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

To my esteemed Johnicle. I thank you for this wonderful debate. It should be both educational and entertaining. I wish you the best of luck. And with no further ado, I shall begin. I will begin by arguing my opponents case, and then rebut the arguments on my own. Value - According to the synonym collection version 1, fairness and equality are synonyms. So I guess I can't really argue this. Criterion - Just deserts is an ironic criterion for this debate. You are saying that they should get what they deserve when some felons get the death penalty, some felons get life in prison, and the rest spend significant time in prison. In fact, of the 5.3 million felons (thanks for the correction) 4 million have already served the court assigned punishment. The punishment that the court thought was just. The statistics come from your own evidence. I would also like to point out, that 5.3 million people is less than 2 percent of our population. The World Fact Book (run by the CIA) says that in July of 2008 there were 303,824,640 people in America. He argues my value, when they are synonyms, which means that he is arguing his own value. But I will defend anyways. He asks me to say when we treat felons differently. In Maine and Vermont felons are given the right to vote. How is that equal to those in Mississippi? I think you should have read your evidence more efficiently. So this is not a con value. There is unequal treatment in America even as far as felons are concerned. But that's not only what I'm talking about. Felons are people too. Not only are they people, but they are also citizens of this country. No where are felons considered not citizens. So this means that there needs to be equality/fairness towards citizens and felons. This is not happening. In my opponents argument against criterion, he says that the 5.3 million extra votes would be enough to change any election. In all of american history, I can remember one election that came down to 2% of the vote. George Bush v. Al Gore. All the rest have been considerably over that mark. And if felons were given the right to vote, then I'm sure a politician would try and please them. Just as politicians tried to please African Americans when they were given the right to vote, and women when they were given the right to vote. Politicians should be the ones who strive for what the people of America want. This includes felons. My opponent gives you this horrible scenario of where murderers and rapists are running the country. 2% of people in America is no where near the amount needed. Not only that, but it isn't 5.3 million murderers and rapists anyways. It is people like Leola Strickland of your article that make up most of the 5.3 million felons. People that would like to vote, and haven't done anything significant to deserve the loss of their right to vote. Contention 1: He says that felons deserve to lose their right to vote because they have gone against society. Well, according to his criterion, just deserts, if felons have violated society, they should no longer be allowed to be a part of society. Not lose their right to vote. This doesn't uphold his own criterion. Contention 2: 5.3 million voters would not put the election into the hands of criminals or felons. Politicians have bigger fish to fry, hopefully it's salmon because salmon is delicious. They are going to focus on the white male majority, or the white female minority, or the african american male minority, or the african american female minority, etc. .. My opponent has no reason behind this argument. No offense Johnicle, but most people should be able to see the flawed logic of your reasoning. Contention 3: The qualification of voting is being messed with by making a qualification. This is what Tocqueville was talking about. As soon as you start messing with what is required to vote, then social behavior has already dictated what is going to happen. I have already proven that your argument about all felons not being able to vote is false. Felons can vote in Maine and Vermont. His closing argument is also flawed. According to his own criterion, if someone violates society, then they should lose their right to society, not their right to vote. That doesn't make any sense. So his is still not upholding his criterion. Now for my case. Contention 1: If you refer to my first speech, I address the fact that a democracy relies on the people to vote. Once again, according to my opponents article, only 40% of people are predicted to vote in this upcoming election. Democracy cannot stand if this continues to happen. How can we say that the people have chosen the candidate that best supports them, when over half of the people aren't voting. This is absurd. Contention 2: My opponent corrected my research and gave me the number 5.3 million. This is over 1 percent, but less than 2. Felons are a minority group that deserve to have their voice heard. 4 million have already served their time. Once again from my opponents article, if a felon is given the right to vote, they are 50% less likely to perform another crime. So by giving felons the right to vote, not only does it uphold equality and the basis of democracy, it helps reduce the crime rate in America. Even better if you ask me. Contention 3: I already discussed how my quotation is still correct. I would like to point out that there is discrimination even amongst felons. This is why a vote for the pro upholds democracy through equality/fairness. The amendments point to the fact that all people should be given the right to vote. Not just white men who own property. The reasons these amendments exist is to stop the discrimination against minorities. Felons are minorities. Now for some brief analysis. My opponent has not done nearly enough work upholding his own value and criterion. In fact, if you look to his first speech, no where do you see where he upholds his value or criterion. He doesn't show you how he links back into anything of his. What he does do, is show you how my arguments are wrong. He says that my arguments link into his quite well, but doesn't present his own argumentation. He only argues against mine. This means that he hasn't upheld his value or criterion. This is critical to LD debate. I on the other hand, have upheld my value and criterion. I have shown you the inequality among felons and citizens of America. I have shown you how by giving the felons the right to vote it would allow for a better democracy by way of equality. I have done exactly what I told you I needed to do. My opponent hasn't. He hasn't supported anything of his, and he hasn't shown you how I don't uphold my own. I have done everything necessary to win this round and my opponent has done nothing to win this round.