In a democractic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote

OVERVIEW: This guy forgets to argue the LENGTH of my arguments as badly as Brittney Spears forgets to wear her underwear. The framework from the very beginning of this debate that has gone cold-conceded, he offers no BRIGHTLINE as to what a "just" society is. Then he tries to frame his entire case around justice and a "just society" Since the resolution is framed under a predicated democracy, we must view this procedurally: there is no legitimate basis for any preferences to be rejected. He offers ABSOLUTELY NO BRIGHTLINE as to what is the universal concept of "just" or attaining justice is. This means that under the democratic framework, justice can never be attained. His definition of "democracy" indicates governed by the people. Inversely though—the majority of the people's decision or consensus is what determines a decision rather than whether it is "just or not." Even if I drop my whole case and run away, UNDER HIS OWN DEFINITIONAL/RESOLUTIONAL TERMS, JUSTICE CAN NEVER BE ACHIEVED UNDER CONSENSUS. HIS CASE: 1)"OBSERVATIONS" (WHAT HE TRIES TO DO) a)He tries to extend his observation 1 about America, let him do that—it won't affect anything. All the arugments he tries to make about America is "non resolutional" or "non-topical", but I'll later prove that in this dsebate round. b)Don't let him get away with these scrawny, sneaky observation arguments put the gist of your ideals into the core of this debate round. c)Prefer my overview that goes 100% COLD-CONCEDED. FRAMEWORK SUBSUMES THE OBSERVATIONS 2)He tries to argue that FELONS won't be put into society all the time but this is flawed for FOUR REASONS a)Felons are the same products of the exfelons by timeframe b)Extend the TF argument that goes virtually cold-conceded. TF doesn't make or break the thematic concept of a felon from an ex-felon c)His definitional concept offers no brightline, don't let him bring up new clarifications in the last speech he should have done that from the very beginning d)All contentions and arguments are predicated off felons e)Reasonability checks 3)CONTENTION 1-RETRIBUTION a)He tries to post an argument that post res. Vs pre resolution is the equivalency of adults into babies however that's flawed for four reasons a.That is not what I'm saying, great job taking it out of context. The argument stands that FELONS are products of EXFELONS by the non-contributory TIMEFRAME which still puts them into the position of what the argument/resolution frames b.Felons and exfelons are products of each other, there's no reason to reject the arguments when they are FULLY PREDICATED OFF OF FELONS AND THEIR RIGHTS TO VOTE c.Inevitably put into same position—felons that are NOT put into society are given the net loss of basic rights (he concedes that in contention 2) meaning that they are THEMATICALLY the same position as an ex-felon by a matter of timeframe. Days and Months aren't going to change the ability to be more "just" d.Reasonability Checks. Observations check. Framework Checks 100 percent. b)He then goes on to state that the argument about how felons use the fact that there are different types of magnitudes of punishment in different societies as UNRESOLUTIONAL but that's not even WHAT THE ARGUMENT IS IMPLYING UNDER HIS OWN DEFINITIONAL TERMS. What societies come down to CAN BE IN AMERICA. Felon punishment laws and the different magnitudes are GROSSLY inconsistent. Felons use the fact that in one area of the United States, say for instance Texas, may punish less on one misconduct whereas New York on the otherhand, may consider that misconduct of greater magnitude of punishment. Flawed for two reasons a.It still subsumes a democratic framework. IT REFERS TO DIFFERENT MAGNITUDES OF PUNISHMENT UNDER THE SAME FRAMEWORK. b.The argument talks about different loopholes for different magnitudes of punishment c)He miserably tries to argue the argument about rape vs the government raping back as an "I agree" but HE ONCE AGAIN takes this poorly out of context. What the argument is saying is THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO LIMIT to having the government do the same EXACT misconduct to the felon itself. The argument talked about the magnitude of punishments and instead, the government PUNISHES THE FELONS based on the magnitude of what they did… NOT BASED ON WHAT THEY DID. a.HE COLD CONCEDES Argument 3 and the following two subpoints. Extend that across. b.The subpoints are as follows: a) It assumes that all felons are convicted of crimes that need the magnitude of dehumanization AT EVERY SINGLE TYPE and b) there is one alternative or one type of punishment that is to be ultimately attained by these felons. THIS MEANS HE POORLY GENERALIZES THE MAGNITUDE OF EVERY MISCONDUCT. THERE ARE DIFFERENT MAGNITUDES OF MISCONDUCT EVEN WITH FELONS. 4)CONTENTION 2-LEGAL CONSISTENCY a.The only two spotty arguments he makes on this argument's flow is that THERE IS A CONSISTENT SYSTEM and that the felons have no right in the society BUT BOTH ARE POORLY TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT IN THE ARGUMENTATION. HE COLD CONCEDES POINTS 3-7. LET'S TAKE A CLOSER LOOK. b.On argument subpoint 1, the argument is that the syntax of his contention concedes that the freeom to vote/speech is GREATER than that of basic rights. THIS IS NOT ABOUT A "CONSISTENT SYSTEM". This is about the different magnitudes of rights. Your contention clearly states "other many basic rights are taken away"… "why this" The correlative comparisons indicate that BASIC RIGHTS are far more "basic" or less than that of freedom to vote/speech. This means this argument is wholly flawed for two reasons i.Out of context ii.The argument implies basic vs.greater magnitude as opposed to what you think c.On argument subpoint 2, the argument was that he concedes that BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS ARE TAKEN AWAY meaning that there is NET LOSS OF RIGHTS (regardless of its magnitudes) from the felons THAN THE LAW-ABIDIING CITIZEN. There is STILL A NET LOSS . He further helps to expound this argument by saying that they have no right… exactly, that is my argument. Essentially these felons have less rights in the end than a law-abiding citizen. d.On argument Subpoint 3, THIS GOES COLD CONCEDED. The argument talks about how, specifically within my first constructive, that TAKING AWAY THE FREEDOM TO VOTE/SPEECH (already conceded to be > basic rights) would be an additional, unnecessary punishment after the removal of the pre-requisites e.Subpoint 4=Cold conceded. Talks about how EVEN WITH REMOVAL of the freedom of speech/vote there is absolutely no deterrent f.The impact placed on Subpoint 5 THAT GOES COLD CONCEDED ONCE AGAIN is that when you take away this right to vote/speech, you make the right a reformed privilege to be granted by the only powerful meaning that it condones the tyrannistic autonomy by contention 2 talks about g.Subpoint 6 talks about how the syntax you place on your contentions are "fair" and "basic" both are assumed VALUES that have no brightline in the democratic society. Refer to my overview if you're lost. h.Cross Apply democracy- democracy indicates rulings REGARDLESS of how basic, fair, it is in your eyes. 5)CONTENTION 3-DOUBLE STANDARD a.Once again, very spotty flow. The only three arguments he make are once again taken out of context. He cold concedes many subpoints. Let's take a closer look b.Subpoint A indicates the Turn: That you condone a tyrannistic autonomy by making the right to vote a reformed privilege against the already taken away prerequisites. You go on to say the 98% vs 2% against the people however this is flawed for two main reasons. i.There are no warrants to these 2 numbers ii.The argument was specific to the imposition of character requirements on voting that endlessly and doomlessly turn into a right only to be given to the "privileged" c.Subpoint B indicates that JUST BECAUSE THERE IS NO AGREEMENT WITH THE NEGATIVE OPTION DOESN'T MEAN I CONDONE