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

I'll go NC (defend my own case) then AC (rebuttal). V: Justice His attack can be summarized as the following (with my responses underneath): 1. Disenfranchisement is not punishment. --> Punishment is defined as "to impose a penalty on." Disenfranchisement is a punishment because it puts the penalty of restricting the civil right to vote. The government is punishing for illegal activity. 2. Justice is not inherent. --> Values can either be directly inherent or directly inherent (based on wording.) Since the resolution is asking the question "Should we punish a criminal by disenfranchising them?" then the indirect value of justice is implied, because punishments ought to be just. 3. Protection --> My argument is not that felons will create laws that will harm us. That has no link to my case. VC: Contractarianism/Social Contract (C1) 1. Not specific with the type of social contract --> Not needed. Basically, those three philosophers he cited gave their own contextualization of the social contract. however, there are basic tenets between all of them, of which I mention as my sub-points. I do not need to say a specific contract. Remember my contention is simply the Social Contract THEORY. I.e. the ideas behind it, not a specific contextualized contract. Sub-A: Reciprocated Responsibility 1. Felons don't make laws --> By voting for an official they are indirectly making the laws. A person, when they vote, are putting a person into office that has their ideas in mind. Thus, they are indirectly changing policy. However, I would further and say, this right to vote goes beyond just electing legislative officials. For example, when election time comes there are always a few issues in each state that are voted directly by the people. For instance Proposition 8. But you could take this further. As voters we can elect judges and prosecutors who would preside over the very people that are going agaisnt the law. You are basically giving the felons 1 up on the system by giving them the right to vote for those that decide their sentences, etc. 2. Constitution --> His argument makes no impact to my argument. If the government is unjust, then yes we have a right to revolt. He bascially misconstrues my argument. Sub-A argues that it is hypocritical to give people that broke the law, the right of the law. Furthermore, by doing so, we are giving them power over the law abiding citizens. It doesn't make sense that felons should have the right to tell us what to do, when they could not do it themselves. For example, it is wrong for me to say killing is wrong, then go out and kill 5 people. Sub-B: General Will 1. Minority Oppression --> He blatantly misregards where I explain that there is a difference between majority rule, which could be oppressive, and respecting the general will. The general will is the idea that when a society comes together it is the will of the people to create order and stability. However, Rousseau explains that giving someone the right to decide the general will must be respect the will. When one's individual will goes agaisnt the general will, take killing for instance, it is a duty of the people to restrict him/her from further deciding and warping the will. Sub-C: Moral Agency 1. Jail time --> basically he argues that you take away rights when there is jail time. This doesn't make any sense. The every essence of jail is the restriction of free access. Thus, jail, is losing a right in and of itself. But if you say you cant lose rights, then jail would destroy itself. Furthermore, is it wrong that we restrict the right to bear arms, and to serve on a jury from these felons? He then goes on to argue double jeopardy. He completely misunderstands this concept. Double Jeopardy is you cant punish more then once, i.e. he cannot be tried again and then punished. If the decision is 50 years in jail, plus enfranchisement, that is all one punishment, according to US penal code. 2. Why the right to vote? --> Did you read my argument? They should lose the right to vote because it is the only way to amtch the moral agency destroyed vy the criminal and the criminal's political agency, i.e. the right to vote. Since it would be grossly inhumane to say, rape a rapist, then the government must take away the right to vote as compensation for the crime done. Moving to the AC V: Democracy 1. Root words --> This is totally fallacious, yes democratic society and democracy have different root words but this is flawed for two reasons: First, if your logic were true, then the words dissemble and disturb are the same things because they have the same root. Second, you totally ignore my previous logic. If your logic were true then the U.S. is a pure, direct democracy, and it isn't. Obviously, there is a distinction between a democracy, which is totally direct, and a democratic society, which keeps main democratic tenets, but are not true democracies. Thus, you can drop his value for the round. VC: Equality --> He completely drops my whole attack agaisnt his VC, thus you can extend it for the round. This was my 1st round attack on his VC: "Second, equality can stretch so far until the idea of equality is lost unto itself. For example, to achieve equality we can let all murderers out of jail so they can be equal to the citizens. However, every sane person would tell you that that is so wrong. Valuing equality for equality's sake is illogical and fallacious." Contention Overview 1. Democracy is not a pure democracy --> Thats what a democracy is, it is a pure democracy and is direct democracy. Everything else, take the US, is a Democratic Republic, it is not a democracy. *Important Note: You can either accept the true definition of democracy, and keep his value but drop all of his contentions, since they are in some way related to the US, which is not a "democracy." Or you can see my logic and drop his value, which means his whole case is relevant. So either way you look at it, he can lose because he has no value, or because he has no arguments to substantiate that value.* C1 1. Citizens have the right to vote --> This is true, they have it, that doesn't mean it cant be restricted. For example, I have a car, but that doesn't mean it can't be taken away from me as punishment. --> Secondly, the Constitution also states that the right to vote can be restricted under illegal activities and treason. C2 1. Attack not relevant --> It is very relevant. Your point is that disenfranchisement is prejudiced agaisnt certain people, e.g. black people. However if this was the basis of a just punishment, then all punishments are dejusitifed because they all have some amoral factor present. E.g. more black people are incarcerated. C3 --> He never responds to the fact that this point has no impact, and I said in my last speech. C4 --> Yes you can extend