Post-retributive felonial disenfranchisement in the United States should be abolished.

I accept his explanation of natural rights as the philosophical/moral basis for this debate, this was exactly what I wanted to have clarified. Furthermore, my opponent also clarifies his point about the difference in his natural rights scale between incarceration and withdrawing voting ability. Now, let us go over my opponent's "studies". My opponent quotes two studies. However, it appears that my opponent is mistaken. I have experience evaluating clinical trials in biostatistics, but even a layperson can see that the Chin 2007 citation is not a study in any way, shape, or form. Rather, it is an opinion paper. In fact, it is an opinion paper on the first study by Uggen and Manza. The conclusion is unprofessional and based on the fact that "many Americans disagree". Hardly worthy of being called a study. As for the Uggen and Manza study, it might take a more conditioned eye. The study has no statistical integrity whatsoever and displays all the traits I see in drug companies releasing falsified reports to promote their drugs. First, the chart on page 6 of the study is intentionally misleading, trying to show a spike in felon voting, when the increase is merely ONE PERCENT IN TWENTY FIVE YEARS, an amount that could be attributed simply to better census-taking measures or human error. Later on, in the actual study, the researchers admitted to a sample set of <2500 on page 8 and extended that sample to almost a size of 5 MILLION on page 17! This compounds the error to astronomical rates. Simply put, imagine if you went and knocked on doors. You ask "Hey, is there a felon in your house? " If they say yes, you ask "Well, would they have voted? ". If they say yes, then ask "Well, would they vote democratic or republican? " Take the results for 2,500 of these houses and assume that 5,000,000 felons would respond the same way. My opponent also mentions that felons who voted seemed to have lower recidivism rates. First of all, the study does not actively study recidivism, there is only a note saying that lower recidivism rates are possible. Secondly, correlation is not causation, this is the first rule of statistics. 100% of people who drink water will eventually die, should we ban water? An alternate explanation is simply that only those felons who are actually stable enough not to violate the law again actually care enough to vote. My opponent then breaks down his argument into just two more points: 1. The punishment of "disenfranchisement" does not fit the crime. 2. Disenfranchisement is impractical and unethical While I agree that being forewarned of the penalty is meaningless if the punishment doesn't fit the crime, I must emphasize that my opponent has not illustrated how this disenfranchisement is a form of cruel or unusual punishment. First, there are limits to exercising your democratic right regardless of criminal background. Just like there is a minimum age to drink, and a minimum age to join the army, as well as there is a minimum age to smoke and drive, there is also a minimum age to vote. This minimum is a restriction, a restriction set forth by society to ensure that the democratic process is accurately representative of the country. Limiting the voting abilities of ex-felons (not misdemeanors, mind you, felonies, including but not limited to acts of burglary, rape, murder) helps in this way. Society wishes to control how it is controlled, and limiting outliers and eliminating the opinions of those it deems "harmful" is one way to do this. Just as how laws are passed on sex offenders (No one wants to live next to one, regardless of statistical data). People have just as much natural right to smoke, drink, drive, join the army, as they do the right to vote. To deny society the ability to limit one is to risk a slippery slope for all others. Thus, no, disenfranchisement is neither impractical nor unethical. CONCLUSION: My opponent is the proponent and has the burden to show that we should actively do away with disenfranchisement and that it is a violation of natural rights, impractical, and unethical. So far, my opponent has done nothing of the sort. He has attempted to show that disenfranchisement is some sort of natural right infringement, which is not the case since limitations on the right to vote exist by age, as to similar limitations for many other things such as smoking, driving, joining the army, drinking, even having sex. It is society's method of self defense. This also shows the purpose and moral reason. Then, my opponent brings up two studies, one of which is an opinion paper and the other of which is devoid of statistical integrity. Regretfully, the vast majority of my opponent's arguments rest on that study, such as the correlation between recidivism and democratic participation, and the potential impact of ex-felon votes on the democratic process. These two points can be discarded following the poor testing methods of the researchers. It takes more than one bad, misleading study to derive such fantastic conclusions on my opponent's part. Equivalent to stating that aliens exist because someone's friend's sister's cousin's aunt sally's pet cow saw a spaceship. The data is simply too weak for such a bold assertion, and regretfully, my opponent as the proponent, relies on this in order to be able to fulfill the burden. I thank the audience and my opponent. I look forward to my opponent's conclusion.