In a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote

And Here is my rebuttal and conclusion. I will refute my opponents points and then defend my own. CV: My opponent calls the core value of justice non-topical and contends the goal of democracy is to maintain democracy not create justice. However, the reason for democracy once again is justice. Saying that Democracy=Democracy is a circular argument. Why is a Government a democracy? Because they seek to create justice, saying the goal of democracy is democracy is once again a Logical Fallacy in which the premise is only true if the conclusion is and vise-versa. VC: Now as I can read it, the first attack on my criterion states "the very point of the social contract is to limit individual rights and ensure that certain rights are protected in order to maintain societal stability." This is exactly the point I am trying to make, in order to preserve the society we must limit some rights. My opponent also contends that " If there is no social contract present the individuals within the society fall into a "war of all against all" in which all rights are taken." So as is agreed without a social contract society will fail. Felons have violated and voided the social contract between them and to allow them to vote would move against the social contract. Moving against and changing the terms of the contract for a select group would then destroy it and would cause this "state of war" so therefore we must not allow felons to vote. Second social contract does indeed support the concept of rights, this is infact of the reasons for its implementation, if we lose a social contract we lose all rights. Therefore we must preserve the Social Contract and allow these felons to be disenfranchised. So my Criterion must be seen as superior because in order to have individual rights we must have a Social contract. So in this debate we must evaluate of of the social contract. 1st: I am not quite sure of the defense of subpoint A as it appears to have been cut off. So I will merely restate my original attacks. "A) You must keep in mind that these felons have knowingly violated the social contract and have in essence removed themselves from society. They have then shown a blatant disregard for the state and should not participate in deciding the laws for the law-abiding. This bring me back to my Contention 1 Subpoint A, If you allow the law makers to become the law breakers then you are creating an unequal stage and are devaluing the vote of the law-abiding citizens." B) The idea proposed by my attack was that a punishment cannot be evaluated off of its rehabilitative effects because no punishment is seen to have rehabilitative effects. So if we were to evaluate everything off of its rehabilitative effects we would stop any form of criminal justice which, undoubtedly would destroy society. So it must be assumed that rehabilitation is not relevant 2nd: The idea of a devaluing a vote was mis interpreted by my opponent which may have been my fault. What I am contending is that by allowing felons to vote we are putting allowing them to be the law-makers and the law-breakers. It would be establishing a double standard in which the Law-abiding populace is put below the felons because felons have violated the social contract and can STILL vote while non-felons did not take advantage of society and have the same right to vote. This if you look at it is not just and not equal. The fact that felons cannot get the same jobs is wholly there fault. By committing a felony they removed themselves from society. Also there are cases of people who have been able to do things such as join the police and the military without voting rights(here is an example-http://www.nytimes.com...) Besides if you look to my first contention I say felons are equal to not citizens and non-citizens have to pay taxes... Allowing non-citizens to vote would also inevitably destroy society. Moving on to defend my case CV: now first you remember I say that justice is created when a society preserves its social contract and in doing so preserves society. Also this term was defined as giving each his due and felons must be given thier due. Also I fully understand justice is the core of my case. Justice is what everything hopes to achieve, including the justice system and democracy. VC(and 1c subpoint A): Now in his attacks my opponent agrees that felons have violated the social contract. And As I say in my 1st contention A) the Social contract does allow for disenfranchisement and B) allowing them to vote would be unjust because it elevates them. Also the idea of just punishment as proposed by the Affirmative can be discarded. The Prison system itself does not rehabilitate felons thus the recidivism. So disenfranchisement cannot be judged based on its rehabilitative value but rather on whether is is warranted by the social contract which I have proven it is. 1c B) in this my opponent brings up the concept of equal treatment and how felons are to be denied it so we should not disenfranchise them. First felons choose to commit a felony and second, the right to vote can be put into the idea of equal treatment. Also the point about gun's. Now I will directly link this to felons who have committed voter fraud, just as one who has committed Murder should not own a gun or a pedophile can't serve as a teacher why should one convicted of voter fraud be able to vote? the answer is they shouldn't. SO because felons move against society and essentially say they don't think the rules apply to them why should they be granted the right to vote and make laws for others?? this seems pretty unequal and directly supports my original point. 2nd contention. The Affirmative contends that if the majority says something it is so. well first of all the felons do not represent a national majority, and second in a case where they do represent a majority why should they be able to decide the lives of the law abiding and essentially override their vote in this propose Majority rule system in which the felons dictate the Policy of the others? Conclusion and Voters I have proven the Social contract to be superior because in order to have individual rights, my opponents criterion we must have the social contract. I have also proven justice to be the most applicable because it is the goal of every society to create justice. Also my criterion best upholds democracy because without a Social contract there will be no democracy just anarchy. Voters: My Contention 1 ---This contention proves the social contract indeed allows for disenfranchisement and so proves the Negative case. The idea about Voter fraud/voting As my opponent stated felons should not own guns because they violated the right to have them, So felons convicted of voter fraud should not voe because they, above ALL other felons abused that privilege Now if you look at the resolution it says that "In a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote" This implies ALL felons and those convicted of voter fraud are felons, they have violated the right to vote and therefore must have that right removed. Therefore Negation is in order. I ask that all my points be considered not just these singled out those are just some specific points I would like looked at. Because Social contract is the best criterion and it fulfills both core values and because felon disenfranchisement is warranted under the social contract I can see no other ballot besides one in favor of negation.