Tournament: grapevine | Round: 4 | Opponent: i dont remember | Judge: i dont remember
Presume neg. 1. Things are false absent proof, so the aff has the burden to prove the resolution true, lack of offense means you negate. 2. Any statement is more likely false than true because for any subject there are a limited number of correct descriptions but unlimited false ones. 3. No aff skew arguments a. no reason presumption is key as opposed to other compensation, and b. presumption overcompensates and skews the round in the other direction if aff keeps getting handouts.
Merriam Webster dictionary “Ought” is defined as ‘a moral obligation’, thus I value morality, because morality is the only way we can evaluate whether or not an action should or should not be taken. This means that if anything violates the constraints of morality or what we perceive to be moral, we should reject it. Morality finds it basis by viewing individuals as ends of their own. 

Thus, my standard is is Respecting the Inviolability of Persons. Prefer this for 5 reasons:

First-People are entities of their own.  Nozick explains,
(Robert. Anarchy, State. and Utopia. 1974.)
"Side constraints express...must be neutral between its citizens."

Second-Consequentialism is incoherent because it can judge an action to be simultaneously moral and immoral depending on the outcome. Torturing terrorists would be moral if the information stopped future attacks, but immoral if the information were false. Thus, it is impossible to determine the morality of an action until after the action has taken place, defeating the purpose of morality as a guide to action.
Third, if people’s rights are violated to justify a means this is immoral because the original action is immoral, for example, murder or theft. Utilitarian frameworks may advocate for a societal benefit, this might be beneficial or even desirable, but that does not make it moral. This also means that any benefits achieved under a moral framework are not moral.
Fourth, because consequences continue to happen and there’s no end in a consequentialist system, we cannot evaluate the ends because we never know what the ends are, thus we never know if an action is moral or immoral.
Furthermore, deontology provides a clear brightline as to the rightness and a wrongness of an action thus we can actually evaluate it in the debate.

I contend that compulsory voting disrespects the inviolability of persons

Singh
(Singh S. How Compelling is Compulsory Voting? A Multilevel Analysis of Turnout. Political Behavior serial online. March 2011;33(1):95-111. Available from: Academic Search Complete, Ipswich, MA. Accessed August 29, 2013.HHG)
"individuals are coerced to the ballot box through a fear of punishment by the state." \/\/
"individual-level factors...making it expensive to abstain." 

And, Lever (1) furthers
(Annabelle. Associate Professor of Normative Political Theory in the Department of the University of Geneva, Switzerland), “Is Compulsory Voting Justified?” Public Reason, 2009)
"it is important to...this case for compulsion."

Thus, compulsory voting disrespects the inviolability of persons by using force or the threat of force to coerce citizens into action.
And, Schäfer explains how compulsory voting only provides an illusion of change because election outcomes are not likely to change.
(Armin. Research fellow at the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies, Cologne), “Republican Liberty and Compulsory Voting,” Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies, Cologne, November 2011)
"Selb and Lachat (2010)...to the healthy conduct of political business"

Thus, compulsory voting disrespects the inviolability of persons because inclusion is a ruse for continued oppression and control.   
Marlinspike and Hart conclude with the impact,
(Moxie, Windy. “An Anarchist Critique of Democracy.” November 1, 2005. http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/moxie-marlinspike-and-windy-hart-audio-anarchy-radio-an-anarchist-critique-of-democracy.)
"ends up divided...in free cooperation with those around you."