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

Regardless of who wins, it was worth taking time to debate it. Now, let's finish this thing up! ========== Value: The most important argument in LD debate should be immediately won by CON. Here's why: My opponent argues that since we are treating felons differently than regular citizens, then we are not fair and not giving equality. He says that my side is discriminating towards felons, but the problem with this is that discrimination deals with things that people are born into. You can discriminate against other races, tall people, short people, men, women, and the like but discriminating someone for a path they chose is not a bad thing (as far as the law and CRIMINALS are concerned. ) Judges, even if you don't by that analysis, I urge you to realize that the people that you are talking about have committed the most serious crime against society, a FELONY! It is FAIR to take away the right to vote away from felons and we are treating all citizens EQUALLY when we do it. Criterion: Here, my opponent accuses me of things I am not guilty of. He says that I did not argue democracy, but ALL ROUND LONG I've said that whether you vote PRO or CON you still have democracy. I also said that it is stronger on CON because you are FAIR to society and giving them what they deserve (their just deserts). Then he goes into sub-points: "The first (subpoint a) is that he doesn't tell you how felons not getting the right to vote is just. " --> -ARE YOU KIDDING ME! Half of my speeches have been talking about how a felony is a crime against society (FACT) and voting is a way of having a voice in society (FACT) and that having a felon lose the right to have a voice in the society that they harmed is a just punishment. This is one of the biggest issues in my case and it is being ignored thus far in the debate. Don't let my opponent get away with these ridiculous claims. "The second reason my opponent can't uphold his own criterion, is because he doesn't show you the link from his value to his criterion. " --> -Where I do LD, you have the criterion support the value. This is just a simple difference, so you can essentially switch the two and see how my CRITERION does support my VALUE. My value/criterion ‘link' in two ways: 1) By giving felons their just deserts by taking away their right to vote which is fair and equal among felons (in specific states (should be all states)), and 2) CON gives the society their just deserts by treating their society fairly by giving people that have respected it the voice in how it is run. (Rhyming paragraph)--> Once again, he argues that we should not put people into groups. However, we are only putting people into groups that they chose. Take school for example, if someone is on the football team, do you think that they should be able to vote for the debate team's president? (assuming that they are not on both). Now I'm sure they should be able to vote for the school's president, BUT the difference between that and society is that they are still a part of the school while the felon chose a path AGAINST society. This is not a sign of a good voter. (Just for clarification, this is not a new argument, simply furthering my previous logic on the separation of the society argument that has mostly gone untouched. ) First of all, the ‘Leola Strickland' example is completely new. I will argue it later however but regardless, it should not be accepted (mostly talking to tournament judges). He asked me if I have earned the right to vote and my answer is NO… I am not 18 (different debate). But more importantly, it is not about earning it, it is about UNearning it. Once again, qualifying is not the problem, it is disqualifying. The Constitution protects citizens from where they can't be disqualified. But it does NOT specify felons (argued before and once again untouched). For example, if there was an African American who happened to be a felon. He would lose the right to vote NOT because he was African American, but because he was a felon. This is perfectly in line with the Constitution. As far as the Leola Strickland argument goes… this is a fault of our judicial system of who is and is not a felon. Just because one person that shouldn't be a felon is, that doesn't grant the right for PRO to win. Contention 1: I can't gain access to just deserts because you should be removed from society (as far as the vote goes)… Where does he warrant this? Where is the link to why not? A felon went against society, and because of this SHOULD HAVE NO SAY in society (original argument). This is giving him/her what he/she DESERVES which is my criterion. Contention 2: In the article that I provided, the facts seem to be strong. However, the opinions are extreme. I believe he refers to the half less likely to be rearrested if you vote (I see no reasoning in the article as to WHY). This is probably because people that vote are GENERALLY good citizens and shouldn't have been arrested in the first place. This could either have been a bad mistake (still deserved) or a flaw in the judicial system (like a person that shouldn't be a felon in the first place, but that should be the problem we should fix, NOT giving the right to vote to ALL felons). Either way, we can't take these occurrences to be removed from the theoretical debate that LD is. If you are a (deserved) felon, you should not vote. Contention 3: As far as I'm concerned, it's not the system of ‘felons not being able to vote' that is wrong. Instead, it's WHO are the felons? Besides that, I have covered all of his reasons as to why the current system is flawed. HIS CASE: Contention 1 and 2: have both been argued enough. The statics one is not enough to give felons the right to vote. Contention 3: AGAIN, the Constitution protects people from losing the right to vote. HOWEVER, it does not protect felons from losing the right to vote so once AGAIN, the law argument is flowed to the CON side. (I have already argued all of his overview points) My Overview (Crystallization) In this round, I have shown how CON has the FAIRER democracy. Democracy isn't about giving as many people as possible the right to vote, if it was, babies could vote (which might be more logical than felons voting). The system treats all people equally. If ANY PERSON becomes a felon, they will be treated the same (excluding state restrictions but I have already explained that all states SHOULD have this law in order to treat equally. But this resolution is theoretical in the end)… By removing the right to vote, we give the society AND the felon what they deserve, thus significant increase in just deserts. I gain greatest access to BOTH Values AND Criterions. In the end I must say, ‘If you go against society, you should lose your voice in society. It is only FAIR, and it's is what you deserve. ' With that, I urge you to vote CON. Thank you for this GREAT debate!