In a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote

Mkay… here is my rebuttal As a brief roadmap I will first go over my own case, defend it… and then move on to attacking my opponents case. I have a value of Democracy, and my opponent chose to attack it by stating that "the goal of every democratic society is justice. The goal of a democratic society is nothing more than to maintain democracy. Nowhere in the resolution does it say that this theoretical democracy is a "just" democracy. A democracy may strive for injustice if it so chooses. While this may not be the most ethical road, it is nonetheless a road which a democratic society may take. My opponents argument is truly non- topical to the resolution because it is based off of a very flimsy assumption. My opponent then moved on to attack my criterion by basically stating that the social contract must be present in order for individual rights to exist... however once again this theory fails. According to John Locke's theory of the social contract, the social contract only exists to insure the safety of its citizens. If there is no social contract present the individuals within the society fall into a "war of all against all" in which all rights are taken. Including the right to rape, murder, and steal. The very point of the social contract is to limit individual rights and ensure that certain rights are protected in order to maintain societal stability. Secondly… my opponent fails to truly address the points made by my criterion. Individual rights must be protected and even my opponent's criterion supports this theory. Therefore the denying of the right to vote ultimately creates a system which hurts the overall concept of democracy. Against my contention 1 he states that these individual's have broken the social contract and thus have exited themselves from society. These individuals may have committed crimes, however they He moves on to state several facts which deal with the rates of recidivism. This is once again non-topical. Not only does he not state where these nebulous facts come from… he fails to say where these facts are taking place. They could be taking place in Uzbekistan for all know. However if we are to assume that these facts originated from the US my opponent has now demonstrated the uselessness of disenfranchisement. The United States has made it common policy to disenfranchise its felons. This simply is unacceptable. No tangible benefit can be found within this practice, and my opponents facts help solidify this point. Against my contention 2 my opponent says that we are DEVALUING a law-abiding individual's vote. He says that we are elevating a felon's vote above these good people… but the last time I checked…. One vote was one vote regardless of where it came from. Then my opponent goes on to contradict himself by saying that the vote of a felon is equal to that of a non-felon. This makes absolutely no sense. The denying of felons the right to vote ultimately harms the equality within the society and thus harms the very core of democracy. He goes on to list the benefits of society that felons enjoy. They have the use of public schools, firefighters, etc… but this misses the entire point of the subpoint. They have no REPRESENTATION. These individuals are forced to pay the same taxes that all other individuals within the society must pay and not only are they denied many job opportunities and public services, they are also denied that most basic and fundamental right of representation within their government. This cause alone was enough to drive the framers to take up arms against England and become felons themselves. Felons ought to have the right to vote. They deserve it just as much as anyone does. Moving on to my opponent's case. My opponent holds the value of justice in which he defines as giving each his due. This value may be an important and lofty goal but it doesn't relate to anything my opponent has said. Nowhere within my opponent's case does he use this concept. It falls due to the sole fact that there is no reason for it to be there. The value is meant to be the grounding point for the entire case and yet my opponent fails to relate it, even in the slightest way, to his case. I shall group my opponents Criterion and first contention together as they both hinge upon the concept of the social contract. The social contract is something which is important and it is true that felons have broken the social contract, however we are taking about the concept of disenfranchisement. It is true that these individuals have harmed society however it is the duty and obligation of the government to uphold the social contract as well. If it takes actions which harm the overall society by causing an increase in crime, as I proved in contention 1, as well as harming the ideal of democracy, which I proved in contention 2, there can be only one option. Felons ought to have the right to vote. Against my opponents subpoint b, which states that the act of giving a felon the right to vote elevates them above the law-abiding citizens within that society. This train of logic fails due to its inability to take into account that felons do not have the same rights as a law abiding citizen. My opponent would like to conveniently ignore the fact that felons have lost their right to bear arms, their right to equal treatment, etc, etc… this is a lifelong loss. The right to vote is something which is intrinsically different from other punishments. It serves no tangible benefit, and it even harms the rehabilitation process which leads to more crime. My opponent's second contention deals with how the eliminating those of poor judgment from the voting pool makes the government stronger. This line of thought is the exact opposite of a democracy. Then he moves on to explain a "Trojan horse" effect. As though felons are an invading army bent on the destruction of the society. This is simply ludicrous. These are citizens of the society, not an invading army. My opponent would like us to believe that they are weakening the voting pool, but this is only within my opponents view. From that sort of thinking comes the slippery slope which ends in a dictatorships. If the majority of people within a democracy believe a certain way, then that should be the way. Plain and simple, this is the basis of democracy. The majority of the citizens should be the ones who decide the policies within that society. And with that, I leave the floor to my opponent.