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

The UN does in fact define a felon in its database, accessible through their website, as "a person who has been tried and found guilty of a serious criminal offense through a fair legal court and is currently serving their incarceration." The United Nations also goes on to clarify what makes an ex-felon different from a felon. An ex-felon is "one who has successfully completed their sentence and re-enters society." --> I have two responses: First, my opponenet never provides a direct link for this site, and from my research the UN does not define it. Second, even if you don't buy this response, simply use logic. It is impossible for the UN to define the word "felon" because most nations have abandoned the use of the word, and ergo make no legal distinctions between felons and misdemeanors, such as the US. Not one definition online or any dictionary I have found defines the word 'retain' in the future tense. For example, merriam webster defines retain as "to keep in possession or use", therefore implying not only the present tense but the constanst keeping of a right. --> I have two responses: First, turn this against my opponenet. If he believes this should be the definition of retain for the round, he himself does not uphold it because he never categorically proves the resolution false under this pretense. Second, under LD this definition is null and void isnce it was put into the round not as a formal definition (i.e. in the case) but in a rebuttal. Therefore, my formal definition is superior. V: Justice --> Fine, I concede this value. However, if he does not achieve the "democratic society" burden within the resokution, he should fail for the debate. Value Criterion: Maximization of Fairness --> My opponent makes a crucial mistake with this VC First, he never defines what fairness is. Second, I will use Rawl's understanding of fairness which is the idea of the first principle, which implies maximizing rights for everyone. Ergo, maximizing the right to vote. 1. Retribution a - This point is flawed because I have already shown why there is no distinction. Furthermore, if you don't buy that argument, ex-felon is still a sub-category of a felon, thus can be an implied burden of the resolution. b - My opponent never warrants what he just said. However, lets go back to my point about proportionality. It would only be proportionate if it effected someones voting rights. For example, a felon commits insider trading, obviously this felony does not hurt anther's voting right, thus it is not proport9ioante to disenfranchise. c - My opponenet doesn't get my argument. I am saying that he dejustifies all punishment because all punishment treats someone else as a moral non-entity. Furthermore, my opponenet never warrants once in his case why "moral non-entities exist" and why it impacts a decision of the resolution. 2. Legal Consistency a - My opponent doesn't understand my argument. Even if it is 48/50 states, there still would be no legal consistency because all states have di8fferent disenfranchisement laws. [My case] Value: Democratic Society --> Basically my opponenet argues that his value is superior. However, given that I conceded his value, he still needs to achieve a democratic society because it is a burden in the resolution. He also brings up children. That's the point, no democratic society is the ideal democratic society, however the aff's case reaches that standard better then the neg. 1. Contestation of existing values --> Drop all my opponents responses since I am not arguing that they are being stigmatized. I am arguing that disenfranchisement is a mechanism for not allowing contesting values within society. Basically, it oppresses other peoples views. --> Since he didn't attack the idea of my point, extend it for the entire debate. If he tries to respond drop his attacks immediately. [Clash] 1. The only main clash is the definitions. I.e. felons and retain. However, I clearly win this debate from my above responses.