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

You are able to negate at this point in the round. Remember that burdens always come pre-standards in LD rounds. Even if Charles had a perfect criterion, and ten great contentions linking to, you still negate if he fails to meet either of the burdens. So, let's look to the affirmative burdens in the round. If you reexamine the beginning of the second pro post, he clearly accepts both of my burdens. In his most recent post he tries to say that I am putting words in his mouth, but just go back and read the beginning of his second message. He says "I agree" in regards to my first burden, which explains that since we can't ever predict the outcomes of our action, we have to address the resolution from a moral perspective. Since he completely fails to do this, you have to negate. But then, on top of this he says that he "accepts" my second burden. This explicitly says that he needs to prove that all people have an inherent right to vote. He obviously fails this burden, as he doesn't even address the arguments that explain that voting is not a right, because people are unable to escape the identity they are born into, meaning that there is no sovereign willing of the act. Additionally, the fact that people must register to vote demonstrates that they have no inherent claim to the right to vote. He also fail to address this burden, meaning that, again, you must negate. Remember that burdens come before the value/criterion and contentions. Since he very clearly fails to meet the burdens that he EXPLICITLY agrees to, it is impossible for Charles to win the round, regardless of how strong his contentions are. The only reason I provided ANY arguments against his case was as insurance, in case he did fulfill both of the burdens that were set up. At this point in the round, I don't even need to talk about his case to win. But let's go to the negative case anyways. On the value: 1) He says that his old definition was actually meaningless, and redefines human rights as "life, liberty and property", and implies that there are other vague areas that might exist, but doesn't talk about these. This redefining only strengthens my point about how bad of a value this is, because if we wanted to give felons the rights to "life, liberty and property", we would need to release all felons from prison, since all three of the listed rights are violated by the prison system. Clearly, upholding his value would be detrimental, as it the release of prisoners would allow for a huge increase in the recidivism rate. Additionally, the elimination of the primary form of punishment would remove the biggest deterrent of crime, thus leading to an increase in crime rates. Since his value would be harmful within the context of the resolution, you must reject it. Thus, none of his offense links to anything, so it is impossible to affirm, even if you ignore the agreed upon burdens. 2) He claims that only citizens would have the right to vote, but his original definition says: "To put it simply, all people should have the right to vote in any governmental election". Even if you allow him to narrow this down at this point in the round, the point about children voting still stands, as children are considered to be citizens from birth. Though minors may not be allowed to vote, the precedent is that they are indeed citizens. Obviously, upholding his value would force us to allow children to vote, even though they are frequently irrational, and lack the understanding necessary to make an educated vote. It is also possible to build off of his 2nd response, where seems to agree that children should not be able to vote. The logical justification for this is that children have proven themselves to be irrational and incapable of making good decisions. We can apply this same line of logic that he agrees to in order to justify disenfranchisment; felons have shown themselves to be incapable of making good decisions by committing a felony. Allowing felons to vote would thus justify granting children the right to vote, since rationality is obviously not being considered. Then, he tries to say that no matter how bad his standards are, you still have to use them. But: 1) If a value or criterion is extremely bad, you shouldn't use it just because it is the only standard available in the round. This is just nonsensical, as it means that the entire advocacy is flawed. Just because we are using LD format, does not mean that you ignore the flaws in his advocacy. But then, 2) If you do decide to use bad standards, then his entire case is just showing how you end up achieving something harmful if any of the shaky links actually stand up to the criticism. Then, onto the criterion: 1) By saying that we are trying to approach total equality, he bites directly into the harms of my second and third arguments. 2) He makes some argument about how the rights are still equal, but he doesn't actually respond to my argument. I tell you that if we are going to ensure that everyone's opinion is held to be equal, then we have to force everyone to vote. Otherwise, some people's opinions would not count at all, thereby making them unequal. 3) Again, he believes that I am saying we would need to abolish imprisonment so that everyone could vote. The actual argument is that if we want to achieve total equality, we cannot keep felons in prison, AT ALL. Keeping people in prison obviously prevents any sort of equality. If he believes that punishment is a justified response, then it is equally justifiable to restrict felons' voting rights. Then, group C1 with C3, since he does this in his last speech. His basic argument is that felons still have opinions, and should be able to contribute these opinions to society, because that will be beneficial. First look to the non-uniqueness argument. I tell you that felons are still able to contribute their opinions to society without voting. Thus, the same end is achieved when you negate. In fact, it could be argued that actual communication opinions is more influential than voting, further reducing the significance of this argument. But then you can still use my Turn on C3, which explains that felons will ultimately vote in a manner that will benefit them, which may include relaxing criminal laws. He responds by basically saying that felons' votes won't matter enough to pass any such laws, but if this is the case then we should not waste resources changing the status quo, since there will be no significant impact. Then look to C2. You can recall that he claims felons will not be able to effect any significant changes. This clearly shows that disenfranchisement is not a "major punishment" and that it can be added on to prison sentences without violating proportionality. So, clearly you must negate. None of his contentions stand up particularly well and they don't link to a legitimate standard. And, most importantly, HE FAILS TO MEET THE BURDENS THAT HE EXPLICITLY AGREES TO. This me