So I did this type of debate in high school. Lincoln–Douglas debate (commonly abbreviated as LD Debate, or simply LD) is sometimes also called values debate because it traditionally places a heavy emphasis on logic, ethical values, and philosophy. That being said. After having a discussion about the importance of voting with some friends, I came up with this topic.

Resolved: When in conflict, participating in a broken political system ought to take precedence over political apathy

Using logic, ethical values, and philosophy, do you see this resolution as true or false (affirmative or negative) I am curious to see what others have to think on this. The reason I am suggesting this format to engage this discussion is to hopefully have an intelligent and enlightened discussion about this topic, vs the typical trolling that goes on.

for ppl not familiar with this style of debate, some links for reference

http://en.wikipedia.org/...ln%E2%80%93Douglas_debate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_Premise

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_Criterion

Affirmative woop.

Though, participation can (or should?) be so much more than voting.
One can abstain from voting but still write letters to politicians to bring something to their attention. That probably won't get you very far but it's something.
You can also organize protests, likely more effective. Workers can unite in labor unions and go on strikes if they disagree with how government policies are affecting them.
Or you could practise civil disobedience and maybe get a lot of media attention for your cause.
Etc etc

Bottom line is that people need to be active if they want to keep their rights.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
/some dude

Great quote ^ :)

Not voting is a vote for the status quo.