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

I am going to assume this is in LD format due to the fact the wording is exactly the same as the one used my the NFL for the Oct/Nov LD debate topic and because I know my opponent to do LD style debate on this website. Now while its a bit odd for Neg to go first none the less I will. A government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth." Because I agree with Abraham Lincoln, I negate the resolution. Resolved: In a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote. My value is Democracy. Much is said about democracy; however at the core of democracy is a system of total popular sovereignty, this is what makes democracy a democracy. Thomas Christiano states "in a democracy, the people rule" In order to clarify today's debate I a key definition: Ought: used to indicate requirement or obligation in accord with duty or morality. (Wordsmyth Dictionary)(If a Definition clash is needed-- it is better for this debate as the resolution questions morals and the word ought is used to indicate our preference for weather felons voting should be a part of those morals for all democracies. Thus this definition is the most specific to the round.)) My Value criterion for this debate will be Maximization of the Peoples Will. This is a fairly straightforward idea, we must work to preserve and maximize the will of the people. By Maximizing the will of the people we uphold the principle of popular sovereignty, for, it is the will of the people that holds any democracy together. Observation: The resolution is questioning what we are obligated to do by either duty or morals. This means that affirming is providing a blanket statement for all democracies that they are bound to felons voting. Negating merely means that we are NOT obligated to do so. This means that it could be enacted in some democracies but not all. The thesis of the negative case is that any normative absolutes limit the ability of citizens to carry out the democratic process. Contention 1 French Philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre wrote in his book "Existentialism is a Humanism": "man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards." The same MUST be said of a democracy. The first clause of the resolution "in a democratic society" and the second "felons ought to retain the right to vote" are inherently contradictory. A democratic society "ought" to do nothing. A society, being democratic must have the power to decide what ought, or ought not be done. So enforcing a "Moral Imperative" such as the Affirmative is trying to do. Endangers the concept of popular sovereignty. By Negation we deny the moral imperative of the resolution and its destructive power on democracy. Let's look at the U.S. constitution. It was made to define the structure of the government and its relationship to the people. However it was made amendable, this is because the framers realized that absolutes would endanger society. In a democracy nobody can say what should or should not happen without backing by its people. So because the affirmative attempts to establish dangerous absolutes the resolution ought to be negated. In other words, what my opponent tries to do is completely destroy the central thesis of a democratic society by enforcing, or shall we say dictating, a law upon any and every democracy. This is inherently dictatorial and therefore not democratic. What my opponent so wrongly does is assume democracy to be normative rather than descriptive. However a democracy is merely a rule by the people, so that is the only requirement of democracy. This resolution doesn't specify a certain democracy so we assume a hypothetical democracy. Now, in this democracy the only thing we can say for sure is that the people rule. Therefore democracy MUST be taken as descriptive. So therefore via popular sovereignty each democracy may decide for itself as opposed to my opponent enforcing policy upon them. Danish philosopher Sï¿½ren Kierkegaard wrote "the thing is to find a truth which is true for me, to find the idea for which I can live and die" A democracy also, must find its own truth and not one imposed by my opponent. Thus for the sake of democracy worldwide, I negate.