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 24 of 163 www.victorybriefs.com compulsory voting is consistent with an ideal democracy then they may have shown that it is inconsistent with democracies as they exist in the world because democracies as they exist are contrary to those principles. This would require you to win the framework argument discussed in Democracy, Morality, or Both Democracy Bad Strategies For the negative if the affirmative says that compulsory voting is the greatest thing ever for democracy and you argue that democracy is immoral, you have straight turned the entire AC. There are several different forms this could take depending on the AC framework. If the aff is utilitarian, you could make the argument that democracies as they exist now are surely going to destroy the world with their immorality and so if compulsory voting will make them stronger, it will also bring us closer to our doom. Or, if the affirmative is arguing that compulsory voting is consistent with democratic ideals, you could say that those ideals are immoral (from a variety of different perspectives. It could be strategic to run this as your neg casein a number of circumstances. For example, many affirmatives will just sort of assume that democracy is vaguely good without justifying it. These cases may nonetheless depend on the unjustified assumption of democracy’s moral goodness. A negatives strategy that turned the case at that point would be a very powerful strategy. For the affirmative If you wanted to throw your opponent off, you could just run a case that started by justifying that democracy is morally bad and then run a contention saying that compulsory voting is antidemocratic. This would then force your opponent to run their affirmative arguments for compulsory voting good against you. A more strategic approach might be this have an AC that says we only care about what is consistent with democratic principles, not what is moral. Then when the negative runs arguments about why compulsory voting is morally bad because it violates autonomy, the AR can read arguments about how democracy is itself morally bad and so its violation of autonomy is consistent with the identity of democracy (see Derrida in particular for this argument. This strategy does not require the aff to sever out of the AC because this AR strategy would not be inconsistent with the aff. NC: A Democratic Paradox There is an argument that debaters have been making for years on the negative that goes like this the best system of government is democracy. Democracy only does stuff that is the will of |