Total votes: 4
RFD in comments: https://www.debateart.com/debates/2765/comment-links/35312
While Con's arguments were more targeted, Pro would have had a very compelling case had he actually waived. Not only did Pro fail to waive, but his remarks in the rounds could be construed as bread crumbed arguments. Con necessarily wins. Con's sources were also more constructive to the debate and topic at hand.
Pro's Arguments:
- Less than 50% of people vote so it is not true representative democracy
- Compulsory laws will increase voter turnout
- Candidates are appealing to most likely voters, not the majorities' best interest
- Sometimes best governing practices require doing things you might resent, i.e. paying taxes
- True objectors may conscientiously abstain to protect their first amendment rights
Con's Arguments:
- Elections are costly
- Forcing people to vote creates resentment
- Non voting =/= disinterest
- Some people have good reason for not voting (anxiety, jobs)
- People will vote for candidates for flimsy or poor reasons (anger, fear)
Pro says "As we move to more advanced electric machines, blank or empty votes will be easier to count, refuting most of Con's arguments." That is not true. This at best addresses only one of Con's arguments which has to do with cost. In response, Con says "I find that nothing Pro said rebuked what I said and that I have successfully poked all holes in Pro's case that are open." This is also not true. He did not respond to Pro's arguments at all.
Neither one of these debaters came close to addressing the other's arguments. In the end, we're forced to compare the weight of each debater's claims. While Con says elections are costly and foster resentment, Pro negated that preemptively by pointing out Congress often does things citizens might resent or find costly (i.e. paying taxes). Further Pro did at least respond to one of Con's points (cost) whereas all of Pro's were left open.
Con had slightly better lyrics (creativity, disses, rhyme scheme) and flow.