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...id#49944255)

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

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

it's not even an unreasonable position to hold

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

https://x.com/mrGlennLawrence

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

This is why I have all your monikers blocked on my home pc

You are just a dishonest Jewish faggot who is unable to engage in even basic good faith conversation about anything, even some random topic you have zero interest or stake in

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5874970&forum_id=2...id#49944511)

It's a good idea to add my moniker to your list. Don't pause for even a moment to reflect whether you're just a dumb retard with the mental flexibility of a cantaloupe

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5874970&forum_id=2...id#49944594)

Just stick to letting us know when the next round of LLM slop goes up on the Substack, champ👍

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5874970&forum_id=2...id#49944630)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5874970&forum_id=2...id#49944639)

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...id#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...id#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...id#49944468)

To be clear, what I'm saying is that if you believe that the only counter to the actual prompt for karlstack other than "we'd have a more militarized government" is "but what about fairness," you lack imagination and should stay away from debating

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5874970&forum_id=2...id#49944489)

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...id#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...id#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...id#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...id#49944367)

Retired

United States Air Force

2003 - 2018 · 15 yrs

Security Forces

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5874970&forum_id=2...id#49944539)

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...id#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...id#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...id#49944381)

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

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

If I was debating you I'd point out how you've missed the point to embarass you, and then I'd argue that it would be a good thing to get more whites into the military, and encourging civic service is obviously a huge component of the policy.

You're gonna do great.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5874970&forum_id=2...id#49944527)

I don't think your opponent or almost anyone is thinking about other angles, like the severe socioeconomic distortions that driving more people into the military would have.

Think about it: who pays for the military? Largely the non-military taxpayer. The military at its current size, and without the prestige of being the sole voters, commands $1.5 trillion in funding right now. Pushing more people into the military will cause that to go up substantially to pay for more troops, more equipment, etc. and that's assuming there aren't even more wars as a result. As the sole voters, politicians will curry favor by showering them with more wealth, benefits, etc. to win votes, further exacerbating the economic imbalance

Who pays for that? The I-don't-even-get-a-vote taxpayer. That means their benefits will have to be cut substantially, or their taxes will have to go up substantially, and likely a combination of both. What does that do for social cohesion? What does that do for economic fairness? How is creating a large underclass of workers whose wealth is extracted without a say the right thing to do after fighting a war to end slavery?

Note as well that it's also fundamentally anti-American. I'd hit him with a quip about that in the free form debate portion ("No taxation without representation" is the very idea that birthed our great nation, and yet here you are, arguing for exactly the opposite. I don't think you know better than our founders. It all sounds fundamentally un-American to me")

I'm not saying to run through all of this (definitely don't). I'm just trying to show how there are some other angles that he might be completely unprepared for

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5874970&forum_id=2...id#49944635)

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...id#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...id#49944476)

the farmer thing works except we dont have them anymore, but it conceptually works. that should be your only point and then you should refuse to speak again because you are only going to fuck it up and the more you talk the more they are going to realise you are autistic and canadian

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5874970&forum_id=2...id#49944512)

Just one.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5874970&forum_id=2...id#49944514)

If I was in your shoes, I would adopt a Value of Human Florishing with a Criterion of Protecting Political Agency. The overhead argument would be we want people to be living full lives and the way that is accomplished is by allowing people to have agency over their lives. You then say whichever side gives people more agency should win the round.

Then you hit them with two contentions:

C1: Severed political agency for the governed destroys human flourishing

C2: A military-only electorate maximizes militarism and lets the government manufacture its own voters which corrodes flourishing at scale

Then you just impact them to death

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5874970&forum_id=2...id#49944548)

it's unstructured because I just started brainstorming and I am going to structure it and flesh it out over the next 48 hours

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5874970&forum_id=2...id#49944559)

You should just be repeating self-affirmations before the round: "I will not be MOGGED. I will not be MOGGED."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5874970&forum_id=2...id#49944576)

Jesus Christ would disagree with him tp

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5874970&forum_id=2...id#49944582)

What you have right now is retarded emotional tripe without any real reasoning. It boils down to "everyone who pays taxes and is generally a good person has as much right to vote as anyone else."

— you haven't proposed any specific definitions for the terms in there, which a smart opponent will challenge

— you're going to struggle a lot if someone smart says "being a good person does not make someone a good voter" and lays out a case in depth

— I suspect you're not well prepared to argue about metrics for skin in the game, time preference, or commitment to the country

1. Win conditions are everything. You need to explicitly lay out a criteria for the arbiter to decide the winner. This should be reasonable, it should be highly defensible...and of course it should be something you meet better than your opponent.

2. You need a LOT more depth. If I can accurately sum up your position in two sentences, you need more arguments. You'd benefit a lot from analysis of:

— purposes of voting

— good reasons for barriers to voting

— why this is the wrong one

— lots of impacts

3. None of this is impacted at all. "I couldn't look that farmer in the eye" dies fast to "because you lack the will to enforce good governance, but I don't! Here are five reasons that it's better for the country to do this, regardless of my opponent's excess emotion..." Instead you need to give us tangible reasons to care rather than the vaginal secretions you've outlined above.

If you want to actually get good at this, you need to look at:

— team policy debate theory (ignoring the kritikal affs that have been in vogue since the 90s; look up actual policy theory)

— Lincoln Douglas value debate case structure

— American parliamentary debate format and prep, and different case structures

Last bit of free help: this is a policy resolution with a very narrow scope so you should structure this mostly as a parli case, you should have a clear framework that will function as a win condition, you should have at least one contention that relies on American founders and their writing so you can preempt "muh patriotism," you should explore several alternative barriers or requirements for suffrage to test against your opponent's case, and you should extrapolate all arguments to real world consequences (which you link back to your framework).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5874970&forum_id=2...id#49944697)

1. No one cares about definitions and if karlstack spergs out and argues about definitions, he will be laughed at and will lose.

2. While I agree that being a good person doesn't mean one will be a good voter, there is a lot of overlap between the two. Indeed, avoiding the topic altogether is tcr.

3. On the contrary, I believe Karlstack is well-equipped to make the argument about skin in the game. I think I could make a better argument, though, based on my experiences. I never served (and truly regret not having been a PJ), but at the same time, I think civil service counts just as much (if not more!) than military service. At least civil servants are serving their own communities and their own people.

4. I completely agree with you on setting the metrics for winning straight.

5. No one at this debate will even know the difference between lincoln-douglas, public forum, and policy debates.

6. Don't use ChatGPT for XO.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5874970&forum_id=2...id#49944720)

2. Wrong! He needs to give "good person" a lot more flesh and bones. "Community involvement over a long period of time, demonstrated ability to think long-term, and service to others all combine to indicate that someone is likely to be a good voter: they care about their country and the people around them, and are less likely to be impulsive or make rash decisions." He needs to make the same argument with a lot more depth, and then impact it. But that's only one contention. It's far from enough.

3. You're missing my point here: it's not that his side isn't conducive to making that argument, it's that he needs to intentionally and specifically prep that out a lot, because it's the crux of his opponent's case. He needs to link turn basically everything, and walk through a response tree so he's over prepared on this.

5. Obviously — but being good at any of them will have you dominating here if you can speak well, and understanding policy arg theory and LD/parli case structure will give him a huge advantage in how he orders his presentation.

6. I am phone—poasting and love my long-press full em—dashes — — — and I wish I could more easily do them on my computer — — — —

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5874970&forum_id=2...id#49944770)

1. I'm hesitant to give him the benefit of the doubt when it comes to not sounding spergy here. It's tough to accomplish in the way you described, but if there's anyone who can do it, it's our boy Karl "Kike" Stack.

2. I think this is the point you and I disagree the most on: To what extent are grunts allowed to demonstrate their ability to "think long-term"? Isn't the whole idea that they're *not* supposed to think? They just follow orders, regardless of the order.

3. Fair enough.

5. Fair enough.

6. See my above apology.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5874970&forum_id=2...id#49944776)

2. ...which is why this is an argument where he can turn everything Aff says.

— start by outlining what makes a good voter. Rely on historical analysis, from Athens to the founders. Federalists 10, 55, 57, as well as Adams and Jefferson letters to each other and to others would be great here.

— then apply those traits to the military and naturally show ways in which the military exhibits some, but not all. "Some soldiers have these things, some don't. Some civilians have these traits, some don't. Service is an imprecise barrier, and excludes out many that Madison, Jefferson, and Hamilton all wanted to help shape our government. We need soldiers to vote, but we also need entrepreneurs, doctors, preachers, and firefighters."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5874970&forum_id=2...id#49944800)

Most of this will go over his head. He's just looking for "the best arguments."

Nor will he do the deeper preparation you are suggesting. But good post nonetheless.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5874970&forum_id=2...id#49944741)

Karlstack, take notes.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5874970&forum_id=2...id#49944825)

Debates should be about performance, not choosing a topic most people already agree with. That's why every serious format have them argue the contra position as well. What a fucking shitshow lmao.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5874970&forum_id=2...id#49944498)

or spend the whole debte constructing elaborate reductios ad absurdum for entertainment value

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5874970&forum_id=2...id#49944505)