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

To my opponent, thank you, and good luck in the final round [Overview] Some of my opponents 'crosschecks' appear to be sketchy, so I will try my best to depict what he attempts to argue. Also, you can ignore my opponents continuation of his argument on the comment section, for that his obviously against the rules and for good reason [My case-Observations] Observation I: America --> he accepted it, end of story Observation II: Felons/ Ex-felons Pretty much, my opponent argues that felons are put back into society, and therefore I have to extend this to felons that are in society --> Upon re-entry into society, felons are no longer considered a felon by society. If society still recognized them as a felon, they would still be in jail serving their felony. Because society has realized that their debt was paid off, they are now considered an ex-felon --> Because ex-felons are not implied by the resolution, anything pertaining to an ex-felon is inherently unresolutional [My case-Contentions] Contention I: Retribution My opponent argues my whole contention because I made an argument on how he was implying things that were not relevant to the resolution --> My opponent says that we have to look to the time frame from when felons get out. This is wrong because you are inferring something that is not implied by the resolution. For example, he says that all felons are eventually released (which I proved wrong; capital punishment, death in prison, life in jail, etc.) But, because he is looking post-resolution, why can't you look pre-resolution? I was simply using my opponents logic against him. If he is going to infer thinks that are not implied, I then am able to infer things that are not implied. Pre-resolution means giving babies the right to vote, which, in my opinion, is extremely dangerous and jeopardizes the whole democracy Contention II: Legal Consistency He argues that we do not have a legal system and that I value the right to vote over basic rights. --> The whole point of my argument was the fact that we do not have a legally consistent system, and that we must strive towards one, which include disenfranchisement during incarceration --> I do not value the right to vote over the right to speech. All positive rights are equal. I say that for a neutral arbiter to uphold standard principles of fairness to its constituents, the government must take away the right to vote because more intrinsic rights are withheld through incarceration Contention III: Double Standard My opponent says that I am 'turning the right to vote into a privilege' --> This is wrong. I, more than my opponent, value the right to vote. It is exactly why I value it that I take it away from undeserving people. By rewarding political rights and say in the government in incarceration, my opponent is condoning violent acts and setting a double standard to that of law-abiding citizens by making the law-breakers into the law-makers [My case-Value/Value Criteria] Value: Justice --> my opponent failed to attack my value, and so it can thus be extended Value Criteria: Maximization of Fairness --> Once again, he dropped his attack on my VC [His Case- Observations, Contentions, Value, Value Criterion] --> he dropped ALL of them. If you do not believe me, check his last post. All my arguments from the previous post are therefore extended [Voting Issues] (1) My opponent dropped his attack on my first observation, my value premise, and my value criteria (2) I defended my second observation and my contentions above (3) He dropped his WHOLE CASE on the last rebuttal. This includes his value, which his whole case is built upon. In LD rules, he forfeits his case (4) Because he has forfeited his case and did not present one, he has not reached his negative burden, which is to prove the resolution categorically false Thank you