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

You seem like an intelligent opponent and I am more than interest to see how this debate turns out. To set a road map I will critique my opponent's case. I will not defend in this round because no real argument has been present to me. The point of debate is not to fight over who is wrong or right but to see what panel offers the case with the strongest reasoning. So the negative panel will display how the Affirmative panel's case is of weaker reason. The affirmative panel's core value the equality of rights and the AFF panel suggest to achieve the equality of rights through their value criterion of honoring individual rights. The equality of rights can not be equal in a society were felons share the same privileges and rights with law abiding citizens. A felon and law abiding citizens are not equal. The NEG panel is not implying that felons are lesser human, but felons have committed crimes that change their status in society. A society can not give a non-felon the same rights and privileges to a felon when the two beings have un-equal stance in society. The non-felon may have the privilege of voting because he has not committed a crime. Felons have committed a crime and therefore lessen their status in society. One can only ensure equality on equal grounds. The two beings are of different status is society and enjoy different privileges. You don't praise a student who excels in his studies the same you do lazy students who fails in his studies purely because the two attend the same school. You don't give equal privileges to felons that you would non-felons because the two dwell in the same society. The AFF panel first contention implies that a democratic society must uphold the equality of rights for it citizens. That is invalid for a democratic society. A democratic society must ensure that an able body of its population votes for it governors. The chosen officials will automatically protect the rights of its citizens. Such the right to live and having access to the resource needed to maintain that life. The AFF suggest that the NEG devalues felons as sub humans, but the NEG respects felons as humans in a society and must have their rights honor like all other citizens in their society. The NEG suggest that the Felons lose privileges such voting because of their behavior. The AFF was gotten the society the resolution implies wrong. The resolution implies in general a democratic society not the American democratic society. All of the AFF arguments based upon the American constitution have no weight in his argument. The resolution implies a democratic society that should either allow its felons the privilege of voting, not the American democratic society or any other European, African or Asian society. You can only have a Democracy by allowing a portion of its citizens to vote for their governors or officials, not honoring all of the citizens with equal privileges since my opponent is referring to the privilege voting. The AFF panel second contention is primarily upholding individual rights. The AFF continues to imply that a democracy can only work if all people have equal rights. The AFF is correct that in a democratic government the citizens have the right to vote, because some one must elect government officials. The AFF does not understand the logic of how not everyone in a democratic society has to vote. The NEG is not upholding bigotry, the NEG panel clearly implies that the people that are not granted the privilege of voting is not because of their race, religion, sex and age but because the person has harmed their society. The NEG is insulted to be compared to gross ideology of sexism and racism. The Neg idea of society only allows the citizens of proper standing to vote, and that standing is achieved by not being a felon. The AFF continues to imply that the debate is concerning the American Democratic society. The AFF is mistaken and fails to recognize the fact that resolution implies a society with a democratic government. By using the American constitution again to base his contention upon makes it invalid. But since the AFF continues to bring the American democratic society into his argument I will use the society as an example of how the NEG ideology is proper. The American democratic society does not allow it citizens under the age of eighteen to vote or citizens of mental disease. The citizen are not able to vote but the American Democratic society still functions because a portion of it population votes in it elections. Clearly the American Democratic society is a perfect example of the NEG ideology of only a portion of people voting in a democratic society is just.