I think that this is a great public forum topic: it relates to a current event that will educate students on some of the nuanc
Download 2 Mb. View original pdf
|
Lesson 4.2 Day 3
| 13NFL1-Compulsory Voting Page 10 of 163 www.victorybriefs.com more practical deployment, some negatives may want to reach fora broader definition of voting to try to stress infeasibility of implementation for the resolution. Other than expanding aff solvency burdens, voting doesn’t seem to offer too many strategic uses that dwell inside the realm of being reasonable. “Ought” As mentioned above, ought is inextricably linked with an actor. Defining the actor intended by a democracy will be key to understanding what normative thought should be derived from ought. Affirmative strategies will probably want to deploy definitions of democracy that are centered around the state or a government, so as to use ought to conjure state-centric values like justice or equality. Negative strategies will probably want to leverage definitions of democracy centered around the individual, so as to create a more personalized, morality type ought which meshes better with negative ground. However, the negative can easily operate within a state-based ought as well. Both sides of the resolution should probably be prepared for interpretations of ought as logical consequence or expected outcome. These interpretations maybe used to descriptively affirm/negate or access some sort of consistency with democratic will cases that utilize polls as contention level arguments. “To be compulsory A touch of research goes along way for this portion of the resolution. While it maybe the understandable) instinct of negative debaters to make compulsory as coercive as possible, there is little to no empirical evidence of vote or die style systems currently in place. Strong affirmatives should use this phrase not as something to avoid or sidestep, but rather as an anchor to reel in negatives that get a bit too overzealous. A convincing strategy in cross-examination that immediately appears is to ask after the NC if any overstated coercion methods from the NC are currently in place. In all probability, the truth will be no. That being said, the negative is not up a creek without a paddle. Rather, I simply caution negative debaters to not let their cases get sucked up by the appeal of such a provocative phrase. The lack of empirics about harsh compulsory voting methods should not be a handicap but rather a reminder for negative debaters to engage with the topic at the level I think it was designed for —answering the question should the theory behind why citizens have a government grant the government the ability to force me to vote |