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

I stand for the side of the negative of the resolution; in a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. The negative panel believes in a democratic society, felons should not retain the right to vote. The negative panel accepts the burden of proving that a democratic society can function properly if felons are disbarred from voting. The negative panel has the moral high ground in this battle. To not stand for the negative you stand for ideology that is immorally inferior and of substandard value. Before I present the negative panel's case, I will define key words that will help set the parameters of the debate; Democracy: government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. Society: a highly structured system of human organization for large-scale community living that normally furnishes protection, continuity, security, and a national identity for its members. Felons: A person has committed a felony. Right: Laws that are upheld by the society that has ratifies and respects the sovereignty of the laws Government: System design to provide resources and protection for it society. Felony: an offense, as murder or burglary, of graver character than those called misdemeanors, esp. those commonly punished in the U.S. by imprisonment for more than a year. The negative panel's core value is democracy. To stand for the negative panel you value democracy. The affirmative panel does not value democracy as highly as the negative panel. To value democracy in this case is taking the moral high ground. It is morally inferior to not value democracy in this case. The negative panel values democracy because it is essential to the society the resolution scenario implies. Democracy further allows the societies longevity. The negative panel's value criterion is strengthening the power of voting. The negatives value criterion up holds and achieves its core value of democracy. Democracies work with people voting for representatives and public officials in their government. Strengthen the people's vote you strengthen the government. By allowing the most qualified citizens to vote and the proper candidates to run for public office a society strengthens it power of voting. My first contention for my case is felons that lose the right to vote will not become a detriment to the society. By granting the privilege of voting to all people, it allows the people to choose how they wish there government to govern them. In a democratic society the populace must vote for the governors and officials. It goes without saying but it must be brought up that some people must vote for the government's officials. So in a democratic society the people automatically have the right to vote, but not all the people. Essentially a democratic society needs the general populace to vote for the governing officials. The negative panel would argue that in a democratic society of one million people, 10% of that population can only have the right to vote, and the society will still function correctly. The topic of the debate is whether felons ought to retain the right to vote in a democratic society. The topic is not in a democratic society all the citizens ought to have the right to vote, nor is the topic is it morally correct to allow all citizens the privilege of voting in a democratic society. The resolution questions the affirmative panel and negative panel if a democratic society can function if certain members of the society can not vote and present the selected members as felons. The negative panels would answer to the questions; that a democratic society will function with only a few people voting in elections and if the non-voting individuals were felons that it is morally correct to not allow them to vote. My second contention for my case is it is just to revoke the privilege of voting as a deterrent for felonies in a democratic society. To prevent citizens from committing felonies, societies have two major options. The first is creating welfare programs dedicated to research of why people commit felonies and the prevention of people committing felonies. The second is enforcing deterrents to prevent people from committing felonies, such as the death penalty and revoking the privilege to vote. The two methods above prevent the actions of felonies and essentially keep the peace in a section of the society. It is just to revoke the privilege of voting to further insure the safety of the citizens in a society. A democratic society can function if not all of its citizens can vote. Negative panel suggest that citizens that commit felonies are labeled felons by that society and must enjoy fewer privileges than non-felons. This is a strong deterrent to crime and strengthens punishment over crime. The negative panel suggests that the judge consider the idea of in a democratic society, felons should not retain the right to vote. The frame work of the negative panel's case was built upon a core value of democracy. The negative panel upholds their moral of democracy by implementing our value criterion of strengthen the power of voting. The negative panel's first contention is a convicted Felon has committed gross violations of an established legal system and therefore relinquished any rights and privileges granted by that established system. The negative panel's second contention is it is just to revoke the privilege of voting as a deterrent for felonies in a democratic society. I draw the end of the negative panel's case by urging the judge to vote neg for the win in the debate.