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

I negate: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote For clarity I offer the following definitions: 1. Democratic society: government dictated by the populous 2. Felons: people who have committed a felony 3. Retain: to keep and secure for future use For analysis of the resolution I offer the following observations: 1. The resolution specifies felons. This includes people in jail and those who have finished their time of incarceration. This is true for 2 reasons: First, when a person commits a felony it remains on their permanent civil record. Thus, the government considers you a "felon" Second, the definition of a felon implies this observation. The definition states "people who have committed a felony." The "have" indicated past events. 2. The affirmative burden is thus to prove that felons in society ought to retain the right to vote. The affirmative values a democratic society. Since the resolution explicitly states a democratic society, this should be the superior value. This value is achieved by the criterion of Maximizing Participation. The resolution assumes that felon disenfranchisement is taking place in a democratic framework. Democracy is unique as a system of government because it allows people to rule themselves, and it is generally viewed that democracies that give more power to the people are better than democracies that give less power to the people. While there are many definitions of democracy, most would discourage felon disenfranchisement.If democracy is a procedure for individuals to aggregate their preferences to make policies, then any disenfranchisement is anti-democratic because it excludes the preferences of one group of individuals. Even if some people would view those preferences as "bad" society, a procedural view of democracy would hold that there is no legitimate basis for any preferences to be rejected. If democracy is based on participation and consent, felon disenfranchisement is wrong because felons cannot give consent to the laws that govern them because they cannot express their preferences through voting. Contention I: Society uses disenfranchisement in order to prevent contestation of existing values Whether or not they are rooted in a similar insecurity, it is clear that the justification for disenfranchisement and Rawls's reliance on punishment as a stabilizing device both follow from the impulse to protect society's standards from contestation. In Rawls's case, one's ability to contest society's standards is closed off by the imposition of the label "unreasonable"; in the case of disenfranchisement, this labeling is complemented by the explicit loss of one's political status.The criminal, in each instance, is created as the "other" to ward off the potential contestation of society's norms.' For Rawls, the assumption of strict compliance and the emphasis on consensus lead citizens of his well-ordered society to view the criminal as a "bad character" deserving ofpunishment, even if such punishment is illiberal from the standpoint of justice itself. With disenfranchisement, the act of creation is even clearer: The revocation of the right to vote itself differentiates the criminal as abnormal-it is a permanent mark of a lower status. "The process of making the criminal," Frank Tannenbaum writes, "is a process of tagging, defining, identifying,segregating, describing, emphasizing, making conscious and self- conscious; it becomes a way of stimulating, suggesting, emphasizing, and evoking the very traits that are complained of. The emphasis on the individual nature of the criminal's act or character makes it appear as if the criminal brings this process and the resulting lower status on himself, but society imposes it, acting to prevent a threat to the maintenance of its established standards. [Rebuttal] "The resolution clearly states "felons" versus "ex-felons". The United Nations defines an ex-felon as somebody who has completed their sentence, and a felon, as stated in the resolution, as somebody currently serving their sentence. Therefore, my opponent must prove how letting felons vote in prison is upholding a just democracy" --> This is wrong for three reasons: First, my opponents definition of a felon contradicts this observation on the fact that his definition implies past action. Meaning that his definition implies the fact that convition is after the fact. I.e. he is back in society Second, he never provides a definition of retain, thus we must to look to my definition which implies future use. Third, my opponent is wrong on the UN definition. The UN never makes a distinction between the two. Value: Justice --> Not inherent to the resolution, thus my value is superior. Value Criterion: Maximization of Fairness --> (Turn) Use my opponents criteria against him. Fairness implies a fair action. When a felon returns to society, it is only fair that he retains his right to vote, since he has paid his debt to society. 1. Retribution --> My opponents point of retribution is no longer retribution for 3 reasons: First, retribution implies a contract. Once a felon has served his time of incarceration he returns to society, thus reentering the contract. Second, retribution implies proportionality. I.e. the punishment must fit the crime. Take away the right to vote is not proportionate because it is not a sufficient mechanism in the action of balancing the scale of justice. Third, my opponents argument is contradictory to itself and dejusitifes incarceration. For example, someone kidnaps. In turn the government puts them in jail. According to my opponenet this is unjustified because it is making the government a kidnapper. 2. Legal Consistency --> This is wrong for two reasons First, this is contradictory to my opponents observation 1 (US specific observation). This point may be true in a non-federal government, like in France. However in the US this doesn't hold water because we have a federal system. I.e. the state and national government share power. This impacts my opponents contention 2 because in the US we do not have state consistency. For example, a rapist in NY may receive 15 years in prison, while a rapist in Texas may receive 45. Cross apply this to disenfranchisement. Maine and Vermont do not disenfranchise, while Arizona and New Mexico do. Turn this against my opponenet. His logic leads the conclusion that disenfranchisement is unjust because it is not consistent. Second, when felons enter society, this is the governments stamp on the pay back to society. According to my opponents logic, we should keep them in jail forever, or just kill them to make a more consistent legal system. This is obviously unjust, and thus contradicts his value. 3. Double Standard Simply turn this argument against my opponenet. By taking away a felon's right to vote is undoing the balance that incarceration achieves. When felons reenter society after incarceration, they are on on equal terms once again. However, when you disenfranchise them you are devaluing them compared to the rest of society. Therefore, it is the negative which is creating the double standard. Thank you ladies and gentlemen