StarDestroyer.Net BBS

If you are faced with a motion such as this: 'This house believe that parents should have proxy votes for their child', how are you even able to set up a proper case and defend such a motion as the government?

The only case I can think of, is there is a need for people running for office to have a larger focus on children issues or encouraging birth rate.

However, that seems to be a very very weak argument in my opinion...

Its damn hard to win the debate as the government in this scenario....

That's stupid - democracy is based on those with franchise being informed and understanding the issues before placing their votes. Children are not given franchise because they fail to meet those criteria - same reason we don't let them drink, by firearms, drive, serve juror duty, serve in the armed forces, etc. Giving proxy votes to get around those problems does nothing of the sort. It simply awards a greater voice to those with children, which goes against the basic tenant of "one man, one vote" because now you are awarding votes based off the number of kids you squirt out.

Beyond that, there are the logistics issues to that - proving paternity, dividing the votes among the parents, etc. Mom and Dad disagree, they have 3 kids, who gets 2 extra votes and who gets 1? And what about divorced families? Or adoptions? Children from previous relationships? Absentee parents? Cuckolds?

It is damn hard to win the debate as the government in this scenario because the governments position is stupid.

Ender wrote:That's stupid - democracy is based on those with franchise being informed and understanding the issues before placing their votes. Children are not given franchise because they fail to meet those criteria - same reason we don't let them drink, by firearms, drive, serve juror duty, serve in the armed forces, etc. Giving proxy votes to get around those problems does nothing of the sort. It simply awards a greater voice to those with children, which goes against the basic tenant of "one man, one vote" because now you are awarding votes based off the number of kids you squirt out.

Beyond that, there are the logistics issues to that - proving paternity, dividing the votes among the parents, etc. Mom and Dad disagree, they have 3 kids, who gets 2 extra votes and who gets 1? And what about divorced families? Or adoptions? Children from previous relationships? Absentee parents? Cuckolds?

It is damn hard to win the debate as the government in this scenario because the governments position is stupid.

Exactly...however, people loves to see how a hard debate goes...and frankly speaking, it is so easy to oppose...

And this motion has been used in a finals by the way...you can't call the person who set this motion stupid because this mean you would have lost the debate, and you are basically conceding...



EDIT ADD: Is it possible for me to use this stance that we need to foster a more democratic society, and when parents is encouraged to share their political opinions with their child, the society in general will take a even more active role in poliitcs, especially teenagers.

So no one else is going to help me just because the motion may seems stupid?

I mean come on, in debates tournament, how often do you manage to defend your personal viewpoint anyway?

I was wondering if you guys think that the argument that a parent already have the right to take care of a child...and what happens in this context, is only extending that right?

It is the exact same reasoning why parents are given responsibility over their child in the first place.

Destructionator XIII wrote:Why is "one man, one vote" a good thing? Shouldn't those with a greater stake in the future of society, those with children, have more say in helping to shape that future?

Those with a really numerous family are, given the current economical paradigm, also more likely to be irresponsible, deeply irrational and/or ignorant; not the best decision-makers. Also, they would tend to be older and so less personally interested in long-term issues; having children is very different from actually caring about their future or being able to understand how to protect their prospects.

Ender wrote:That's stupid - democracy is based on those with franchise being informed and understanding the issues before placing their votes. Children are not given franchise because they fail to meet those criteria

To play devil's advocate for a moment, I don't believe it is actually stated anywhere in the law that voters must be "informed and understanding the issues" in order to be given the right to vote. In fact, I believe there are legal precedents indicating that any attempt to establish any voting test for mental ability or political awareness (or even literacy) is illegal.

Destructionator XIII wrote:Why is "one man, one vote" a good thing?

Because it is a direct following from the premise of equality under the law. So that would be the premise you would be arguing against.

Shouldn't those with a greater stake in the future of society, those with children, have more say in helping to shape that future?

If you want to go that route, then why shouldn't those who have greater control of the resources, the rich people, have more say then the rest of us? It is the resources they control that will be used to create the future we want. Certainly that train of thought makes as much sense as the idea that those who outbreed the others get to make all the choices.

Darth Wong wrote:To play devil's advocate for a moment, I don't believe it is actually stated anywhere in the law that voters must be "informed and understanding the issues" in order to be given the right to vote. In fact, I believe there are legal precedents indicating that any attempt to establish any voting test for mental ability or political awareness (or even literacy) is illegal.

I don't believe the premise is enshrined in law, no. However in situations where such a scenario is not present, it tends to rapidly descend into situations where a powerful handful control everything with distinct authoritarian overtones, if not a totalitarian state. Democracies that do not practice this tend to not remain democracies very long.

Ender wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:To play devil's advocate for a moment, I don't believe it is actually stated anywhere in the law that voters must be "informed and understanding the issues" in order to be given the right to vote. In fact, I believe there are legal precedents indicating that any attempt to establish any voting test for mental ability or political awareness (or even literacy) is illegal.

I don't believe the premise is enshrined in law, no. However in situations where such a scenario is not present, it tends to rapidly descend into situations where a powerful handful control everything with distinct authoritarian overtones, if not a totalitarian state. Democracies that do not practice this tend to not remain democracies very long.

One could argue that this is happening in the United States right now, thanks to ignorant voters. Nevertheless, you can't appeal to a legal requirement which does not exist, in order to explain why this proposal should be denied.

Darth Wong wrote:One could argue that this is happening in the United States right now, thanks to ignorant voters.

Yes, though I think we are still in a decline, rather than the bottom yet.

Nevertheless, you can't appeal to a legal requirement which does not exist, in order to explain why this proposal should be denied.

I wasn't, I was speaking to what you need in place for democracy to function. Perhaps I should have been more clear, but as the system "self corrects" in that manner it is effectively a requirement whether it is written or not.