Foundation Briefs Advanced Level Sept/Oct 2013 Brief
Download 0.95 Mb. View original pdf
|
| Sept/Oct 2013 Topic Analysis One foundationbriefs.com Page 16 of 104 The limits and uses of specifics and hypotheticals. Arguing any resolution involves a good degree of understanding—what are the implications and examples of its components For instance, this resolution has two main components democracy and compulsory voting. The issue of what a democracy truly is—and essentially, what a sovereign government is—constitutes a question for which each individual will have a different answer and justification. Compulsory voting, however, is a more concrete idea. The requirement to vote is the basic tenet of any such policy, but sanctions (the penalties coded into law, not the actual enforcement) range from nonexistent to fines or jail time, depending on the country. Likewise, enforcement can range from nonexistent to strict. Even further, compulsion may sometimes only cover having to show up to a polling place (and not necessarily having to cast a ballot. Fora thorough rundown, Costas Panagopoulos’ The Calculus of Voting in Compulsory Voting Systems has a rundown of compulsory voting systems in democracies across the world on its fourth page. When crafting a line of argumentation from amoral standpoint, policy specifics don’t command much attention. But they are something to keep in mind. If you have a good line of reasoning worked out, taking a look at different compulsory voting systems is a good way of checking your argument—are there instances of compulsory voting systems that you can’t account for Along those same lines, be wary of having an internationally limited approach. It can be easy to assume a US- centric paradigm—treating all democracies with the assumption of historically steady voting rates regressing down to around 50% and a two-party system. Many states, including those without compulsory voting systems, do not have that same historical trend or current situation. At the end of the day, handling this resolution will be a fundamentally similar approach to working with any other topic keep it simple and understand your arguments. With a more straightforward (semantically, at least) topic and a clearly-defined set of stock arguments that people are already familiar with, debates on this topic will likely comedown to who can present clear and nuanced arguments. |