Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote.

Now I would like to address a few things my opponent has said in his final round, then I will tell you why voting AFF. is moral and logical. My opponent says "The resolution implies a society with a government that is a democracy. It does not matter if the democracy is a direct or representative. " On the contrary it matters very much the type of democracy we debate in, for it sets the tone for the debate itself. This is only true because my opponent choose the resolution "In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. " It does not just say "Felons ought to retain the right to vote" it has "In a democratic society". And since my opponent did not provide the democracy we debated in, I did. I choose to debate in a Liberal Democratic Society, where we determine who votes based on the laws set down by our founding fathers in the Constitution. Now knowing this we must see that felons ought to be able to vote in a democratic society. Not only because we, as American citizens all deserve the right to vote, but also because of the relevance of a Liberal Democracy to the US Constitution. "No where in the resolution does it implies the American or any other democratic society. " This statement is completely incorrect, as the resolution states "In a democratic society. .. ". This statement basically contradicts the entire resolution, and therefore his own value of democracy. If we it is not implied in the resolution that we are not voting in a democratic society, why does my opponent use democracy as his value? Now I will list reasons as to why voting AFF. is moral and logical. First off I would like to say that we should not punish these felons anymore for the crimes they committed in there past. Felons have already been put in jail/prison, and now we as a society believe it's moral to take away a basic right of democracy? We give this right to crack addicts and illegal immigrants, but not American citizens who have made mistakes in there past? That is just immoral, we must give these felons a chance to build a better future for themselves, not just shun them from society. How impartial of a society would have to be to actually exclude a group of U. S citizens from the voting process? If we were to exclude felons from voting we may as well not even call America a democracy. A democracy would never objectify a certain group and take away some of there basic rights as American citizens. This would completely immoral, and I hope as a democratic society we see this. Next I would like to state that every person in a democratic society deserves equal rights. The equality of rights is the better of our values because, as I have said this whole debate, it supersedes my opponents. You cannot achieve democracy without the equality of rights. As my opponent defines democracy "Democracy: government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. " it is a government by the people, not a government by some of the people. Felons are people, not just dirty prisoners unworthy of the rights that the American Constitution has given them. We must give all people equal rights because it is the only moral way to achieve democracy. Also strengthening the voting process will not occur when we exclude felons from voting. There is no way my opponents criteria can be achieved by excluding felons from the voting process. My opponent says that "By allowing the most qualified citizens to vote and the proper candidates to run for public office a society strengthens it power of voting. " Who decides which people are the most qualified to vote? No one can say that another person is not "qualified" to vote because (a) voting under the American Constitution is not something you need to qualified for, it is a right we all have and (b) How does this strengthen the voting process? You may choose voters you see as qualified simply because they agree with you. If we were to go with opponents value criteria we would not be strengthening anything, just creating an impartial society where society dictates if your are "qualified" enough to enjoy your rights as an American citizen. And lastly we must uphold the value criteria of individual rights to achieve the most moral and logical solution. I have individual rights, and you have individual rights, but felons do not? By saying that felons should be excluded from the voting process is saying they have less rights then you and I. Is that really moral? Is that really how a democracy should proceed in distributing its rights? The answer to both of these questions is no. By giving everyone individual rights, we are giving everyone equal rights and creating the most moral and most democratic society. Thank you all for reading and again thank you to Danger_Chams for a fun and interesting debate. Vote AFF.