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 25 of 163 www.victorybriefs.com the people. The aff can’t show that the resolution is the will of the people, so you negate. This would be run on ay government-type topic. This argument becomes very interesting in the context of the current resolution. Most affirmatives will probably argue that democracy is good, so they won’t be able to challenge you there. Affirmatives will also probably say that voting and getting the consensus of the people is particularly important fora democracy, so they won’t be able to challenge that part of the case. But if that’s true, how can the implementation of a system of compulsory voting ever be legitimate Surely, in order for an action of a democracy to be legitimate the people must consent to and vote for it. But if the affirmative is making arguments like we can’t get an accurate idea of the will of the people without a system of compulsory voting then how can we ever know that the will of the people supports compulsory voting We would have to first implement a system of compulsory voting, then force everyone to vote about whether they think everyone should be forced to vote. This has two implications. First, the system of compulsory voting would always be implemented without verifying the will of the people. This is inconsistent with democratic ideals. Second, saying that people will vote to keep compulsory voting or not doesn’t check that back. Forcing people to vote that they don’t want to be forced to vote means that you have already violated the will of the people. A smart negative debater will write notes in their case like pause reading now and apply this specifically to the aff case You should have a generic reason why the will of the people must be verified for every government action, but you should also prevent the affirmative from arguing against you by showing that this is the implication of their own case, either explicitly or implicitly. I think the most strategic N using this case would be to have a very short case, leaving yourself plenty of time to do other things in the N, like make a really awesome on-case spread against the AC and/or to read some off-cases. AC: Parts Combined I have already given a number of affirmative case positions and ideas throughout the essay by suggesting different places to start from (i.e. a certain framework argument or a specific plan. That should give you a starting point for many aff cases by thinking about how to combine the different pieces indifferent ways. I’ll just give you one idea of such a combination Ill write this using case-language, but this does not have warrants First, start with the framework argument that we only care about whether voting inconsistent with the identity of a democracy because the resolution doesn’t care about the general moral question |