Inequalities make civil war inevinequalities makes the attempts to restore economies futile and will only lead to

more inequalitiesthis triggers violence and rebellion when people revoltthats Hume 9/14

Compulsory voting solves economic inequalitiespoor people are currently not voting under voluntary voting
compulsory voting causes poorer people to votethis causes more redistribution policies and key representation
thats Carey and Park


1. Voting is not a right, but rather a responsibility that requires enforcementno autonomy violation.
Korsgaard and Tomasi 13(Christine Korsgaard, the Arthur Kingsley Porter Professor of Philosophy, Harvard and
Adam Tomasi, interviewer, Sacred Heart High School sophomore. Facebook conversation. August 20th and 21st, 2013)
Adam Tomasi 11:19 PM
Hi Professor Korsgaard! Would Kant be in favor of compulsory voting?
Thank you, Adam
Christine M. Korsgaard 11:54 PM
I dont know but theres no reason why not. All political offices have duties attached to them, and
being a citizen is a political office.
Adam Tomasi 11:55 PM
If you have time, I was wondering if you could clarify how citizenship is a political office! This is very interesting.
Christine M. Korsgaard 12:33 AM
Political offices determine who makes which decisions on behalf of the state. Congress decides
on the laws, the president decides on the cabinet, and on what to do in emergencies, and citizens decide
who will occupy those higher positions. Being a citizen means you have responsibility for
that. You should always vote, whether you have to or not, but there is no problem about
making people live up to that responsibility.
Adam Tomasi 12:35 AM
Last question -- even though compulsion might initially seem to treat them as a means, it really
does not since citizens agree to their office?
Christine M. Korsgaard 1:32 AM
Yes
Adam Tomasi 10:10 AM
Sounds good! Thank you so much.

2. TurnThere is no action-omission distinction because every inaction is an actionthis means I can weigh
consequencesthe civil war and violence caused by inequalities outweighs the minor inconvenience of voting on
autonomy.

3. The war indicated in the AC outweighsI control the internal link into all autonomous decisions because in
wartime they are all limited.
McCullagh 01(Declan McCullagh, is an American journalist and columnist for CBSNews.com. He specializes in computer
security and privacy issuesm, Why Liberty Suffers in Wartime, July 24, 2001
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2001/09/47051?currentPage=all)
It means, "In time of war the laws are silent," and it encapsulates the supremacy of
security over liberty that typically accompanies national emergencies.
Consider this: During all of America's major wars -- the Civil War, World War I and World War
II -- the government restricted Americans' civil liberties in the name of quelling dissent,
silencing criticism of political decisions and preserving national security.

4. Turnrespect for freedom demands the maximum amount of people vote.
Rosen 93(Allen Rosen, Kants theory of Justice. Cornell University press. 1993.)
Kants property qualification is without question a product of patterns of thought that now seem quaint at best,
dangerously backward at worst. While it would be pointless to bludgeon Kant for failing to shake off the prejudices of
his own age, there are more appropriate grounds for criticizing his property qualification, most notably hat it violates
the spirit of his own conception of justice. In the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant argues that a just constitution must
permit the greatest possible human freedom in accordance with laws which ensure that the freedom of each can co-
exist with the freedom of all the others. As I noted before, Kant defines humanity as power to set ends (that is, the
power of free choice). Human freedom must therefore be understood as freedom of choice. It
seems plain, also , that the amount of freedom of choice increases in direct proportion to the
number of people who are allowed to exercise freedom of choice. Because voting gives a
way of exercising freedom of choice, and because a just constitution requires the greatest
possible freedom of choice, a just constitution must surely extend the electoral franchise to
the greatest possible number. By Kants own standards, therefore, only compelling reasons can justify
excluding anyone for the franchise, for every restriction on electoral freedom diminishes the sum total of human
freedom. To arrive at a convincing justification of Kants property qualification, it would be necessary to show that
extending the franchise to economically dependent classes would make it impossible for the freedom of each subject to
co-exist with the freedom of all others. Kant offers no such argument; nor is it likely that a plausible one could ever be
found. Even within Kants own theory of justice, therefore, his property qualification lacks support or justification.

Interpretation: The negative must provide and uncoditionally defend a counteradvocacy to the affirmative with a
solvency advocate substantiated by a credible author.

Violation: he/she doesnt. They defend the status quo.

Standards

ReciprocityIt is easier to prove an action shouldn't be taken and they could win off defensethis creates
easier burden for the neg. Futhermore, I must prove the aff is good and the status quo is badthey only have to prove
the aff sucksgives them a 1 to 2 advantageReciprocity is key to fairness because it allows equal acess to the ballot.
Groundcounteradvocices force the neg to defend a specific advocacy rather than countless status quo
policies. Its key to my ability to engage the neg. Ground is key to fairness because it is the only way to insure debaters
have an equal playing field
Clashcounteradvocacies enhance clash because they force debaters to compare advocacies and engage in
rigorous comparison rather than only addressing the aff. Clash is key to education because we are able to garner the
only unique benefit of debate through argumentation.

Voters
Educationeducation is the only reason debate is sponsored by schools.
Fairnessfairness needed to regulate competition and adjudicate the ballotthe debate is now irrevocable
skewed because of the violationadjudication on the basis of substance is impossiblevote on theory.

And, reject the debaterto deter abuse in the futurereject the argument is not sufficient because they can still gain
time advantage from me having to run theory.

And, No RVIstwo reasons.
1. Chilling EffectRVIs deter debaters from running theory on abusive practices causes rampant abuse
outweighs friv theory because we can still have some legit practices.
2. RVIs force the debate to stay on theorythis kills education because we cant have debates about the
resolution.

Default to competing interpretationsreasonability allows for judge interventionI dont know what you think is
reasonableuse my standards to determine what is reasonableany other metric is arbitrary.