It is the first round of a debate tournament, with the winner advancing.

The format is:

- 5-minute opening for each(10 min total.)

- Open Debate - 15 minutes.

- Moderator Q&A Crossfire (10 minutes)

- Open Debate (15 minutes)

- Closing Statements 5 minutes per combatant. (10 minutes)

My opponent is a military veteran who wants to argue the proposition that “You must have served in the military to vote”. Seems like a slam dunk topic to have the audience vote on my side, as long as I don't fuck it up

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5874970&forum_id=2/#49944255)

it's Word War Debate: https://www.youtube.com/@WordWarDebate

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5874970&forum_id=2/#49944264)

the only example of a society that functioned this way is from Starship Troopers

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5874970&forum_id=2/#49944285)

it's not even an unreasonable position to hold

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5874970&forum_id=2/#49944320)

https://x.com/mrGlennLawrence

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5874970&forum_id=2/#49944340)

the other "arguments" against it are all pretty weak and can all be boiled down to "erm but literally everyone should be able to vote because that's....that's just what heckin democracy is, okay??!" which everyone who watches this debate will know is fake and gay

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5874970&forum_id=2/#49944345)

Or would you like to elaborate on whether the same thought pops into your mind if I say "only people with black hair should be able to vote"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5874970&forum_id=2/#49944358)

The only good argument against that is a fairness of access/democratic principle argument?

I think there are economic distortion arguments, the ability to unfairly punish and mistreat the people funneled into the system that we know the government would use (opportunities to systematically purge/destroy people with certain beliefs by sending them into danger, etc.), and more.

Am I smoking crack, or are you guys just unimaginative?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5874970&forum_id=2/#49944388)

We’re concerned with the specific outcomes. In this case it’s only military members voting vs everyone voting. Which one would lead to a better outcome? Right now it would be only military voting. That’s because military members are better people than the entire population in the aggregate

That doesn’t mean that there couldn’t be specifically undesirable outcomes from specifically only military members voting. Eg militaristic government. That’s the effective argument against it. Even if that outcome wouldn’t be worse than universal suffrage, it’s still the strongest argument in principle

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5874970&forum_id=2/#49944426)

I really just wanted to know if you lacked imagination, and you've confirmed it

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5874970&forum_id=2/#49944469)

Unless people with black hair are for some reason net worse people than the entire population in the aggregate, it wouldn’t lead to worse outcomes

This is the kind of thing that no one ever actually Thinks about because they’re so mind raped by individualism and “democracy” that their brains simply cannot grasp anything outside of the Universal Democracy Cinematic Universe

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5874970&forum_id=2/#49944390)

My goal was really just to see if appeals to fairness or the UDCU are the extent of the arguments you see against this type of arbitrary design. And it seems like you've confirmed that

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5874970&forum_id=2/#49944423)

That’s great that you can think of other setups that would be better than either of these. So can I. It’s irrelevant

The side in favor of universal democracy in this particular debate question is much harder than it seems. There’s really only one effective argument that I already laid out above

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5874970&forum_id=2/#49944468)

What about Korea and Israel that has mandatory military service where you will lose your freedom *and* right to vote kf you don't serve?

There are plenty civilizations that were governed by the military, which means the ability to weild state power is conditioned on military service.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5874970&forum_id=2/#49944456)

**It violates democratic principles.** Legitimate government depends on the consent of the governed. If a group is bound by laws and taxes but denied a say in making them, that's the classic "taxation without representation" problem. Civilians fund the military, the government, and public institutions through taxes—excluding them from voting breaks the basic compact of democracy.

**It excludes huge portions of the population unfairly.** Many people physically cannot serve (disabilities, medical conditions), or are barred for reasons unrelated to civic worth. The elderly, many women historically, conscientious objectors, and essential civilian workers (doctors, teachers, farmers) would all lose their voice despite contributing enormously to society.

**It creates a dangerous concentration of power.** Restricting the vote to the military risks turning a democracy toward a military oligarchy or junta. The military becomes the only group able to choose leaders, which removes civilian checks on military power—the exact opposite of how stable democracies keep armed forces accountable to elected civilians.

**Service isn't the only form of civic contribution.** Nurses, firefighters, volunteers, caregivers, and taxpayers all sustain the nation. Singling out one form of service as the sole gateway to citizenship rights is arbitrary and devalues every other contribution.

**It could distort military recruitment and motives.** People might enlist to gain the vote rather than out of genuine commitment, and the policy could be used to coerce or pressure citizens into service.

**It contradicts equality under the law.** Most modern constitutions and human-rights frameworks treat voting as a universal right of adult citizens, not a privilege earned through a specific job.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5874970&forum_id=2/#49944276)

he is a full-time redpill guy and he initially wanted to debate redpill/manosphere/dating/feminism bullshit but I said no

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5874970&forum_id=2/#49944288)

Please someone have a thread bump the day of. I actually really want to see it, but I know I'll lose track

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5874970&forum_id=2/#49944367)

The winner of this debate tournament gets to debate a mainstream opponent at a stage in Nashville. Shabbos has already publicly challenged me

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5874970&forum_id=2/#49944300)

I have everything set up in OBS, the layout and disclaimer and all that, I just need to get the balls to actually go live.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5874970&forum_id=2/#49944418)

- No skin in the game? No power over the game.

- I think that one must first demonstrate the power and responsibility that comes with voting before giving them the right to vote… You have to demonstrate that you could pass a driving test before operating a vehicle. The principle is the same shouldn’t be no different.

-The principle is that they should have to put some skin in the game like the military in order to vote that says that they are wanting the best for the nation not the best for their individual self

- The most effective way to fix voter fraud is simple: Make voting require skin in the game. f your vote gives you power over the lives, taxes, borders, laws, and wars of other citizens, then you should first prove you’re invested in the nation you’re helping govern. Voting shouldn’t be a casual opinion poll. It should be earned authority.

- Want to vote? Earn it. If you’re willing to let politicians decide war, taxes, spending, and the future of the country, you should have demonstrated you’re willing to sacrifice something for that country first. Military service proves commitment. Voting shouldn’t be a participation trophy. Citizenship comes with rights. Real citizenship should come with responsibilities too.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5874970&forum_id=2/#49944381)

K. I guess I don't need to pay taxes anymore.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5874970&forum_id=2/#49944427)

For that matter, isn't one of the defining characteristics of military service that one must obey a hierarchical command structure? Military service can vary widely, with many troops being nothing more than glorified janitors, yet obedience to authority is something they all have in common

So this proposal would restrict voting to people who have only ever obeyed authority, usually without question. Nothing about their military experience would have prepared them to choose among leaders or to question the wisdom of the people giving orders. This proposal effectively treats the right to vote as a symbolic reward for enlisting, without any practical benefit to society or any conceivable improvement in governance.

Finally, the act of enlisting involves surrendering a number of constitutional protections and agreeing to become bound by 10 USC and the UCMJ. Why give the right to vote to a class of people who have already surrendered their constitutional libraries - liberties the rest of us enjoy? Haven't they already shown that they value those liberties less than we do?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5874970&forum_id=2/#49944396)

PS: You should do some research into Lincoln Douglas Value debate format if you haven't already

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5874970&forum_id=2/#49944417)

My opponent will argue about duty, sacrifice, and honor etc. but I will not focus on these high minded ideals at the start of my opening statement, instead I will begin by walking through the practical realities

Consider some of the Americans who would no longer be permitted to vote:

Heart surgeons. Oncologists. Police officers. Firefighters. Pilots. Mechanics. Engineers. Lawyers. Judges. Truck drivers. Farmers. Hospice workers. Even rocket scientists.

A farmer could work fourteen-hour days, from sunrise to sunset, feeding me, feeding you, and feeding families he will never meet.

I could not look that farmer in the eye and say:

“You feed this country. You pay taxes. You obey its laws. Your land is regulated. Your equipment is taxed. Your livelihood is shaped by trade policy, environmental policy, fuel prices, and inflation—but you have no right to vote for the people making those decisions.”

Likewise a hospice worker can bathe your dying mother, feed her, comfort her, administer her medication, and sit beside her during the final hours of her life... etc.

then after I walk through a few of these practical examples I will pivot to talking about different types sacrifice, democracy, etc.

My opponent is a hardcore protestant so one thing I was wondering if I should bring up is the obvious fact that Jesus Christ would disagree with him... or maybe bringing religion into it is a bad idea

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5874970&forum_id=2/#49944476)