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

Here's what we agree upon so far: -Empirical Evidence is flawed and can't be looked at -My definitions, but they cannot be used to make arguments on the offensive, just defending against abuse -Burdens are set up on either side to make the debate fair. It's a part of frameworking and is 100% acceptable in-round -We are debating in LD format, which both of us know, since we have been debating in High School tournaments all year The order is AC, NC. AC The negative makes reminders from issues on the Negative Case. I will address these in the NC. You reject his two attacks against my Value: 1) "His definition is clearly abusive...I would automatically lose if you accept his definition" I thought I clarified this before. Although my value does seem to have flaws in this aspect, I simply provide the UN Dec. of Rights as an example. Human Rights is defined by a world veiw as the general rights every human being deserves to live even the most basic form of life. Life, Liberty and Property are common examples. 2) "...children and non-citizens with potentially harmful intentions to vote." Okay, the only examples presented here are people who aren't citizens. Citizens are the only ones who vote in a society and I clearly expand on this in my first contention! Non-citizens are obviously not citizens and children aren't legally considered citizens until they reach a certain age defined by the society. Now even further: 1) No matter how abusive my standards may be, you still use them in the round because they are the ONLY ones in-round. My criterion could be "Affirming the Resolution", but you would still have to accept it because it is the only one proposed so far (as the rules of LD dictate). If you don't believe me, look at the top of my speech where I show that we both agreed to do LD format, and this is exactly as the rules dictate. 2) My value can be broadened by my opponent if he wishes, the standards are supposed to be achievable by both sides, as long as he doesn't take them out of context or perimeters. You reject the attacks on the Criterion: 1) True, total equality is impossible to be acheived, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to aproach it, which is exactly what this criterion does. 2) Just because not everyone is going to vote (since we are NOT going to force them to vote) doesn't mean that voting isn't equal. Miranda rights are given to all criminals, but they may be waived at will. That doesn't mean that those rights are unfair. 3) I address this in contention 2, prison works, at least to a point. Nonetheless, not being able to excersice your right to vote can be a punishment on either side as it doesn't require negation. We don't have to realease criminals from prisons in order to vote, but even if we did it wouldn't be permanent, they would head right back in after casting their ballot, or better yet the ballots would most likely be brought to them. Even after this you can cross-apply my argument that shows how you have to accept these standards because they are the only ones available. Go to Contention 1. He claims that we can still gather input from citizens by negating. He COMPLETELY sidesteps my impact and the actual claim in this contention, which is that felons are still citizens and they deserve the right to vote because: A) the society is democratic and therefore should accept ALL citizens' opinions B) a felon still has an opinion in society and would still feel the effects of law after elections he had no say in (much like taxation without representation) C) he, being a contributing member of society, still has opinions in society and therefore his opinon is as relevant as a non-felon's Even if you didn't buy that, you reject this attack against the C.1 because felons' voting is NOT uniquely biased. Letting a felon vote on a law relating to prison is acceptable, just like having a small buisness owner vote on a law that directly makes it easier (or harder for that matter) to own a buisness. All citizens are going to vote in their best interest (see contention three) and a felon is not exempt from this. And even then, it is unlikely for a law that reduces prison time for felons (or anything that would benifit a felon) to even come to a votable standpoint. And EVEN THEN, if it was there on election day, it is unlikely for all the members of society to pass it because most members of society are NOT felons! Go to Contention 2. His first attack claims: "Adding an additional "punishment" by restricting the right to vote is completely democratic, as long as it was decided by a vote." Okay, so: 1) The resolution isn't something that we should have citizens vote on, it is here for us to debate about. (Like bills in congress are voted on by representatives because having everyone vote on every bill is tedious.) 2) Even then, the status quo is that felons don't have the right to vote. This relates to the argument(s) I made above: "a felon still has an opinion in society and would still feel the effects of law after elections he had no say in (much like taxation without representation)" So if people voted on weather or not felons should vote, and lets say they vote negative, they are recieving non-democratic law abuse. Taxation without representation, so to speak. His second attack claims that it is an equal punishment and therefore impacts to the criterion. This is false because: 1) It is because the punishment is universal (aka equal) that it is not equal. Putting a murderer to death for his crime is (arguably but nonetheless) fair, but doing the same to a teenager who stole a loaf of bread is neither fair nor EQUAL. You can't make any person convicted of any crime have the same major punishment. Go to Contention 3. He attemps to turn the C.3 by stating that all felons will "always do whatever benefits them the most. This means that if they can relax criminal law in order make it easier to get away with certain crimes, they will certainly do it. This will simply lead to an increase in crime." This turn is false for 2 reasons: 1) I address this explicitly (go to contention 1 defence) 2) He misses the actual claim in the contention three. I'm just saying that weather you affirm or negate, "bad voters" are going to be present. Therefore affirming makes more good voters, even if it's just one. (or two or three or a million) NC Let's look again at what we've agreed upon: "Burdens are frameworking to make the debate fair" Do not listen to the words that he puts in my mouth, I do NOT agree to his burdens since, as I stated before, if I accepted them I would clearly loose the debate since, as HE SAID, the burdens are to prove that you cannot Affirm! ARGUMENTS are the things you are supposed to make to show that you can or can't affirm or negate! I am out of space. I implore you to read my speeches and see that he has not addressed my attacks. Read my comment. Thank you.