scream at the sky is protesting the American voting system, which allows for all states to get a say. Donald won over America, while Clinton won over a few large states. This holiday is unless.

Title: Potato day should be a national holiday for all places Content: 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.

Title: Columbus Day Should Not be Celebrated. Content: 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...

Title: Columbus Day Content: Good morning, noon, or evening!My name is arrowjaw. Today I will be participating in a debate in which I am the Pro, or the Affirmative. I am for the resolution. It is my burden to prove to you, the voter, that the resolution is true or should be carried out. It is also my burden to refute the arguments of the Con, or the Negative, who is against the resolution. Similarly, the opposition must prove to the voter that the resolution is false or should not be carried out. This debate has the following resolution:Should Columbus day be a national holiday in the United StatesMy opponent has set the character limit to 3,000, so I cannot structure an adequate debate. I will, thus, respond to my opponent only. My opponent begins by saying that Columbus day is a holiday because "he was Italian and Catholic". Italians and Catholics first lobbied for Columbus Day to become a federal holiday in the United States. This is in no a way a detriment to Columbus day. African-Americans were proud to be of the same heritage of M.L.K., and the rest of America admired him for his achievements. Columbus is the same. Just because his holiday was first urged on by members of his heritage does not mean that it should not be a federal holiday. My opponent says that "[Columbus] did not discover America...there were native tribes living in the Americas for centuries before Columbus landed". When people say 'Columbus discovered America', they are referencing that he discovered it for the more civilized and more technologically advanced part of the world: Eurasia and Africa. This is frankly a ridiculous and ignorant attempt to discredit Columbus for a monumental achievement. My opponent said that "[Columbus] never touched down in the modern-day United States". How can you blame him directly, place only the blame on him for all the deaths of the Natives of the Americas if, in your own words, he never even landed there. He paved the way for the colonization of the New World. He is not, however, responsible for the disgusting way in which the New World was conquered and colonized. My opponent then goes on to consent that "his exploration led to other European nations exploring the Americas and led to the colonizing of the Americas." If that is not an achievement worthy of a holiday I do not know what is. My opponent has contradicted himself and consented, in his own words, that Columbus completed a monumental achievement, which is obviously worthy of, at least, a federal holiday. The Spanish Conquistadors may have killed millions in their conquests of South and Meso America, but that does not mean that Columbus is responsible for those deaths. Just as Karl Benz created the car but is not blamed for automobile-related deaths, Columbus should not be blamed for the horrific actions of others whom he had no control over.

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

Title: You choose the topic Content: 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.

Title: Potato day should be a national holiday for all places Content: I love potatoes so potatoe day should be a national holiday if anyone disagrees give valid information why it should't

Title: Star Wars Day should be a national holiday. Content: I disagree. May the Fourth should be an international holiday. Everyone should be able to celebrate the splendor of Star Wars.

Title: Resolved: 'Vagina Day' should be a national holiday Content: Right out of the batting box I'd like to establish a few thing: a. The pay gap between men and women is a myth[1], Men have to deal with their image just like women[2] and men have far fewer health benefits than women do. [3][4][5] [1] . http://cbsn.ws... [2] . http://bit.ly... [3] . http://1.usa.gov... [4] . http://bit.ly... That said, it is my contention that vagina is unwarranted. Women are already celebrated in our society to a significant degree, by continuing to focus so heavily on women we create a systematic inequality among men and women. 1. Societal celebration of women- As I've already shown the rates for prostate and breast cancer are roughly the same[3]. Let's put aside for just a moment that both men and women can get breast cancer[5] whereas only men can get prostate cancer. The real impact here is our focus on health. Despite the rates of these cancers being about equal breast cancer research receives a significantly higher amount funding than any other type of cancer[3]. Our society akins breast cancer to women, and supports it so as to help women. This is proof that we value women [5] . http://bit.ly... Further, let's compare two holidays already in place: Mother's day and Father's day. Out society spent about 5.9 Billion dollars more on Mother's day in 2008 than we did on father's day[6]. Furthermore we see that Men spend on average twice as much as women do on Valentines day[7]. [6] . http://bit.ly... [7] . http://bit.ly... So from this you can take home that we already place a huge value on women. There simply isn't a need for another holiday to express our gratitude towards them. But there is a second, even more potent issue that must be discussed when one discusses the legitimacy of 'vagina day', and that's the role of men. 2. Male Disposability- Whether we're willing to admit it or not, men are disposable in our culture. It's for that very reason that a such a huge gap exists in college enrollment between men and women[8], 93% of work elated deaths are men[9] and the suicide rate for men is at least 3 times that of women across the board [10]. And that's just the minimum difference. [8] . https://bitly.com... [9] . http://bit.ly... [10] . http://bit.ly... We treat men as though they're disposable, as though they're tools, and despite the fact that we know men are at a disadvantage in all of these different areas the goal of mainstream gender 'equality' movements for the past hundred years have been bout benefiting women and women alone. In 2000 Dr. Warren Farrell wrote 'The Myth of Male Power'[11], in which he redefines the classical ideal of the patriarchy as vessel of female oppression. Ferrell argued that neither Men nor Women classically held 'power', as that would imply that they had the power to control what they could do with their own life. The fact is that until the past hundred years or so, men and women had to play their traditional gender roles for the sake of survival. Men would go out an do backbreaking labor which ultimately put them in very poor shape physically and health-wise, whereas women would stay in the safety of the home so that they could be healthy enough to raise children. As Ferrel writes this was not oppression of women, but a necessary social structure for mankind to survive. [11] . http://bit.ly... So What's next? The demonization of masculine values has been an element in the realm of gender equality for a while now[12]. The white ribbon campaign for instance, asserts that only men are responsible for domestic violence[13]. It claims that the traits which fuel domestic violence are inherently male traits, whereas peace is an inherently female trait. [12] . http://bit.ly... [13] . http://bit.ly... By voting for 'vagina day', even in jest, we propagate this negative view of men.

Title: Should Student Appreciation Day Be A National Holiday Content: You got solid facts, but logically there are alternatives. One, if students were that lazy they wouldn't getup period. Even, if mom and dad threaten them they wouldn't get up. REBELLION! Two, all students can skip school and hang-out somewhere random. TBH I actually thought about because I getup very early in the mourning, but because I really care don't do that. Technically, you're right students hadn't proved themselves yet, but the point is that they are going through the process of proving themselves. Plus, we work-hard and we have put-up with a couple of those teachers who hit our last nerve. I'm a straight A student, but at some point in my life a had teacher who sat at her desk all-day, literally. According to a couple teacher confessions they don't care, they only want the decent money. True story.

Title: Columbus Day Content: 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. In this country, we should categorize men like this as a murderer instead of a national hero. Let's begin by looking at how this became a holiday...it was a celebration by certain members of society because he was Italian and Catholic. His accomplishment of reaching America made him a hero in those communities. But how did he go from being a hero in the Italian and Catholic groups to being a hero in the United States? First of all, he did not "discover" America. Unless you ignore world history until this point, you know that there were native tribes living in the Americas for centuries before Columbus landed, so how can you "discover" something when there is already someone living there. Not only that, he never even touched down into the modern-day United States. He explored islands in the Caribbean and in central America, not in the present day United States. To give credit where credit is due, his explorations led to other European nations exploring the Americas and led to the colonizing of the Americas. However, that is not how Columbus is perceived is most parts of our society. My final point in this round is that there are only two holidays here in the United States that are named after individuals; Columbus Day and Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. Washington's birthday has been reduced to an overall President's Day. It appalls me that Columbus has a holiday named after him, but Washington, the father of our country, Lincoln, who in a round about way ended slavery, nor heroes like Pat Tillman have holidays named after them....you know, TRUE HEROES!

Title: The Electoral College Should be Abolished Content: Responses to my opponent's arguments 1) My opponent argues that getting rid of the electoral college would create uncertainty in the presidential election process because the national popular vote would be much more likely than a dispute over the electoral college votes. I would have to challenge this claim on the grounds that if there is a dispute over electoral votes, it is usually because the results of an election in one state are so close that a recount is often necessary, as was the case in Florida in 2000 and North Carolina in 2008. If the national popular vote was close enough that a nationwide recount would be deemed necessary, then that would likely signal a problem with how the national popular vote was counted, as such, every vote from every precinct would have to be recounted due to the scale of a national popular vote system. This of course leads into another supporting argument my opponent made, which is that the current electoral college system creates separate elections in each state, allowing for easier vote counting. The problem with this argument is that the process of counting votes is handled by individual voting precincts, which number in the thousands nationwide, thus sharing the task of counting votes nationwide, thus allowing for errors in how votes are counted to be screened out. Unless this changes under a national popular vote, then such a supporting argument is invalid. 2) My opponent's second argument is that the electoral college requires presidential candidates to have nationwide appeal in order to win an election. This argument ignores the issue of partisanship that is common in American politics, where voters will often vote for a candidate who shares party membership with groups of voters. For example, here is a list of states that will most likely vote for a candidate from each major political party, sorted from the highest number of electoral votes, to the lowest. Democratic California: 55 New York: 29 Pennsylvania: 20 Illinois: 20 Michigan: 16 New Jersey: 14 Washington: 12 Massachusetts: 11 Maryland: 10 Minnesota: 10 Wisconsin: 10 Connecticut: 7 Oregon: 7 New Mexico: 5 Rhode Island: 4 Hawaii: 4 Maine: 4 Vermont: 3 Delaware: 3 District of Columbia: 3 Total Democratic: 247 Republican Texas: 38 Georgia: 16 Tennessee: 11 Arizona: 11 Indiana: 11 Missouri: 10 Alabama: 9 South Carolina: 9 Louisiana: 8 Kentucky: 8 Oklahoma: 7 Utah: 6 Arkansas: 6 Mississippi: 6 Kansas: 6 Nebraska: 5 West Virginia: 5 Idaho: 4 Alaska: 3 Montana: 3 North Dakota: 3 South Dakota: 3 Wyoming: 3 Total Republican: 191 Now, take notice of the states listed, these are states that presidential candidates from both respective parties could be expected to carry with very little if any effort, meaning that candidates often ignore these states in favor of more competitive states during presidential contests. Furthermore, notice the distinct advantage that the Democratic Party holds in the electoral college. As it currently stands, the democratic party would need to win just twenty-three electoral votes to win the presidential election, while the Republican would need to win seventy-nine. If the Democratic party won Florida, which has twenty-nine electoral votes, then that would be enough for them to win the presidency without carrying any other states. This setup means that a Democratic presidential candidate could focus all fundraising, campaign events, and organization on just Florida, while completely ignoring the rest of the country, negating the need for any other appeal nationwide. 3) My opponent's argument here is largely an appeal to consequences, therefore I do not need to address it. Sources: http://www.270towin.com... http://www.logicallyfallacious.com...

Title: Polling stations during Elections should be conducted over a longer period than a single day Content: 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?

Title: State governments are a much greater threat to American rights than the national government Content: How fitting, Pro decided to forfeit on Election Day. And in saying that, I hope all US Debate.org folks go out and vote today. For voting is "The Great Debate!"

Title: Atheists Do Have a Holiday: April 1st (April Fools Day) Content: First, I would like to ask that voters give a brief reason for decision in the comments. Now, Reasons I win this debate: 1) April 1st is NOT a holiday (for anyone) as it does not meet the definition of a holiday. If it isn't a holiday at all, it cant be an atheist holiday. I win this debate on this point alone, as my opponent did not dispute this at all. The title of the debate is "Atheists do have a holiday: April 1st;" if April 1st isn't a holiday, then it is impossible for ANYONE to have it as their holiday. Again, this argument was completely ignored by opponent, meaning I win on this point automatically (essentially its an argumentative forfeit on his part for what would equate to "not showing up" on a sports field). 2) My opponent has defined the atheist holiday as a time for atheists to "celebrate their non-belief" (his R2). I pointed out that April 1st has nothing to do with atheists celebrating their non-belief, so it does not meet my opponent's criteria for what an atheist holiday should be. My opponent's only response to this is one word: "scripture. " He doesn't elaborate or provide any analysis so I quite frankly don't know how he intends scripture to address this argument. I can guess what argument he might be trying to make (although he doesn't actually make it, he just says "scripture"), so I will address his non-argument here. While you may be correct that atheists are fools (as scripture states) and are thus tied to April 1st, that does not necessarily make the date an atheist holiday. As my opponent said, an atheist holiday must be a time for atheists to "celebrate their non-belief. " April 1st does not do this. I will point out that at no time did my opponent dispute my claim that April 1st had NOTHING to do with a celebration of non-faith. So, since April 1st has nothing to do with a celebration of non faith and since the atheist holiday must be a time for celebration of non faith, April 1st can not be the atheist holiday, despite the tie between atheists and April 1st. Think of it like this: A group simply having a tie to a certain date doesn't mean that date is their holiday. ON EITHER OF THESE TWO POINTS ALONE, I win. Both points illustrate how it is not possible for April 1st to be the atheist holiday. These are both offensive arguments for my position that were either dropped entirely or addressed so poorly that they might as well have been ignored. HOWEVER, if that is not enough to convince the judges (although it should be more than enough): My opponents entire argument rests on a scripture passage that says atheists are fools. However, he has provided no reason why a scripture passage has the ability to set a holiday. Why should scripture set the atheist holiday? Why shouldn't a book by Dawkins? What authority does scripture have to dictate holidays? To be blunt: why should we care what scripture says when setting holidays? My opponent's only answer: "Must I keep repeating the Scripture? " This does not answer my questions about the relevancy of scripture in any way. Please note that this isn't a case of a poorly developed argument, but a complete omission of an explanation for how his argument matters. My opponent simply doesn't explain how scripture is relevant. Christian scripture doesn't set Hindu holidays or Islamic holidays, why would it set atheists? Now you can see that: 1) My opponent provides no convincing reason why April 1st is an atheist holiday 2) It is impossible for April 1st to be an atheist holiday.

Title: should September 2 be a holiday Content: well you will never find another war like this. i have m made my point so let the voting win

Title: Voting should be compulsory. Content: 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.

Title: Resolved: direct popular vote should replace electoral college in presidential elections Content: I understand that my opponent was probably celebrating the holidays, so I extend all arguments.

Title: Columbus Day should either be abolished or re-named Content: 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.

Title: State governments are a much greater threat to American rights than the national government Content: Election Day is over, election for this non-debate begins.

Title: There are alternatives that tackle the real causes of voter disengagement Content: 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

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

Title: Weekend voting would be a more sensible solution Content: 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.

Title: Iowa's importance in the Presidential primaries should be reduced to allow a more national primary. Content: So your saying you live in California correct? ok. Well we are all Americans we believe in one head one vote, So I don't think it's fair that you say your vote is more important than that of another person. Now one person one vote would translate into a national primary election, but thats impractical. The candidates would have to be all over the nation. Travel cost would be huge and for candidates who lack the budget their message can't get across. Indeed a national Primary election would see the richer candidates with huge leverage and that would discourage little known or poorly funded candidates. Not just becuase of travel cost but also they would have to run national advertisement which is a huge dent in ones campaign budget. Indeed its taking a grassroots campaign and shattering it. So what we do is follow the same pattern we do when electing our president, we make it a state function with the exception that the primaries take place at different times. This is becuase the Primaries are a function of the state government and the state party headquarters, not a function of the Federal government. Remember we are talking about parties who's organization is wholly outside the federal government- you will not find the mentioning of a political party in the constitution. Because its a function of the state government and state party headquarter they try and decide whats best for the party. And having a progressive campaign that starts somewhere and ends somewhere else is the most economical in spreading the message of the candidates. So if you were going to start somewhere and end somewhere , what would be your starting point? Well thats how we get to the fact that Iowa holds the first caucus, because technically New Hampshire holds the first Primary- the difference is just the selection process. Iowa is the starting point becuase its a small state, by allowing candidates to focus there , it gives voters a really good chance of having a one on one encounter with the candidates. This is good because its give more democratic opportunity for the election. Candidates with little money have almost the same opportunity with candidates that have a huge campaign budget. This allows for that grass-roots campaign that can really take off. And the more supporters the get the more publicity they get. People do not want to vote for a candidate that they don't think has a chance of winning, thats called candidate viability. And if you wouldn't vote for a person because he's not viable you certainly wouldn't give him your money. But by making the small state of Iowa (and New Hampshire) the center of attention, we really give those unknown candidates a better chance to take on the bigger guys. If they have a good message, and their campaign begins to take off, their voter viability will go up, that means more money as people donate to their campaign. With money and a good viability they can leave Iowa with good field position to tackle on the other states. By having Iowa first the election becomes more fair, richer and more known candidates are pushed to be on the same level as unknown candidates. Which makes the election about your message and your ideals not the amount of money in the bank. Mike Huckabee is the best example of this. Before Iowa is not over and already he is in a great position to take on other primaries across the nation. Yet before he was not even known by more than a few percent of the population (outside the Arkansas-Alabama-Louisiana region), much less had much backing. But he was able to leverage that face-to -face campaign, really leverage the equal opportunity campaigning and now he's not only first in Iowa, but becuase his voter viability went up he is first or second in almost every national poll and the caucus hasn't even taken place. If he can win the caucus he will set the tone for other states. And as for other candidates, some are wishing to just pull third in Iowa because that gives voters in other states the confirmation that he has a shot to win this thing if you rally behind him.

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

Title: There are many reasons for not participating in elections. Content: Balaji Chithra Ganesan. "The Case against Compulsory Voting." Musings. January 16th, 2010: "People have genuine reasons not to vote. They could be working away from home and cannot afford to go home for voting. Daily labourers cannot miss a day's work. People might be sick, old and dying. People might be travelling for causes that are much more important like ... family. In the ridiculously staggered elections we have, people can have a holiday when their place of work goes to polls and not when their hometown goes to polls. Now how incredibly arrogant and perverted should someone be, to ask the above people to come, stand before a babu and explain their conduct? Or else face punishment! Really? How arrogant? How can citizens be treated with such disdain?"

Title: Presidential Election 2016 Content: Who do you think is going to win on Election Day?

Title: The United States should establish a national primary. Content: 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.

Title: "should voting be done online" Content: My opponent has presented a very interesting argument, however it is flawed. Firstly my opponent makes the statement "" the people going to work is being given a half dae leave or a holiday to vote "" however this does not disprove the statistics presented in the previous argument, young people are still voting less and most young people are not voting because they are too busy or have conflicting work, regardless of the holiday, and as such a more accessible voting system is required, i.e. internet voting. My opponent brings up hacking in the internet; I am well aware of it. I have recently studied Information Technology and that includes security, database management and networks. I am well-schooled on the issues and methods of hacking and believe I am qualified to talk on the subject. On the contrary my opponent has still failed to provide an example of how exactly an online voting service can be hacked, beyond "a lot of hacking in internet". However internet voting is more efficient as computers can more effectively calculate the results and it reduces human error in comparison to paper voting where human error is a very prominent issue. Actually one of the largest issues of fraud in voting is people who vote more than once either at the same location or separate locations. One of the main reasons nothing has been done to prevent this is the cost of implementing the system, however should online voting be introduced the cost would be substantially less, almost non-existent [1]. Thus online voting may actually be safer from fraud then conventional techniques. My opponent also argues that rural people do not have access to the internet to vote with; however this is a blatant fallacy. Most rural communities have internet access, in many countries internet access is considered a basic right, including Costa Rica, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece and Spain. I have been to rural areas that are a two hour drive from the nearest down as the crow flies, and still have access to basic satellite internet; it was slow, but still capable of casting a vote with. Unless my opponent can back up his statement and disprove the evidence I presented then this is simply not true. As it stands two European countries have already successfully upgraded to internet voting (Estonia and Switzerland) [2] and it would be beneficial for other nations to do that same. [1]http://www.washingtonpost.com... [2] http://www.eui.eu...

Title: The US should not recognize the results of the latest Nicarguan election. Content: It is my intention to give sufficient reason for the resolution, ‘The United States Government should not recognize the results of the recent Nicaraguan election'The Nicaraguan national election was held last Sunday, November 6th. The controversy of the election started before the election.1. Constitutionally illegitimate candidate: Daniel Ortega was violating the Nicaraguan constitution in both the term limits, and the running consecutive terms. In the Nicaraguan constitution it is stipulated that the president cannot run for more than two terms, and a president cannot run in consecutive terms. This is to prevent a dictatorial regime, and put a safeguard on the democratic process. Simply by running he is in violation of the country's constitution, and his blatant disregard for the rule of law, and the rule of the land is justification alone for a country that values the integrity of the electoral process to not acknowledge this man in his bid for re-election. [1][Although the elections of the national seats that took place in this last election are also fraught with fraud, I will keep the argument to Daniel Ortega, since he is running as President, and it is he who the US Government would recognize.]It is key in understanding how Ortega has held and grown his control over the country, by understanding the role his party, the Sandinista Party his played in the country since he gained control. All possible judges, particularly Supreme Court Judges, and election officials are Sandinista, all police force and military forces are loyal to the Sandinistas over the Nicaraguan people. Sufficient branches of government and those with influence over the economy are loyal Sandinistas to facilitate Ortega's designs. 2. Fraudulent electoral process: The Ortega administration mandated, prior to the election, an identity card would be required for the election, and these cards would need to be obtained through members of the FSLN (Sandinista Party). Members of FSLN easily and quickly received their cards, whereas other requestors of the identity cards were waiting for a year or more. Essentially Ortega achieved an election that would be wholly managed by his party the Sandinistas, and two thirds of the places in Nicaragua were run by Sandinistas, and those that were not had the greatest instances of identity card rejection.[ 2] At the time of election the voter must present this identity card, and it must have an authorized stamp that the Sandinistas created. Without that stamp the identity card was invalid, and countless identity cards were found invalid because they did not have the proper stamp, all those people were not Sandinista. The incidents of fraud are too numerous to list, and was so rampant that it will never be truly documented. [3] The entire election was controlled and managed by the Sandinistas under the dictates of Daniel Ortega, for the benefit of Daniel Ortega's reelection and total control over the Nicaraguan people. [4]3. Impact of fraudulent election in Nicaragua: With a total disregard to the constitution in the running of Daniel Ortega as president violating the constitution, and the principles that safe guard its people from a dictator he degrades the constitution in its intended purpose of providing a democratic rule of checks and balances over the land. What is even more important to note is that if a president is elected with more than 50% of the popular vote he is empowered to change the constitution as he sees fit. This is a massive coup of power to the presidency, and by illegally obtaining that number of votes he has effectively taken control of all aspects of governance within the country. It is a true theft of total power with the obvious intentions of a dictatorial regime in perpetuity. It is also important to understand the corruption within the Ortega regime, and the personal corruption of the man. He has become one of the richest men in Central America, leader of the second poorest countries in the hemisphere. He has skimmed oil wealth from his mentor Hugo Chavez, and has instituted a party and government of kleptocracy beyond anything people commonly know about. [6] [7]4. Organizations and Governments of the world community not recognizing the election: [8]European UnionOrganization of American StatesHondurasCanadaCosta RicaPanamaIsrael 5. Countries and organizations that recognize Daniel Ortega as the duly elected leader of Nicaragua:CubaVenezuelaEl SalvadorALBA (client states Hugo Chavez) [9] Russia [10] 6. Why the US position should be firm against recognition:In our hemisphere in particular it is important as both a leader of the world, and a member of the world community to take a position of intolerance to would be dictators who corrupt the very mechanism of democracy in order that they may amass more power and more wealth at the expense of the very poor. As long as we are the prominent member of the world stage, and one who hopes to encourage the values of freedom and democracy the United States must join other countries who do not give any legitimacy to an election that was not just stolen but orchestrated in the most blatant of attempts to emasculate any opposition, and to entrench a putrefied regime. It is beyond obvious that the US government should not recognize the results of the recent Nicaraguan election; it would be borderline accessory to a crime to provide an ounce of legitimacy to this farce, and an insult to the Nicaraguans who are fighting against this fraud with their lives. 1. http://pdba.georgetown.edu...2. http://www.lab.org.uk...3. http://www.confidencial.com.ni...4. http://www.radio-corporacion.com...5. IBID 26. http://wn.com...7. http://politic-bazooka.blogspot.com...8. http://actuable.es...9. http://www.nicaraguadispatch.com...10. http://eng.kremlin.ru... Apologies for the sources in Spanish, but Google Chrome will translate much of it. My best sources were in Spanish, and doing the searches in English just didn't provide the information I needed.

Title: Christmas should be Christmas and nothing else Content: Religion aspectIn America today there is an increasing number of Atheists and one would be insulting another if you say the phrase Merry Christmas, because you could offend Jews, Muslims, and Atheists. Jews would prefer that Hanukkah should a national holiday, because they believe that Jesus was not our savior and that he was more of a prophet. Muslims are against almost everything that is Christian and Christmas would be one of them. Atheists are in this allusion that God doesn't exists so you would be appeasing one person and offending another.

Title: In the words of a Kashmiri Content: The National Conference party and the Congress party together won 45 seats, one more than is needed for a simple majority in the 87-seat state assembly. The two parties have started negotiations for an alliance so they can take power. The National Conference party won 28 seats, and Congress won 17. "We are ready to align with the Congress party to form the next government," said Omar Abdullah, president of National Conference. The seven-phased elections began in November, four months after India took direct control after the fall of a coalition government in the state. The elections ended last week, and vote-counting finished Sunday.[[http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/12/28/indian.kashmir.vote/]] The poll spoke otherwise, against the point made. India is until this day considered the world's largest democracy, and thus the opinion of every citizen voting in the election counts. The pro-India party thus won in 2008 and are still in power, overpowering over the Pakistani favored league.

Title: United States should use an Elector appointment System to solve the problem of low voter turn out. Content: Often times for a Mayor position or a city council positions most people have no ideas that an election is even taking place much less vote. So a relatively few amount of people decide the leaders of a comparatively large population. This isn't the fault of the people they have their own lives to live, and unless there is a specific pressing issue that has gotten to the point where they are mad, they aren't really motivated to vote. Now I think that is bad, because it makes us rely on Cliff-Edge election politics. Were people are only driven to vote when there is a problem instead of taking into account who is running and who would be the best for the job. Now this happen's in the city level with city commissioners and mayors, also the county level with county commissioners. And to a large degree state legislatures also go through this. I don't believe this is a really representative means of public offices competition always breads the best person for the job, and were there isn't an atmosphere of significant competition we're not going to bet the best person for the job. So what I offer is a different system. A National Election's Congress -not to be confused with our regular congress. This congress See's each U.S. district vote in Electors into the Congress. The role of this congress is to year round find the best person's suitable for the public office's that are due for elections. The Congress would be split into two or more champers. The East Chamber and the west Chamber, or more regional chambers. The best way to see how it works, is to see a case study- then I will break down the system later. For example the city I live in is plantation. Our city government has 5 commissioners and one Mayor. Traditionally the people seeking that office will file and intent to run form with the registrar for that county. On election day people would come vote and the person with the highest votes wins the office. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- With an Elector System. A person seeking the office of Mayor/commissioners would file an intent to run form with their county registrar. From that moment they can campaign and seek citizen-endorsements. A citizen can go to their cities designated location and file a a citizen-endorsement for that candidate. They would be able to do this from the moment the person running for office submits their intent to run form with the country registrar, until the deadline. The candidates would be campaigning for a while for citizen-endorsements until the deadline , then they would be given an appointment to appear before their regional chamber of the National Elections Congress. If a candidate failed to receive 10% of all the citizen-endorsements received for that specific race, they are automatically denied. On the other hand if a candidate received 2/3 of all the citizen-endorsements received for that specific race, they automatically get appointed. If a candidate is not in those two categories they present themselves before the Congress give a speech talk about their record. Before hand the Congress would have their resume and Political record if applicable. After this congressman may take the floor and argue their position in regards to who should get the job. And finally the matter is put up before a vote, the winner of that vote wins the office. I think this is a great system to elect mayors and commissioners and state legislatures, because it makes sure that there is good competition. Instead of a small voter turn out effecting the entire population, voter turn out is a plus but it isn't the determining factor. With the Electoral appointment system every time there is an election below the governor level , merits are evaluated and a decision is made based a compromise of who is best for the job and who has the most support. I think this country should switch to an Electoral appointment system. It may sound far out, but thats probably becuase this is the first time anybody has heard of it. The elections of the elector's themselves that would be sent to this congress would be paired with the Presidential election, you would vote for them on the same ballot as your president, and this ensures a high voter turn out.

Title: Australia Day should be changed from 26th of January to another date Content: Australia Day must be changed from the 26th of January. The 26th is when the First Fleet from England landed at Sydney Cove and Captain Arthur Phillip took possession of the land for the British Empire in 1788. The day was first recognised in the 1880's, but only as an anniversary of the first landing. In 1946 it changed to Australia Day and in 1994 it became a public holiday and a day to welcome new citizens or honour people who have done a great service to the country. The National Australia Day Council recognises it as "a day to reflect on what we have achieved and what we can be proud of in our great nation", but the date means that not everyone can join in on this, because for some people the very day means nothing but sorrow and mourning. These people are Aboriginals. It is the beginning of the end of their freedom and culture, the start of the enormous amount of pain and suffering they were about to go through - having their land stolen from them; their food being hunted by white men with guns; their way of living being dismissed as savage and vulgar; the loss of so many lives due to European diseases, fights and battles, slaughter and rape; and later, having their children stolen to "civilise" them and develop them into white culture. Would you want to celebrate your country on the very anniversary of the day that you essentially lost it? How can we expect Aboriginals to do this?

Title: All Pastafarians should be allowed to take a day off on International Talk like a Pirate Day Content: Since no evidence or reason was given as to why "talk like a pirate day" should a national holiday. I have nothing to refute.

Title: The Date Of Australia Day Should Be Changed Content: 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.

Title: "should voting be done online" Content: Sir I completely agree with the fact that voting is the essential basis of democracy....I said those statement because in country like USA and INDIA all the people going to work is being given a half dae leave or a holiday to vote ....but some of them use this holiday to stay at home or go for a trip sir.....this for them...now talking about the evidence for the frauds in internet...sir u should be clear with the fact that there have being a lot of hacking in internet if my opponent is not aware about it I give a suggestion to read newspapers...now talking about what my opponent said about the people living in rural area...sir they are people from rural area not urban n who will provide them internet....if provided still frauds can be don

Title: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory. Content: Thanks you for accepting the challenge! I would like to begin by presenting evidence supporting my views previously stated in R1. 1. Compulsory Voting Decreases Political Polarization and Solves for Disenfranchisement of Voters According to Eric Liu, (Former Policy Adviser to President Bill Clinton), TIME, Aug. 21, 2012. Retrieved Aug. 16, 2013 from http://ideas.time.com.... Many reforms could increase turnout, from same-day registration to voting on weekends. But the most basic is also the most appropriate: making voting mandatory. Here"s why. Mandatory voting would make elections truly valid. "Protecting the integrity of our elections" is the rationale Republicans give for the cynically restrictive voter ID laws they"ve enacted in Pennsylvania and elsewhere. But if we truly cared about the integrity of elections, we should ensure that they reflect the will of all eligible voters. Second, as William Galston of the Brookings Institution argues, it would temper the polarization of our politics. In today"s electorate, hardcore partisan believers are over-represented; independents and moderates are under-represented. If the full range of voters actually voted, our political leaders, who are exquisitely attuned followers, would go where the votes are: away from the extremes. And they would become more responsive to the younger, poorer and less educated Americans who don"t currently vote. What we see is in a voluntary system the views of the partisan people are heard but the moderate middle go unheard. Through compulsory voting we would see moderate voters receive legitimate representation. 2. CV Increases Political Participation Margaret Kelly, (Prof., Law, Macquerie U., Australia), THE ADVERTISER, Oct. 22, 2007, 18. The turnout at Australian elections has never fallen below 90 per cent since the introduction of compulsory voting. This compares favorably to the situation in the U.S. and Britain. In 2001, the turnout for the federal election for the House of Representatives was 94.85 per cent. In the same year, the turnout for the general election in Britain was 59.4 per cent. With such a large percentage of the electorate voting, the Parliament more accurately reflects the will of the electorate, the silent majority, not just the noisy minority. Parties must consider the total electorate in policy formulation not just those inclined to go to the polls. Not only does it increase political participation, but it also increases the political process as a whole. Politicians will have to appeal to a new range of voters rather than campaigns just go get there base out to vote. ------------------------------------- A few points I would like to address before my opponent presents his evidence supporting his position. 1. All CV does is force you to fill out a ballot (none is an option). CV does not force you to chose the lesser of two evils since you can always vote for none of the below (or above). 2. The Quality of Elections will increase because politicians will now have to represent the whole voter base rather than the few hardcore partisan voters that come out and vote. 3. All laws require citizens to do things they don't want to do. Jury duty is a good example of this, taxes, and much more. CV is no different than our other day to day civic duties. Forcing someone to vote is not undemocratic.

Title: Should Student Appreciation Day Be A National Holiday Content: We have holiday 4 teachers. but what about the students? Without us they wouldn't have jobs.

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

Title: Columbus Day Should Not be Celebrated. Content: 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)

Title: The USA Should Have A One Day Primary and Election Instead Of A Whole Campaign Content: 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.

Title: Polling stations during Elections should be conducted over a longer period than a single day Content: Nothing new to add, will be happy to respond to arguments counter to Rd #1.

Title: The current system is undemocratic as it gives undue influence to the early states Content: As most primaries only serve to decide the number of delegates who will be bound to vote for a particular candidate at a party’s national convention, a presidential hopeful will be able to ignore contests later in the election cycle if he has already secured a majority of delegates. The staggered nature of primaries under the status quo allows candidates to determine when their lead has become unassailable. As a consequence, candidates will refrain from mounting campaigns in states that poll later in the election cycle. The later a state votes, the less chance it has of influencing the size of a candidate’s majority. In 2000 and 2004, by the time New York – the third most populous state in the union – voted, both main parties had, in effect, selected their candidate. If that isn’t the perfect example of an undemocratic system, then it would be difficult to think of what might be. The current system discriminates against lesser known candidates who are already at a disadvantage. The advantage of running all primaries during a single day in February is that it would allow lesser known candidates the time to introduce themselves to the nation. A promising but little known candidate can easily be taken out of contention during the Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina primaries. Running a single primary in February or March would give unknown candidates a full three months to mount their own media campaigns and to build up the press contacts and public profile that established candidates already enjoy. A single primary election would also do a great deal to help with a more even distribution of donations between the candidates. The primaries effectively function as part of the general election campaign; they are certainly central to selecting the two people from whom the eventual winner will emerge. It is therefore damaging and deceptive to continue to treat them as a purely party-political issue that has no relevance for voters who are not closely involved with the republican and democrat campaign machines. A final argument concerns the role of political capital and states’ influence over candidates’ activities. Campaigning compels candidates to offer party members and voters in states incentives in return for their endorsement. These may take the form of pledges to address local issues, to provide funding to public projects or to pursue policies at a national level that are beneficial to certain states. However, states that are excluded from the primary process when a candidate secures a majority of delegates will be unable to win promises or concessions from a presidential hopeful. This creates inequalities in the ability of individual states to influence federal policy and governance, reducing the cohesiveness of the union as a whole.

Title: hold all U.S. presidential primaries on the same day. Content: The current system is hugely expensive; a national primary would control the scale of spending in campaigns

Title: Australia Day should be changed from 26th of January to another date Content: 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!

Title: Even in democracies, we only have a chance to have a say in how the country is run every four years ... Content: In a democracy civil disobedience cannot be justified. National elections take place regularly, and governments are accountable and can be changed. Members of the public who are unhappy can always lobby their representative or protest within the law, for example by organising marches, petititions, advertising campaigns, or even running candidates of their own for election. All these provide ways of changing laws and policies without the need for deliberate law-breaking.

Title: The electoral college should be abolished in favor of direct election. Content: I will be arguing that the Electoral College system in the United States should be abolished in favor of direct election. DefinitionsDirect election: a national popular vote that is won by getting a majority of votes, or a plurality that surpasses 40%. EC: Electoral CollegeGE: General election. Only refers to the presidential election. Don't do semantics, trolling, red herrings, or fallacies, be civil, and good luck!

Title: Should the electoral college be abolished in favor of a national vote Content: I accept

Title: Children Should Have The Right To Vote In Elections Content: education

Title: Scream at the Sky day is useless Content: Sorry for the late reply I was kinda busy Although, yes Donald trump did win the election more people voted for Hillary and Trump just used better tactics to win. Hillary is the 5th president contender to lose the election desire having more votes. Hillary did not win 'over a few states' she won over more of America than Trump. This isn't fair at all and scream at the sky day is a way to protest this and maybe put pressure on the electoral system to change. In the past there have been campaigns to put pressure on the government for change. Notably the "Pink Slip" project, which sent 9 million messages to Congress on pink paper threatening members with rejection at the polls in November 2010 if they did not act on their campaign promises. The campaign was so successful, it exhausted supplies of pink paper in North America. Republicans gained 63 House seats to take control of the House of Representatives in that election. Scream at the sky day is also a stress reliever for the citizens of America which in itself is a use. Sources: http://metro.co.uk... http://mobile.wnd.com...

Title: Encourages Europe wide thinking Content: At the moment paradoxically European elections are often not about Europe. Much of the time they are about national politics, and since they are almost always mid-term what they are often about is punishing the national government. Governing parties’ almost always loose votes while opposition parties gain, it is notable that governing parties only gain if the election is held in their ‘honeymoon’ period after they are voted into power. More generally European elections are seen as an opportunity to vote for small parties rather than bigger ones – implying it is a chance to follow ones heart over one’s head. Europe however remains a minor element.[1] This change in system is unlikely to mean that national governing parties gain significantly more votes but it will raise the profile of the European dimension in the elections. When people are able to vote for parties that do not contest their national elections they will have no choice but to see it as a European election rather than a national one. Voters will be much more likely to ask how the policies of these foreign parties affect them and some may even consider voting for them. A few particularly enterprising parties are likely to run transnational campaigns in the hope of picking up votes outside their home nation. The vote will simply be more European rather than the same old national parties being the only choice. [1] Hix, Simon, and Marsh, Michael, ‘Punishment or Protest? Understanding European Parliament Elections’, The Journal of Politics, Vol.69, No.2, May 2007, pp.495-510, http://personal.lse.ac.uk/hix/Working_Papers/Marsh-Hix-JOP2007.pdf, pp.501, 503, 507

Title: Rationalises an irrational system Content: The current system for the European Parliament elections is irrational and quirky because it is partially set individually per nation. The vote is not held on the same day in every country – the elections take place from Thursday when the UK and Netherlands votes through to Sunday when most of the EU votes,[1] some countries divide themselves into multiple constituencies – such as the UK which has 12[2] – while others like Germany have one constituency for the whole country. Perhaps oddest of all Austrians are able to vote when they reach 16 years old while everyone else has to wait until they are eighteen.[3] And all this is before the oddities of little countries votes counting for more is included. Rationalisation of this system is clearly necessary and this is what this proposal does. Clearly the main rationalisation is in terms of making the value of votes the same. It would also eliminate differences over constituencies. It is likely that it would eliminate the age difference too; Austria allowing its citizens to vote at 16 would effectively give it more say compared to its population size. The chances are then that other states would follow and reduce their voting age for European Parliament elections to 16. While there is no necessary link to voting on the same day it would also provide a good chance to make the change so the voting occurs at one time. [1] ‘EU elections: Polling day will stay on Thursday, insists government’, BBC News, 13 March 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21764632 [2] ‘Your Members in the European Parliament’, European Parliament Information Office in the United Kingdom, http://www.europarl.org.uk/view/en/your_MEPs.html [3] European Parliament, ‘About Parliament - Members’, europarl.europa.eu, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/0081ddfaa4/MEPs.html, accessed 3 May 2013

Title: Compulsory Voting Content: Compulsory voting is a system in which voters are obligated to vote on election day. If the voter chooses not to vote they may be subject to small punitive measures, much like a speeding ticket. This system is used by 22 countries around the world and has various pros and cons. Voter turnout in the United States is currently at a alarming low rate. The last general election in 2014 has a turnout of 36.4% of eligible voters. In a time where technology is able to connect so many people, 64.6% of the US population wasn't represented in the 2014 general election. I argue that increasing voter turnout in the United States through compulsory voting would increase productivity of the government, and in term benefit many other areas of life.

Title: The electoral college should not be abolished. Content: I will use this round for my rebuttal speech. It is hard to read down the flow of my opponents speach but i will try to pick out each argument and refute them as best as i can. 1. My opponents first point seems to be that the possibility of a recount in the national popular vote would be a huge problem. My rebuttal to this is that if we switched to a national popular vote, the chances of a needing a recount would greatly decrease. According to the NewYorker, If you do the math, extrapolating from the frequency of statewide recounts for offices like governor and senator, you find that the likelihood of a nationwide election that"s anything remotely as close as Florida 2000"not just in absolute numbers (537 votes) or percentagewise (9,492 votes)"is preposterously low. How low? Well, in a national popular-vote election, a disputable result"one close enough to be theoretically reversible via a recount"could be expected to occur at intervals ranging between once every 640 and once every 1,328 years. Also according to the same article, even if a recount did need to happen, It still wouldn't be recounted a national scale, every state can still do a recount within their state in a timely and orderly manner. http://www.newyorker.com... 2. My opponent claims that if we switched to a National Popular vote, the voting age would be lowered. My rebuttal to this doesn't even need to be backed by evidence. For one thing, my opponent hasn't had any evidence saying that this will happen and secondly, my opponent has no proof that if this does happen it would have negative impacts. I am running out of time as i am leaving town and won't have access to internet for a day so this is my argument.

Title: Compulsory voting helps protect voter access. Content: 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.

Title: That the voting age should be lowered to 15 Content: My opponent seemed to believe that this resolution was undebatable. I'm here first of all to prove him wrong, and second of all to show why I've long thought that the voting age restriction should definitely be lowered. Some ground rules. There are four rounds, 72 hours per round, 8000 characters in each round. Debaters should post all their arguments and sources in their rounds, and voters should consider nothing except the arguments and sources presented in the debate (comments not being considered part of the debate). I (obviously) have the burden of proof. The first round is for acceptance. The presumption of the resolution is that the voting age is currently 18 or higher. I'll presume that the debate is set in a reasonably western society without regard for any particular jurisdiction or legal code. Because the cultural, educational and social background of youth may be relevant to the debate, I think it is fair that all cultures are considered, given that most reasonably western societies are quite multicultural. The vote we're talking about specifically is any general vote to determine legislative and/or executive office, as the case may be in that jurisdiction, in a national election format (so local body elections could be excluded etc).

Title: Columbus Day Should Not be Celebrated. Content: My opponent seems to be sold on the idea that Columbus should be honored for his "discovery", simply because If it weren't for him, "the very creation of modern nations" wouldn't have occurred. Unfortunately this notion is ridiculous and I will tell you why. . To believe in my opponents claim you have to. . 1. Be completely sold with the thought that Columbus and Columbus only was the one individual who desired to travel to the unknown territories of the globe. . 2. No one in the future would have had the capacity to pull of Columbus's task. . 3. Think that industrialization of nations is accepted by everyone to be an awesome thing. If the exploration aspect of Columbus's legacy is the big concern for you, than why don't we have a national holiday for NASA to commend there achievements in space exploration? At least they didn't commit genocide. . --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My responses to con's 3 main topics (1) Columbus's "Discovery" First of the "discovery" was an accident. Columbus had an entire crew behind him, (which he treated horribly) which right off the bat kind of makes it a bit dumb in the first place to give props only to Columbus. Most importantly the discovery is irrelevant. The main concern with which I have with Columbus Day and why I feel it should not be celebrated is purely for who Columbus was, what he ACTUALLY did, what his real intentions were. Which, sorry were frankly evil, imperialistic, and above all SHOULD NOT be honored with a national holiday. Con parades with the notion that the holiday clearly doesn't celebrate the deaths of native Americans. . To which I reply: No sh*t. That's not the point. The point is the holiday commends Christopher Columbus, who is historically DOCUMENTED as a complete sadist who did nothing but exploit and enslave. So no con, I do not have to prove malicious intent in celebrating Columbus Day, all I have to prove is why Christopher Columbus should not be honored with a national holiday. Con states: "Even if a hundred genocides occurred". . Obviously my opponent could careless about who is honored nationally as long as they "discovered" something ( By accident) , it doesn't matter how many people or civilizations were wiped out in the process. .. (2) Genocide As much as my opponent may think he's have been "proving" he has really just been running away from my argument. I NEVER said that the intent of Columbus Day was to "celebrate genocide". NOT ONCE IN THE ENTIRE DEBATE! NOT ONCE! Con pulled that argument out of thin air. What I did say was. . "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. " Keep in mind that I have restated, and gave further elaboration to my very first argument in both rounds two and three. Con on the other hand has absolutely ignored his first two contentions and merely ran away with his third. (3) Malicious Intent I have repeated myself quite enough and I think by now con may get the picture now and stop pulling that argument out of thin air. As for his argument. . Again, if you sincerely believe that Columbus and Columbus alone is THE individual who is single handedly is entitled to be given thanks for the modernization of nations in the America's I'm afraid you're dead wrong. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *THE BOTTOM LINE* "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. " - Con (Face palm) . http://www.youtube.com... Disproven. Don't like RT? Think they're full of it? Ok, how about another source. . . http://www.youtube.com... Disproven again. Don't like the Biography Channel? Think they're full of it? Alright than, how about another source. . . http://www.youtube.com... So I'll ignore cons dead wrong perception of Christopher Columbus and grant him the naive proposition being that Columbus was a great explorer who should be credited with the discovery. Why would the U. S. , have national holiday for an explorer who notoriously is known for enslaving indigenous natives and engaging in genocide. Not only that, but above all never set foot in what would now be considered the United States OR even the continent of North America. .

Title: Should the electoral college be abolished in favor of a national vote Content: As the Beatles once said, "Let it be"Mother Mary comes to me. " And because I want Mother Mary to come to me, we should let it be and negate the resolved: should the electoral college be abolished in favor of a national vote. We offer one sole observation: PRO cannot win merely by showing flaws of electoral vote; rather, they must also display solvency. Contention one: The Electoral College increases deliberative democracy. Nicholas Miller of the University of Maryland describes the Electoral College as "a subject terrific for political analysis"it is truly a gift that keeps on giving. " He furthers that "the Electoral College is a boon for political science research and teaching. " This resulting political discourse, according to David Johnson of the University of Minnesota, has a number of results, including "clarifying citizens" understanding of the issue, helping citizens reach their best reasoned judgment, increasing citizen participation in the political process, and socializing the next generation into the procedures and attitudes they need to be active citizens. " Because the Electoral College uniquely creates this political discourse that provides all of the above benefits, it achieves political awareness and participation that would not be brought about by direct popular vote. Contention two: The Electoral College protects against fraud. Sub-point A: Majority fraud. According to Richard Darlington of Cornell University, "Majority fraud is when a majority within a state makes its majority look bigger than it really is, as when they stretch their candidate's vote from 60% to 70%"In an electoral college system, majority fraud conveys no advantage at all"Thus under an electoral college system the easiest type of fraud is totally useless. " In short, under the Electoral College, no matter how big the margin of victory is, the winning candidate will win the same number of electoral votes. However, the Heritage Foundation"s Tara Ross explains "direct popular vote would increase the incentive for fraud" because "any stolen vote would have at least some effect. " The impact is that the Electoral College safeguards against this fraud while direct popular vote does not. Sub-point B: Minority fraud. Darlington continues on to state that "minority fraud is when the minority manages to fraudulently gather enough additional votes to make itself look like a majority. " He explains that when this happens in an electoral college, the effects of minority fraud are restricted to the state in which it happened alone. On the other hand, minority fraud in a popular election would involve the entire nation. The impact we bring you is that direct popular vote is much more conducive to fraud than the Electoral College; thus, the Electoral College should be preferred. Sub-point C: Recounts CON Case November 2011 Beachwood LY Temple University"s Professor Jan Ting explains that under direct vote "if the popular vote should be close"legal battles over counting votes could erupt in"all states where any ballots could be contested. " Abraham Taylor of the Center for Accuracy in Media explains that the benefit of the electoral college is it "isolates the problem and deals with it on a micro level. Without the present system the problem would [be] magnified dramatically as nationwide recounts would have been required. " Jan Ting explains that the impact is that only the electoral college prevents dangerous delays in election results. Contention three: The Electoral College prevents polarization. Sub-point A: Big cities. The implementation of direct popular vote would mean a focus on large cities. Darshan Goux of the University of California Berkeley explains that with popular vote, "resources, principally time and money, would remain limited "" in fact, even more so given the vastly expanded field of play. " Andy Brehm of the Minneapolis Star Tribune furthers, "If attaining the most votes nationally were all that mattered, nominees would turn a deaf ear to the rural electorate"Major cities would be the sole battlegrounds in presidential elections. " Direct popular vote would mean that candidates focus disproportionately on big cities, ignoring rural areas. This makes popular vote an intrinsically unjust system. Sub-point B: Swing states. John R. Wright of OSU conducted an empirical study demonstrating that certain states are swing states because they "closely approximate national trends. " In other words, swing states reflect the beliefs of the entire nation. This is supported by the Cook Partisan Voting Index, or CPVI, a political tool that measures how politically polarized states are. The CPVI finds that swing states such as Ohio or Florida are in the political center. Thus, by campaigning in swing states, candidates are appealing to the political center of America. The impact is that this is clearly preferable to having big cities decide the election.

Title: I know what day of the week you will vote. Content: 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!

Title: The United States should adopt Instant Runoff Voting. Content: The US should switch their voting system from First Past the Post to the Alternative Vote, or Instant Runoff Voting. This would help people to elect who they really want, not who they think has the best chance. Let me give you an example. Here's what happens under our current system: Say you go to vote on Election Day. You REALLY like the Libertarian candidate and agree with them completely. But you know that only the Republican and Democratic candidates have a chance at winning. So instead of throwing away your vote, you vote for the Republican candidate. Here's with the new system: Say you go to vote on Election Day. You REALLY like the Libertarian candidate and agree with them completely. So you rank him #1 on your ballot. Now out of all the other candidates, your second favorite is the Constitutionalist candidate. So you rank him #2. After that, you'd rather have the Republican candidate than the Democrat, so you rank the Republican #3. Finally, you don't really like any of the others, so you turn in your ballot like such. This would open the door to third-party candidates that don't get their fair say. It IS within our reach. Countries that already use it either for their Congress or leader: Australia Canada Fiji India Ireland New Zealand Papua New Guinea Even some places in the USA already use it, like Berkeley, California Basalt, Colorado And many others. So here's how they count it: They take all of the #1 ranked candidates and get the results. Then, the candidate who has the least amount of votes is taken out, and then they count all of the #2 votes from the people who ranked him #1 and adjust accordingly. They do this until someone reaches over 50% or their are only 2 candidates left. We can change America for the better, we just have to have the willpower.

Title: (In America) Your vote affects nothing. Our elections, local and national, are for show. Content: For this debate, I would like for the first rounds to be introductory; I will post the basics of my argument, and my opponent should follow with the basics of their rebuttal(s). In the second round, I will go further in depth with my reasoning, and address the issues my opponent raised in his introduction. My opponent should then follow suit, giving their reasons why I am wrong, including reasons why our votes do affect our nation. In the third round, I will address my opponents rebuttals and reasoning and present my closing remarks, after which my opponent should do the same. Use of sources in the second and third rounds is encouraged. The basis of my argument is this: In both local and national elections, we are given a choice of candidates to vote between. (I understand there are rare exceptions to the following statements.) Most candidates are from well off families, and have been groomed from a young age to think and act a certain way. Rare is the politician who understands what it means to be an average citizen. These candidates use party affiliations and advertising campaigns to try to appeal to as many people as possible for the purpose of winning the election. Once in office, their decisions and actions are almost always motivated by greed, and/or a desire to remain in good standing not with the people they are meant to be responsible for, but instead with corporate and political affiliates. The vast majority of laws passed on any level over the past century have had been to increase profits for the government or big business, usually at the expense of the taxpayer, and are almost always passed without any type of consultating the citizens who are affected by these laws. Money is constantly wasted without any influence from the taxpaying citizens whatsoever. Party affiliation is actually irrelevant, because both of the dominant parties, democrats and republicans, answer to the same elite group of the uber-wealthy. Or more simply, it is like this: We are told to pick one; this rotten banana, or that rotten banana, and furthermore the bananas are disguised as delecious, ripe plantains. Both bananas are going to taste horrible, but by the time people realize it, they have already taken a bite.

Title: The Electoral College Should be Abolished Content: Thank you for the arguments Con.For my R3 case I will rebut my opponent's arguments from R2. I hope that he will be able to respond to my R2 arguments as well as counter-rebut my R3 ones.RebuttalsRe: Representation and FocusState-by-state representation will not be needed in a national popular vote because each vote would be individual and would have no accordance with the state that citizen lives in. It is unfair to give a voter more value in an election simply because they happen to live in a state with smaller borders. If that state's borders were expanded for some reason, or the voter moved to a larger state, then the vote's value would drop. Small states would be over-represented. This is much less fair for people living in big states - their votes don't count as much toward the result as small states do. A national popular vote would eliminate thisproblem and ensure that every vote is equal the next. States need not be relevant in a national election.Regional concerns would be more prevalent in large states versus small states, since there is more space in larger states for problems to arise. The fact that Rhode Island has one regional concern would be of much more proportion to California with its five thousand regional concerns.There is no reason to abolish the Senate because the Senate serves the purpose of representing the states several times a month on many different issues, not like the EC which is only used every four years for one issue only: the next president of the U.S. The Senate can address each state's issues without needing to ask the state which candidate the majority of its citizens support.Re: ModerationWith the EC, candidates tend to only campaign in the states that matter: swing states. It would be pointless for a Republican candidate to campaign in a solid blue state and vice versa. With or without the EC, there is no reason for a candidate to visit a small town because there are few people living in that town that would affect the election outcome. Since rural areas already trend red, campaigning there is pointless.Candidates will moderate their policies regardless of whether there are swing states or not. It may be true that swing states will be appealing to candidates, but if there is no EC at all then the candidates will want to moderate their policies to appeal to all of America, not just a few states. Even if that was not the case, it doesn't matter a whole lot whether a policy is moderated or not. America will vote on what it wants, and that will make America happier because a popular vote is a direct representation of democracy in comparison to a flawed EC.Re: Clear WinnerTo dissect this argument, we must first find out why it is being contended that a clear winner in an election would be better than a close one. Two factors have been brought up: recounting and votes and a number of fraud attempts at a result of it.RecountingMy opponent has attempted to paint recounting in a bad light. However, recounting in a direct popular vote would not be all that bad. We must first consider that the new president isn't inaugurated until late January[1], leaving plenty of time from election day in early November to the day the president-elect takes office. 2½ months is enough time to recount a nation's votes, seeing as how the votes on Election Day are all counted in one sitting. Also, the only time the nation would recount every person's vote would possibly be if the election was as close as the 1960 Nixon-Kennedy one. Even if there was a difference of a million votes between the candidates (such as the 2012 one), the election still wouldn't be close enough to trigger a national recount. Only in rare settings where the votes are really close would a recount be considered. To add, a recount would be much less likely in a national popular vote because there would be a single large national pool of votes instead of 51 separate pools.FraudSince fraud was brought up, it'd be proper for this subject to be addressed by the other side. It was claimed that a long recount time would risk further fraud opportunities. But because it is a baseless assertion to say "a recount would take months and months", there is no point in taking this argument seriously. We know that in each election, the votes are counted in one day, so fraud opportunities would not be higher. In fact, they would be lower because recounts would be less frequent as I pointed out earlier. Fraud attempts would actually be more frequent with the EC because the people committing fraud would know that if they did it enough, it might tip the vote balance of that state causing the entire state to go for the other candidate. In a popular vote, this wouldn't happen because each vote is individual and would have no effect on the state that vote was casted in. Fraud attempts would only give a candidate a few extra votes and there would be no risk of an entire state switching its votes because of it.Re: ConfusionIt is another baseless assertion that the two-party system would collapse because of a loss of the EC. If no candidate received 270 electoral votes in the EC, one from the three candidates with the most votes would be chosen by the Senate anyways. In a national popular vote, the candidate with the most votes would be elected as chosen by the people. Also, since few people vote for the party they know is going to lose, there would be no reason for the people to begin voting for third party candidates more often without the EC.Your turn, Con!Sources1. http://en.wikipedia.org...2. http://www.archives.gov...

Title: European Parliament elections should involve only one voting district: all of Europe and not separate country seats Content: Would undermine national sovereignty

Title: (In America) Your vote affects nothing. Our elections, local and national, are for show. Content: I've done more than "play on your grammar." In fact, I haven't touched your grammar. Elections not only decide which rotten bananas end up in office, they also decide whether-- again, primaries are part of elections. And primaries render anything, including unrotted bananas, a possibility. Majorities may stop this, but that is not "elections being a show." It is elections being as-advertised. Incidentally, there is more than one variety of rotten banana, and these DO matter. One variety of rotten banana will raise taxes and give health subsidies to the elderly. Another will raise them higher and give health subsidies to everyone. These are different policies with different effects. Different degrees of rotten banana. The only thing that caused a switch from the former rotten banana to the latter rotten banana is an election.

Title: The United States should replace the Electoral College with direct elections Content: Rebuttals14th AmendmentMy opponent essentially says that the 14th amendment condemns the electoral college. However, this is incorrect. The 14th amendment promotes, instead, that each individual has the RIGHT to vote. [1] The United States' system does allow this. Splitting it up into the electoral college simply alleviates the effect of uninformed votes. Every vote still counts and goes towards the candidate selected.GerrymanderingMy opponent voices that this is a concern, however, it is not. I mentioned regionalism in my case, essentially the effect of gerrymandering. Instead of a national vote, which does not show candidates where they need to campaign, the electoral college give candidates each a fair opportunity to explain their campaign and what they intend to do in office to the states that are relatively divided. The Federal Election Commission explains, "Proponents further argue that the Electoral College contributes to the political stability of the nation... A direct popular election of the president would likely have the opposite effect. For in a direct popular election, there would be every incentive for a multitude of minor parties to form in an attempt to prevent whatever popular majority might be necessary to elect a president. The surviving candidates would thus be drawn to the regionalist or extremist views represented by these parties in hopes of winning the run-off election." [2] Gerrymandering would not be detrimental with an electoral college, because regional campaigning is necessary to perhaps sway the votes of voters towards a particular candidate.RecountMy opponent claims recounts are not relevant, and are a thing of the past. This is false. "In fact, by making “every vote count” NPV would incentivize voter fraud in every city and state. Political machines would swing into action and squeeze every possible vote out of each district in hopes of swinging a national election. Further, a competitive election would produce a replay of Florida 2000, but on a national scale. Recounts would take place across the United States, along with endless litigation and doubts about the legitimacy of the eventual winner." [3] This is further backed by the Huffington Post: "Under its (NPV) [direct election] plan, the next time the U.S. has very close national vote, a recount would not be of six million votes in one state but of more than 130 million votes in all states and the District of Columbia, all with their own rules for conducting a recount.The horror of a potential national recount is only one of the dangers direct presidential elections poses. Among the others: • By its very size and scope, a national direct election will lead to nothing more than a national media campaign, which would propel the parties' media consultants to inflict upon the entire nation what has been heretofore limited to the so-called battleground states: an ever-escalating, distorted arms race of tit-for-tat unanswerable attack advertising polluting the airwaves, denigrating every candidate and eroding citizen faith in their leaders and the political process as a whole. • Because a direct election would be, by definition, national and resource allocation would be overwhelmingly dominated by paid television advertising, there would be little impetus for grass-roots activity. That, in turn, would likely diminish voter turnout. • Similarly, because a national campaign mandates a national message, there would also be a smaller incentive for coalition-building or taking into account the characteristics, needs and desires of citizens in differing states and regions. • NPV supporters claim, accurately, that a direct election for president would reduce or eliminate the possibility that a fringe candidate (like a Ralph Nader or Ron Paul) winning five percent or less of the vote in a single state could serve to defeat a major party candidate from the same side of the political spectrum. But the much greater danger to American democracy is that direct elections may make it possible for a president to be elected by no more than 30 percent of the vote, regardless of his or her suitability for office, so long as there is sufficient money and a clever media advisor behind the effort." [4]My opponent has dropped all of my other arguments. Extend those. Vote Con! Sources:[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu...[2] http://www.fec.gov...[3] http://www.thepelicanpost.org...[4] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Title: It would help distinguish between levels of elections Content: Distinguishing between the different levels of elections is not a good thing. It would show that the European Union is different from national government so demonstrating how far away from the voter it is. Moreover European elections need to be held at the same time as, and therefore associated with, national elections if anyone is to actually vote in them.

Title: The People Ought to Have the Ability to Recall Elections Content: 1. Yes i did point out that the president gets elected every four years, representatives every 2, and senators every 6. This was not to agree with pros resolution but to show that you can change elections very often. We are lucky to live in a country where we can change our government peacefully. If politicians are bad it is the responsibility of the american people to vote them out on election day. If citizens were given the power to recall elections politicians would be to afraid to do anything because they could get kicked out of office. a total of 675,000 signatures on white-house succeed petitions. This was all in response to Obama being elected a second term. If he ever did anything that the republican party didnt like he would be in constant danger of being kicked out. So, instead Obama, and all other politicians, will learn not to do anything to keep their jobs. 2. Pro says we are not kicking the politician out for every stand he takes, but who is we. Well we in this sentence is the American people and pro can not speak for all of America. Again I point to the petitions to succeed because it shows that Americans want to leave because of an election. if they had the power to recall them it would become a mess. Republicans would recall democratic elections, and democrats would recall republican elections. 3. Yes politicians should be afraid of the people, but politicians will do anything to keep their jobs, including nothing. They wont want to make anyone mad and loose their job. This would make the American political system very ineffective 4. Actually Texas separation would be constitutional because they were a sovereign state before they entered the union. Also these petitions are very important to this debate because it shows that some americans will act just because a certain party is elected. that is not fair to that official. 5. Also not all impeachments are not done along party lines. Richard Nixon resigned before a vote was held and he was going to be impeached by both parties. And Clinton actually was impeached by the house, but was not voted out of office by the senate. You say that him not getting voted out of office was a conflict of interest. 1, a majority of Americans supported Bill Clinton 2. He was not impeached because the charge, perjury, was not relevant to his position as president. All of the points pro says i made in his favor are wrong.

Title: Voting at a lower age would increase participation Content: Earlier voting is not a solution to the low turnout problem, the electoral commission in the UK concluded .here is evidence to suggest that extending the franchise will actually create lower turnout and projections about if it would get higher cannot be sufficiently determined[1] At the moment 18-25 year olds are the least likely to cast a vote at election time. Youth membership of political parties is falling. Lowering the voting age still further is therefore likely to reduce turnout even more. Most people don’t vote because they think the election system is unfair, their vote does not count, or because they don’t trust any of the political parties on offer - lowering the voting age won’t solve these problems. Instead with a generation that is increasingly online, to take the UK 21 million households (80%) had internet access in 2012[2], and there are over 6.4 million iPhone users,[3] the answer is therefore to engage them digitally not through trying some magic bullet at the ballot box. [1] The Electoral Commission, ‘Voting age should stay at 18 says the Electoral Commission’, 19 April 2004 [2] Office for national statistics, ‘Statistical bulletin: Internet Access – Households and Individuals, 2012’, 24 August 2012 [3] NMA Staff, ‘UK iPhone users to reach 6.4m this year’, New media age, 6 August 2010

Title: should September 2 be a holiday Content: Rebuttals1:'Yes I see your point but some countries try to hid some of the things. Germany does not really have grwces for those who fought for Germany during ww2.'What are 'grwces?' Until my opponent spells that in at least an understandable matter, I'm afraid I cannot rebut that. 2: 'Everyone should remember this day so we can learn from are mistakes.'Following that logic, we should make a holiday for every single war, which would be insane, because in the past 3 400 years, humans have been involved in 268 wars [1]. It would be an insane amount of time and work to honor people who served on 268 days of the year, so that's why we invented Remembrance/Veteran's Day, so we could honor all of those who served in one day, including those who served in World War II. 3: 'And another thing is this was the most destructive war in human history.'While that may be true, all the other wars combined were much worse than World War II. Again, that is why we have Remembrance/Veteran's Day. Of course, that may not be true either. One article explains why the Vietnam War is the worst war, mostly because of a chemical called 'Agent Orange,' that was used during the war, which caused a variety of illnesses including cancer and Parkinson's disease, and was also able to pass down in families to infect affect children [2]. The war itself was also awful as well. Read the entire article, it is truly an eye-opener. 4: 'The civilians that lost their lives and the troops deserve this day.'Yeah, and so do all the other soldiers and civilians who lost their lives in all the other wars deserve a day. It would be unfair to give one group a day and the other nothing, so we give both a day--Remembrance/Veteran's Day.5: 'If we dont then most country's will forget there past. Look at Greece. Guess what there third biggest political party is. A Nazi party. Greece jist might end up like Germany if people dont do something'PRO, what is your point? I'm sure Greece's Nazi party remembers their past, it is just that there are horrible people out there, because how could they not remember what happened with the real Nazi's? In fact, they once praised members of Nazi Germany before [3], so of course they remember their past and what happened. Again, I don't know what happened to Germany because of your spelling error earlier.6: 'The war lasted 6 years about.'Yeah, and the Afghanistan War lasted 11 years [4]. Both wars were tragic. It would be unfair to give one group a day of honor and the other group nothing, so we give both groups an honor day--Remembrance/Veteran's Day. 7: 'Most of the world participated the war'Yeah, and most countries participated in World War I as well [5]. Both wars were tragic. It would be unfair to give one group a day of honor and the other group nothing, so we give both groups an honor day--Remembrance/Veteran's Day. 8: 'This war freed the people from nazi and Japanese'Yes, and the civil war freed slaves. Both wars were tragic (due to all the casualties, not the freeing). It would be unfair to give one group a day of honor and the other group nothing, so we give both groups an honor day--Remembrance/Veteran's Day. 9: 'So but another point is.millions of germans and jews and every country lost alot of good men'Yeah, and World War I ended a lot of good men's lives [6]. Both wars were tragic. It would be unfair to give one group a day of honor and the other group nothing, so we give both groups an honor day--Remembrance/Veteran's Day. ConclusionMy point from all of those rebuttals PRO, is that all wars are tragic. You cannot single out the people who lost their lives in one war and neglect all those who lost their lives in all the other wars. It is cruel and unfair. That is why we fairly honor all those who lost their lives on one day and one day only--Remembrance/Veteran's Day. We cannot fairly give a holiday to honor those who were involved in one war and neglect other wars. Citations[1]-http://www.nytimes.com...[2]-https://tristanhbriggs.wordpress.com...[3]-http://en.wikipedia.org...[4]-http://en.wikipedia.org...[5]-http://en.wikipedia.org...[6]-http://en.wikipedia.org...Back to PRO.

Title: States’ rights Content: Respecting the interests of the majority in making a decision about a candidate to represent them in a national election is not the worst idea in the world. Equally, the state parties would need to be involved as they play a central role in the general election and it is in the interest of candidates to work with them from the start. As things stand at the moment many of the larger states are actually disenfranchised by the same process that allows state parties to portray their role in the primary as valuable and significant. There can be no approach to the current primary election “narrative” that allows the individual states to exert a proportionately fair amount of influence over the other states’ choice of nominee. Candidates with deep pockets – either their own or somebody else’s - can survive early setbacks. but it means that many candidates who do not win support in the first few states can be ruled out by the end of January. By the time Nebraska comes to make their decision in the middle of May, the issue may long since have been decided.

Title: More spending in elections undermines public confidence Content: "A Bad Day for Democracy". The Christian Science Monitor. January 22, 2010: "this potential spending will create even greater fear of political reprisal for unpopular votes, expand conflicts of interest, and further undermine the public’s confidence in government’s ability to act in the public interest."

Title: The USA Should Have A One Day Primary and Election Instead Of A Whole Campaign Content: 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!

Title: Australia Day Content: Australia has been celebrated as a national holiday for 228 years! Why would you want to ruin 228 years of traditional celebration? It marks the day that the first fleet arrived on port jackson and discovered our land. If this event never occurred then Australia might not have been shaped into the country that we are today. Who knows I mean if that event didn't occur we might not have even been living and breathing on this land and the day that starting the shaping of Australia should not be changed over other people's opinions.

Title: The current system is undemocratic as it gives undue influence to the early states Content: The primaries are simply the device by which parties select their candidates. They are part of the internal affairs of America’s independent political organisations and do not require the legitimacy of the election itself. Moving everything to one day could end up exacerbating the problems of inclusiveness and democratic deficit identified by side proposition, as the campaigns and messages of smaller candidates would be drowned out by larger, wealthier rivals and those with pre-existing contacts in the news media. Further, under the system that the resolution would bring about, donors are more likely to provide funding to ‘safe’ candidates. However, with a protracted campaign it is possible for a surprise result to emerge, as has happened on several occasions – for example when incumbents have failed to win key states. Relatively unknown candidates can take advantage of the extended duration of the current primary system to build a public profile and to court the attention of the media. This allows “outsiders” and individuals with a significant political reputation, but no public profile, to establish themselves within popular discourse and to begin building a relationship with swing voters. Staggered primaries also minimize the power of the central parties. A national primary would turn campaigns into entirely national events, run by the national party conventions, marginalising the role of the states and focussing on the large cities, rather than the diffuse populations of rural states.

Title: Primaries encourage organisation and activity at a local level Content: Ultimately the primary campaigns, at least for the main parties, are national campaigns. As a result of more frequent and more intensive media coverage- even during early primaries- candidates have to speak to national issues. Furthermore, Super Tuesday is basically a national primary already, it just happens to exclude some of the states. The early primaries simply work to filter out candidates attempting to use the presidential election to promote a single, poorly developed set of maverick views in front of a much larger audience than they would otherwise have access to. Only in the event of very close races are the later states left with any meaningful decisions. It would be far more useful to admit that reality and simply hold all national primaries in early February. Contests would still be organised by the state parties (in conjunction with the state authorities where required) and states would still record their vote separately.