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

I negate Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. I will also value Democracy. However, I like to make the distiction between our conceptions of democracy. First, my opponent did not provide a definition of what a democracy actually is. There are many different forms of democracy, and since my opponent did not establish what form we are evaluating the resolution under I will set the parameters. I therefore value a Representative Democracy where guidlines are established to determine who is eligible to vote. Furthermore, under a Representative Democracy the " one vote for every person" rule does not apply. Officials and Elected Representatives and determined by voting citizens and these officials make laws and establish rules meant to perserve and protect the majority of their constituencies' best interests. I reject my opponents value criteria of individual agency. Since I am providing the form of Democracy we are using I will argue that my opponents postulate that if people could not make decisions that society would not exist is false. Under a Representative Democracy, individuals hand over their power of making decisions to elected officials such as Senators, County Commisioners, and Governors, to make the decisions for them. Therefore, if these officials deem that felons voting are against the greater good's best interest then these officials have the right to prevent or ban them from doing so. My value criterion is Punitative Justice. In this case, Justice is defined as an action that prevents violations of the established rules of society and deters future violations of the system. If an individual grossly violates the legal system then, our elected officials and Judges have the right to take any action deemed apporpriate to prevent future criminals from also violating the system. I also deny my opponents claim to have a burden to prove that denying a felon the right to vote in a democratic society violates that felons agency. Felons- A person who has commited a grave crime, such as murder, rape, or burglary, that is punishable by death or imprisonment in a state or federal facility. (American Heritage Dictionary) Contention 1: A convicted Felon has commited gross violations of an established legal system and therefore relinquished any rights and privledges granted by that established system. The United States Constitution states that all people only have three inalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It also states that a person is only guarenteed these rights so long as they dont infrige on another person's rights. This has two implications: 1. That a felon is not granted his right of life or liberty so long as the state deems him a danger to the rights of other people in the state. Capital Punishment, and life imprisionment are obvious examples of this mentality. Also according to my definition of a felon, this person has already shown to be a violater of others rights to life and liberty and therefore they are no longer guarenteed these rights. 2. A felon is not guarenteed the "right" to vote in any elections according to the U.S. constitution an example of a Representative Democracy. Therefore any "right" to vote is actually a privledge established and granted by the state. Therefore, the state is entitled to revoke this priveledge as a punishment for violations of its established rules and regulations. Since felons have already commited grave violations of these established rules the state on principle is entitled to revoke these privledges to vote. Turn my opponent first Contention that Convictions may be wrong. Under the negative framework, if an individual was deemed to have been falsely convicted the states retains the right to reinstate this falsely convicted felons' right to vote. The state may also enact reparations to make amends with the falsely convicted felons. Furthermore, the argument is turned because the affirmative world would remove the power of the state to enact a punishment that could prove to deter future felonies and protect itself from violations of its legal system. Onto my opponents second Contention, Discrimination. First, I challenge my opponents justification that most of the inmates in the United States are black. He provides no statistics or evidence that confirms his statement. Second, I would argue that even if it were true, just because the majority of inmates are black doesnt mean his argument applies to the resolution at hand. A Felon is different from a person who has commited a misdeamnor. Since my opponent has provided no evidence, I will argue that the majority of black inmates are actually Misdeamnors. African-Americans are more likely to commit crimes such as pety theft, car hyjacking, and squatting. All of those crimes are merely misdeamnors and would not remove their privledge to vote in elections. Next, to answer his last argument. By commiting a felony, an individual puts his rights and fate in the hands of the state. By violating the established contract between himself and the state, the state has the right to enact any and ALL punishments it deems appropriate to punish the individual and prevent him from commiting further crimes. Since, the felon has commited this crime, the state can provide the punishment of removing this extra privledge to prevent him from acting against the system again. Confining the individual in jail is not the punishment aspect since it is in theory meant to protect the state from the criminals actions. The removal of privledges is meant to DETER the criminal from commiting those future crimes. Therefore, I urge you to vote in negation on Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote.