In a Democratic Society, Felons Ought to Retain the Right to Vote

My opponent attempts to exclude the US from the resolution for various reasons. He contends the US cannot be a model of this situation because it does not allow all members of their society to vote. My response is that the resolution- "In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote" does not address children or "all members of their society". The resolution addresses felons, and whether or not they should "retain" the right to vote. In order for a felon to "retain the right to vote", he/she must first be eligible for the right to vote barring the fact they are a convicted felon. In other words a 16 year old (a child in the US) felon cannot retain the right to vote because he/she is not of legal voting age and therefore does not have the right to vote in the first place. Though my opponent implies that the affirmative must "prove this in a society", that is not the aim of the resolution. My premise is that in a democracy, felons should retain the right to vote- at least to some degree, and I used the US as an EXAMPLE of a democratic society which allows most felons to retain the right to vote. More examples are the individual 50 states which are also the individual democracies that regulate the right to vote for felons in different degrees. My opponent's contention that prison does not always rehabilitate has already been addressed. He gives the reader the illusion that I stated prison always rehabilitates, but I made no such statement or implication. I made it clear that my argument is for rehabilitated criminals, and that the goal of incarceration is rehabilitation, though it is up to the states (in the US) whether or not prisoners are rehabilitated to the point where they can benefit from the right to vote. My opponent next contends the US is not a democracy, and therefore his contention stands. However, the US is a "democratic society". Though the US is a Federal Republic, it is a democratic society because it is a Federation of Democratic States. The individual states do enjoy direct democracy, and it is the electoral process for the executive of the central government that does not qualify as a direct democracy. A Federal Republic, though not a direct democracy is a representative democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org...). If my opponent wishes to have a separate debate about political processes and what constitutes a democracy we may do so, but his attempt to nullify my arguments based on these objections is simply a clever way of not arguing the facts I presented in R1. My opponent's next response is a revision of his second contention. In response to his new revision, this is not a debate about consistency rather whether or not it "should" be that way. I gave the US as an example of not only why it "should" be that way, but that it "is" that way in the US, and it works. Again, my opponent attempts to turn this into an argument about semantics. I did not write the resolution, but I have made my position clear. Had my opponent really wanted to debate the topic he wouldn't have written the resolution in this manner, nor would he have made it clear in his opening argument that he would leave the door open for an argument on semantics should he not be able to address the facts. I gave 4 different examples of how the semantics can be applied, and how my argument is valid for all of them, though he implies I concentrated on only one. Again, we can have a separate debate on semantics, but the confusion is neither my doing, nor my aim, rather it is that of my opponent. I believe my opponent has failed to successfully answer my R1 arguments, and so it is virtually pointless to present new ones as he will probably just ignore them and attempt to argue the straw man again. Though I know the reader will have common sense, I urge you to re-read my R1 arguments after reading my R2 rebuttals. My opponent presented no new arguments in R2. Thank you.