Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S.

In response to me asking how taking a felon’s right to vote protects other’s freedom con responds “Because voting is a civic duty necessary for a healthy society and criminals are anti-social with little care for civility.” Voting is a civic duty. Some criminals may have little care for civility, though to assume that for all is foolish. Likewise, a so called “felon” who has been in prison for 20 years may have an entirely different world view then when the crime was committed. Either way, as mentioned previously, felons would make up about 2% of the vote, and that is only if they all voted. Clearly there would be no harm done in allowing “felons” to retain the freedom to vote. "I may not agree with what you have to say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it" I maintain that this quote supports the principle behind this debate. Despite my opponent foolishly declaring that “criminals are anti-social with little care for civility” they are still part of society however removed they appear. They are still governed by the system. Again as the Declaration of Independence states “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” Felons, without the right to vote cannot give consent to be governed and are therefore victims of tyranny. This is a violation of the founding principles of this nation. Con then says “You complain that minorities are disproportionately affected. I agree that is a problem but the problem is for another debate. That debate is about the failed war on drugs and the failed war on poverty.” I never made such an argument. Though it appears that con feels that minorities are disproportionately affected. This is a welcome endorsement in favor of the resolution. Conduct: Con has repeatedly ridiculed me in this debate. Saying things like “I can hardly believe anyone would make the argument…” and “Mind your own business.” These Ad Hominem statements have no place in debate. Con has also repeatedly committed the straw man fallacy saying “You also seem to think that Felons in America only lose their right to vote. They lose other rights also.” I never expressed such a view. “Your proposal here is to have a centralized government make a law to force states to act against our own will.” I never made such a proposal. I merely argued that Felons should retain the right to vote. Not once have I mentioned how this ought to be accomplished. Lastly and perhaps the least offensive “You complain that minorities are disproportionately affected.” I never made such a complaint. Though, it is a reasonable argument to make. I leave it to the voters to determine if the Straw man fallacy and Ad Hominem attacks are valid. Closing Statement: As con conceded, minorities are disproportionately affected. Allowing Felons to retain the right to vote poses no harm. As such, taking such a right away is tyrannical and against the principles this nation is founded on. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”( Declaration of Independence) If the right to vote is taken away, our entire system of government cannot live up to its primary purpose. In the interest of our government filling its purpose, or in other words, securing the unalienable rights afforded to all men, it is only reasonable to conclude that Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S.Vote Pro!