Felon Disenfranchisement

First I would like to rebut my opponent's case, I will then go over V/VCs then I will move defend my case. C1 My opponent's first contention can essentially be summed up in one of my opponent's sentences. "Disenfranchising felons is clearly consistent with the social contract: The felons didn't listen to the government, so the government doesn't have to listen to them. " Disenfranchisement is not part of the social contract. The social contract my opponent describes in the sentences above this quote does not call for disenfranchisement it calls for punishment. We have punishment it is called prison. This is where justice is served this is where felons pay their debt to society. Disenfranchisement is not an acceptable punishment. It does not meet any of the universally recognized goals of justice. These goals are to deter, retribution, and rehabilitation. Disenfranchisement does not deter, or rehabilitate, and is a very poor form of retribution. Taking away ones right to vote dehumanizes them and removes their access to other essential rights. This is in no way proportional to a felony. Let the justice system do what it was designed to do and let it punish the felons. C2. "Government is supposed to determine laws that will best benefit society. " My opponent agreed to my definition of democratic society and this contention does not fit the definition of a democratic society. The Government doesn't determine the laws the people determine the laws and the government implements them. This contention is also refuted in the above paragraph where I talk about disenfranchisement not being an appropriate form of retribution. MY opponent first makes an attack on my value. He says it is irrelevant to the debate, but because he brought up this argument he shows he completely misunderstood the fact that voting is nessacerry to securing and maintaining all other human rights. So my case stands and my opponents value is inferior to my value because if democracy is a means to obtaining human rights for everyone. My opponent then makes an attack on my VC. He says that equality is important but there has to limits. This means that in a democracy there are citizens that are not equal to other citizens. This goes back to my point as felons being treated as secondary citizens. In a democratic society all citizens need to have an equal voice to protect their basic human rights. His VC is doing simply doing what the people want. This sounds good but is not logical. If the majority voted to disenfranchise a racial minority group we would have to do it. In this way my opponents VC contradicts his V of upholding democracy and also my V of human rights and therefore falls. My opponent attacks my first contention by saying "First, my opponent talks about how black people and women couldn't vote in history, but that's different because there was no good reason for disenfranchisement there. There is clearly a reason to disenfranchise felons. " He never says the reason to disenfranchise felons this argument falls. Next he argues that disenfranchising minorities is a good thing with the children disenfranchisement argument but this is different because children will eventually get the right to vote felons often will never gain this right again. He then says the purpose of democracy is to benefit citizens. He fails to understand that felons still are citizens. This means the purpose of democracy is to protect felon's rights because of this statement he essentially forfeits the debate. C2. He says permanent disenfranchisement is not part of the debate. I defined the democratic society as the US and it is a problem in the US. This means that this attack fails. I have also proved that disenfranchisement does not fit within the social contract so you can disregard this attack. C3. He never says anything about it. All of my opponents arguments have fallen along with his V and VC this means you must affirm the resolution.