In a Democratic Society Felons ought to Retain the Right to Vote

Okey Dokey. Thanks for excepting this debate! This is my first online debate, so bear with me! So as a brief roadmap for the judges, I will NOT be presenting my own case, but will head straight into attacking my opponents case. I will present my own value of Justice, which is defined as giving each person what they are due.(I have clearly defined justice, therefore my opponent cannot say that it is not clearly defined, furthermore, your value isn't something that is supposed to be defined easily, it is the intangible goal that we try to come close to meeting in the debate. It is SUPPOSED to be vague.) In any society, justice must be upheld to have a functioning society, we must give people just punishments. Felons who have voilated other people's rights are no longer due the right to vote.This is even more important in a democratic society because such a society would thrive on fairness and justice. The value criterion in a Lincoln douglas debate can either be how your value is measured, or how it is acheived. Therefore Justice can be acheived throught Societal welfare, which is the well-being, safety, and prosperity of society. Because justice does whatever is best for society, and protects society, then justice can only be acheived through societal welfare. In any functioning society, the government must uphold justice in order to protect society. In a democratic society, the government is society, so therefore society must protect itself. To clarify the resolution I would like to define the following words. Democratic- Of the nature of, or characterized by, democracy; advocating or upholding democracy.(OED) Society- A collection of individuals composing a community or living under the same organization or government.(OED) Retain- To keep in possesion or use. Democracy-Government by the people; that form of government in which the sovereign power resides in the people as a whole, and is exercised either directly by them (as in the small republics of antiquity) or by officers elected by them(OED) Ought-That which should be done, the obligatory; a statement using ‘ought', expressing a moral imperative.(OED) In other words a moral obligation.(OED) Now to attack my opponents case. With my opponent first observation which stated three key elements to a democracy, he does not offer a single definition or source, so until he does this his observation cannot be considered a valid observation. As for his second observation The resolution specifically states RETAIN which is defined as to keep in possession or use. Meaning felons ought to be able TO KEEP the right to vote. Meaning they should be able to vote even while incarcerated (imprisoned), and never have the right to vote taken away from them, which is simply not the case. Felons should not be able TO KEEP in their possession(retain) the right to vote. However, there is nothing stopping them from REGAINING the right to vote AFTER they have repaid their debt to society, and proven that they can be beneficial to society once more. So while a felon in 1960 is still considered a felon in 2008, that doesn't necessarily mean that that felon ought not be able to vote if that felon has repaid his/her debt to society. My opponent's value is Equality, however equality only exists as long as people believe that they are equal. And Felons who have voilated societies rights, have basically said that they are above society, and not equal to the rest of the people in society, and if a felon doesn't believe that he/she is equal to the rest of society, then he/she should not be given the same rights as the rest of the people in society. Furthermore my opponent has provided no source that says the foundation of democracy is equality. Because democracy is defined as government by the people in society. I would say the foundation of a democracy is government by the people in society. And when a felon has commited a crime he/she removes themselves form society, and therefore can no longer have a say in the government of that society. As for his Value criterion, I'm not exactly clear on how it links to equality. He said that equalty is how democracy is maintained, again how is this true, he has not elaborated on this, he simply says that equality is how democracy is maintained. WHY is equality hoe democracy is maintained. (excuse me is I sound like a nagging school teacher) What does equality have to do with democracy. Isn't it the right to vote that maintains a democracy because democracy is based on the people in society goevern society, and the way in which the people in society govern society throught the right to vote? My opponents first contention is that Felon suffrage has no harms To attack his subpoint which was that felon suffrage for those in jail has no harm. My opponent says that because a democracy follows majority rule, the majority of the society decided what happens, not the 5 million or so felons currently in jail. He later says that sometimes the majority is only a slight majority, and the vote of the felons could change the outcome of the election. Isn't this kind of contradictory. Furthermore in his Contention 1 subpoint A he essentially says a felon's vote doesn't really matter because it won't change anything. Doesn't this basically contridict everything a democracy stands for? Because in a democracy EVERY vote matters, and EVERY vote can change an election. Furthermore a felon has voilated societies rights, and societies trust. If a felon cannot be trusted to run his/her own life how can we trust that felon to have a say in how the rest of society runs their live. Allowing a felon to vote would create a double standard because we would be allowing Law breakers to become Law makers. Also because ought is defined as a moral obligation, and doing what is moral is not always best for the actor. We cannot allow felons to vote because we have a moral obligation to protect society, and allowing felons to vote would be harmful to society. His Subpount B- Again negating the resolution doesn't mean all felons will NEVER be able to vote. It means all felons should not be able to RETAIN the right to vote. As I have already explained the difference I won't elaborate on it unless it proves neccessary. Furthermore a felony is a crime punished by imprisonment for over a year or death. If society feels that you are a big enough threat to have to be removed from society for over a year then you should not be able to vote until you have been rehabilitated. My opponent says in this subpoint that after a felon's time in jail he/she should be treated the same as the rest of the people in society. However this is not true, if it were we would be allowing sex offenders to teach third grade, which we don't because justice doesn't give second chances. It does whatever is best for society. Contention 2 Felon Suffrage has benfits. Subpoint A Felon suffrage preserves equality. Felons who have broken the law and committed a heinos crime can no longer be considered part of society. And as I have said before felons do not believe they are equal to the rest of the people in society. Furthermore, we don't give everyone equal voting right, take children and the mentally incompetant, they can't vote, in order to protect society, and similarly we must prevent felons from voting in order to protect society. SubPoint B Felon suffrage helps society progress First of all, in most democratic societies the people do not vote directly on bills, citizens vote for representatives who then vote for said bills. So a felon wouldn't really have his voice heard on this particular issue. Also the voice of the felons is not going to completely be oppressed, felons who have repaid their debt to society and proven themselves to be beneficial to society most likely know the quality of their prisons, and can lobby for prison reform. Because of all these reasons I strongly urge for a vote in Negation.