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

To my esteemed opponent. There are a couple errors in both your argumentation and your logic. I will show them to you and also the judges in this round. Then I will proceed to tell the readers why I am winning this debate, and should win this debate. Value - my opponent says that there is equality among felons, and equality among people without felons, therefore equality/fairness is achieved. But whenever there is a difference among people, there is not equality. By seperating the two groups (felons, non-felons) you eliminate the chance of equality existing. This argument is commonly referred to with those who argue discrimination whether it be racial or sexual (of the sex). If I were to speak with an advocate of racial equality, a minority, they would say that they don't want people to give them equality because they are a minority. They would rather there not be any race involved at all. The phrase most commonly used is "I don't want people to see black or white, I want them to see people." This means that by seperating the two groups, there cannot be equality. Only through the treatment of the group as a whole can equality be achieved. This is what I am proposing. My opponent is not. Therefore he is not upholding his own/my value. Criterion - Just Deserts is not an acceptable criterion for this debate. Democracy is. The reason for this is, it is what the resolution is asking for. Look to my analysis in the first round. In order to support the resolution, we must be supporting a DEMOCRATIC society. Therefore democracy is the logical choice for a criterion. For those who may not understand what LD debate is, allow me to clarify. The criterion of the round is the weighing mechanism. Whoever upholds and supports the criterion the best should win. The value is the way of getting to the criterion. With my value and criterion, I am trying to uphold democracy by way of allowing the most equality. My opponent is trying to uphold just deserts, people getting what they deserve, by way of equality. There are a couple problems with my opponent's argumentation and analysis on this point. The first is that he fails to address the argumentation and analysis I provide on my own criterion of democracy. Without any argumentation on my criterion, you look to whoever upholds this value. If my opponent gives the voters no reason to reject this criterion, then you shouldn't reject it. My opponent has given no reason, therefore you accept it. This means that whoever upholds democracy the best, wins the round. The second area in which he falls, is that he cannot uphold his own criterion. He can't do this in a couple of ways. The first (subpoint a) is that he doesn't tell you how felons not getting the right to vote is just. He provides no definition of what just is. He doesn't tell you why it is just. I tell you that the just punishment would be the removal of that person from society. He does argue this, but I will get to that later. 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. Like I said earlier, he has to access his criterion from his value. He doesn't show you how equality/fairness gives him access to just deserts. For these reasons alone, my opponent should lose the round. Now for the argumentation refutation...that's right...I can rhyme. He begins by arguing how people are fair. Once again, I ask you to refer back to the analysis on what fair and equal are. By putting people into groups, we have eliminated fairness and equality. You ask if the felon has earned the right to influence an election. My first response here is...have you? What gives people the RIGHT to vote and influence our country? The constitution makes it pretty clear that it is the people, the citizens, who have the right to influence our country. Felons are citizens, and therefore have the right to influence our country. My second argument here, is that you provide absolutely no reason why the HAVEN'T earned the right to vote. You just say they haven't. There is no logic, no analysis, no evidence to back up why they shouldn't be able to vote. If you look to my last speech, I reference your article and the story of Leola Strickland. What has that lady done to lose the right to vote? The answer...be in the wrong situation at the wrong time. She did nothing to lose it, so why shouldn't she have the right to vote? Contention 1: My opponent agrees that by violating society, you should be removed from society. This means that as soon as he starts advocating something besides that, he cannot gain access to his criterion of just deserts, or people getting what they deserve. He basically admits that through his argumentation and logic, people are not getting what they deserve even if they do lose the right to vote. This right there means that by no means can my opponent ever win this round. Contention 2: Even if they are the swing vote in one election, the answer to whether they deserve the right to vote is always yes. Refer back to your own article and the argumentation I have pulled from it to prove my point. Contention 3: I'm not arguing abuse here. I'm arguing the fact that the idea of democracy is that all people have a say in what their government does. By restricting rights, we find that social behavior will continue to restrict things. I'm not saying there is abuse of the current system. I'm saying the current system is wrong. My Contention 1: I have argued this thoroughly, and there is no need to beat a dead horse. My Contention 2: My evidence is your evidence. READ YOUR OWN ARTICLE!!!! That's where the statistics come from. My Contention 3: Amendments are things that aren't in the constitution that the justices feel should be, or things that change what the constitution says because of recent findings. They aren't restricted to what they can give or what they can take away, except by the spirit of the constitution. Now for an overview of the round. I will begin with how my argumentation and logic allows for equality. By eliminating the differences between felons and non-felons, and by recognizing them as one group of people, I am allowing for equality to exist. When this equality exists, it allows for a better working democracy. The way it does this is it gives more people the right to vote, and therefore influence what this country does. Since that is the basis for what a democracy is, I have increased the effectiveness of the democracy. This shows you exactly how I use my value to gain access to my criterion. My opponent cannot do this with the only criterion left standing, democracy, and he also cannot show you the route to his own criterion. Therefore my opponent loses. Another reason my opponent loses, is by him admitting the unjustness of his standpoint. As soon as you see him admitting that the just punishment of one who violates society should be the removal from society, he loses when he doesn't advocate that. I thank you for this wonderful debate johnicle, and wish you luck in the rest of the tournament. Thank you for judging the round, and I hope that it has been intellectually stimulating, and a fun experience for us all. Have a nice day ;)