In this world (ie. not in a perfect world) prisoners should get the vote.

Thank you for your response, I look forward to our debate. My arguments for not taking away the voting rights of prisoners are as follows: --It has almost no consequences: The collective prison population account for about 0.1% of the population (less than half an MP, statistically), and they could only vote in this '0.4% of an MP',if they where all voting in the same constituency and united behind there chosen representative. If he did get into power, he would be one Independent vote, amid 434 voters that are united and organised by the two main parties. So, even in a hypothetical situation by which prisoners where allowed to unite there vote into one constituency, and every prisoner then actually voted for a single representative: it would still have no real consequences. (These figures don't even take into consideration the lower turnout of those most likely to go to prison (2)) --Taking away someones right to speak is against freedom, and against true wisdom. Nelson Mandella was a prisoner. Prisoners are not one dimensional characters who can only be described as prisoners. They are human beings, as layered as you are, and originally, naturally innocent. A child of God-if you will. You cannot judge a person unless you have walked in their shoes, nor can you assume their delinquency on account of one of their actions. They might have sound political views. Either way, it doesn't really effect them much in terms of happiness. So it's not worth scorning that its more than they deserve, whether it is or isn't isn't up to anyone else anyway, because it isn't going to make them any happier. --It doesnt well serve any of the purposes of prison. Those purposes being: deterrent, punishment, safety, rehabilitation (1). It does not massively deter, for lower class turnout is the lowest of all (2), and I'm not sure if voting is uppermost in the priorities of the majority of criminals. Secondly, it does not provide any additional safety to the public. Thirdly, it doesn't effectively punish: for as I have said, voting isn't typically an absolute must, to the majority of people that go to prison. And lastly: it actually rehabilitates them more if we encourage their participation into the wider society. Rather than to disengage them from it, even more than they already are. --Taking away their vote makes them even more rebelious and disengaged towards society. Actaully respecting their freedom and encouraging them to vote, will decrease the resentment and disengadement they feel towards the wider society. Rehabilitation is the most benifitial coarse (for society) that a prisoner can take. Making them disengage with society even more, is going to have the opposite effect on rehabilitation. They don't vote anyway, and that's part of the problem. Encourage them to have a say in society (don't worry, they can't do any damage, government is far to domineering to allow it). Let them vote, so they can see that society does take them into consideration. This isn't about revenge, not least because its hardly revenge to take away their rights to vote into a system that is going to remain the same anyways, and that they care not for anyway. But also because revenge just makes people more bitter, and rehabilitation is what will benifit us all more than anything. Rebbutalls My opponent says: "You and I work for someone to earn money to buy things, whereas prisoners (usually) will do what they can to exploit, extort or steal from someone or a company usually to spend the money on something that can harm themselves or (most likely) other people, such as drugs or weapons." Who do WE work for though? Companies like coca-cola and other multi-billion pound corporations exploit thousands. Coca-cola even murdered its employees (assuming you know about this-it was massive in USA). My opponent seems to have a very one-dimensional view of criminals. They are not all nasty people. Indeed, community values are probably more prevalent in poorer areas than richer areas. Also, immoral deeds are done by all, not just criminals. People who have committed a crime cannot be labeled as such. It is so superficial and hollow. It's called labelling, and its considered damaging and more importantly, inaccurate and misleading. My opponents idea of a criminal is not accurate, indeed it's quite bigoted if I may say so, I don't mean to be rude. My opponent sounds like a FOX news anchor talking about criminals. The rest of my opponents argument, seems to revolve around the problem that prisoners would cause if they where allowed to vote. I hope the first part of my argument helps put this into perspective. I think my opponent has made the biggest mistake, that history should have taught us to never make: He said "I agree that we should allow people a freedom to vote and freedom of speech, however if that vote is probably detrimental to society, there's really no reason to allow it." This is brilliant, to see how this attitude can sound convincing. No, if somebody can take somebody else's free speech of vote away if they deem them detrimental to society, it's no longer free and just the same as a dictatorship. You contradict yourself massively here my friend, it is quite extraordinary. How would revolutions happen in this context? I look forward to your response, Thank you (1)http://www.slideshare.net... (2)http://www.theguardian.com...