In a democratic society, felons out to retain the right to vote.

To my respected opponent, El Edward, thank you for starting this debate. I hope it will be a good one. >Friedrich von Schiller once said that "votes should be weighed, not counted." I agree with him, and it is because I believe in a social contract with the government that I choose to negate the resolution: >Negated: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. >For clarification of the round, I would like to offer the following definitions (in addition to yours): >Felon: a person who has been convicted of a felony, which is a crime punishable by death or a term in state or federal prison >Felony (elaboration): a crime sufficiently serious to be punishable by death or a term in state or federal prison, as distinguished from a misdemeanor which is only punishable by confinement to county or local jail and/or a fine >Murderer: One guilty of murder; a person who, in possession of his reason, unlawfully kills a human being with premeditated malice. >Social Contract: Implied agreements by which people form nations and maintain a social order. Such social contract implies that the people give up some rights to a government and other authority in order to receive or jointly preserve social order >I would also like to offer the following observations: :: Observation :: >Due to the wording of the resolution, the felon may or may not be jailed at present. Also due to the wording of the resolution, the affirmative has the burden of proof and must prove the resolution true in all cases. :: Value :: >My value is Human Rights. All humans are given fundamental rights in a democratic society. These rights allow the members of society to freely exercise their views. If, however, the members of society were to break the social contract with the government, then they would not deserve the same rights as others. Having its contract with the individual broken, the government is not longer obliged to allow the felons any right to alter its processes, and thus can revoke the right to vote. :: Value Criterion :: >My value criterion is a Social Contract. Social contracts are vital in every society, democratic or not, because they allow the citizens and the government to give each other power, but also to limit one another. This is fundamentally vital to the legislative processes. Once a citizen has committed a felony and become a felon they have shown that they no longer respect the social contract having committed a high crime. This principle means that the government is no longer responsible to represent the felon as the felon has misrepresented it. It is then under the government's discretion whether or not to re-grant privileges such as the right to vote back to the individual. :: Contention 1 :: >My first contention is that felons do not deserve to decide an election. When felons break the social contract with their government their government is no longer obligated to let them choose its members. If felons were given suffrage and actually did decide an election then an unfit candidate would probably be elected, having a negative impact on society and ultimately showing the poor decision making that caused the felons to become felons in the first place. This will then adversely affect all members of society for the worse of the people. This in itself is a far greater crime than a felony is. :: Contention 2 :: >My second contention is that once felons commit a crime against a society they no longer deserve to be a part of that society. They have violated the social contract with the government as so many other citizens have not. They do not deserve equal treatment to the rest of society because they have made an anti-societal gesture in committing a felony. It is rash to believe that felons have truly changed and become more productive members of society after committing such a high crime. It is an assumption that a society cannot make because it will then endanger itself by allowing convicted felons equality in an unequal world. :: Sub-point A :: >My sub-point A is that all people are created equal but they all make different decisions and do not stay equal. Felons are not chosen to be diverse than the rest of society, they make that choice themselves when committing a felony. They are asking to be valued above the rest of society when they ask to be given the same right to vote. They have committed a high crime and do not deserve the same societal rights as those who have not. That teaches felons that it is permissible to commit a felony and in addition to voting they would even commit a felony again, thus making society much less safe. :: Sub-point B :: >My sub-point B is that equality cannot be achieved in the case of murderers. Having "[killed] a human being with premeditated malice" the murderer has taken the right to vote from their victim. Being deceased, that person can no longer vote or voice their values. The murderer then cannot be granted the right to vote in the interest of equality because they have then created an unequal system by killing off a person and effectively their voice while still retaining their won. :: Conclusion :: >In conclusion, the stipulation of this resolution is which rights felons do and do not deserve. The resolution is correctly negated because felons are not deserving of the right to vote after breaking their social contract with their government. They do not deserve equality to the rest of society because they have committed a high crime (felony) which most of society has not. To treat felons like all others within the society would be endorsing the idea of committing felonies; implicating that despite committing a felony, felons will still be treated like the rest of the society, which should not happen. >I will now move on to my opponent's case. :: Value :: >I agree with my opponent that a main goal in a democratic society (hence the name) is to be democratic. I believe that my opponent does not realize that even democracy has limits. If the democracy would allow its members to go around committing felonies then the society would not survive very long. The democracy needs to be realistic about how much it limits felons. :: Value Criterion :: >Basically the same as my argument against my opponent's value; there must be limits in any society. :: Contention 1 :: >The first thing I would like to bring up is that references to the Founding Fathers and the United States Constitution are not valid in this debate because the resolution refers to a democratic society, not to a republic as is the United States. My argument against you contention is this: felons have made the choice to commit a felony or high crime in their society. Is it really correct to allow them the same rights as good law-abiding people? :: Contention 2 :: >The first thing that I would like to say is that my opponent did a brilliant job of saying his second contention and he deserves a great deal of credit for it. Sadly, though, he is not entirely correct. Though disenfranchisement does not fit any of your reasons for punishment, it is not a punishment so much as it is stopping the felons from poorly influencing the processes of the government. :: Contention 3 :: >My attack against my opponent's third contention goes back to my observation. My observation states that "due to the wording of the resolution, the affirmative has the burden of proof and must prove the resolution true in all cases." Felons do not become normal civilians in all cases. Repeat offenders exist. These repeat offenders are not deserving of the right to vote while they keep committing crimes. :: Contention 4 :: >In his fourth contention my opponent referred to many different countries around the globe where felonies are not the same. That is very true; however, the resolution refers to a hypothetical democratic society, not to any one of those countries.