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

I will move straight down the flow. My opponent attacks my counter definition of democracy and observations on this by saying that it doesnt have to be ideal and there are a lot of types of democratic society. However, turn this because if there are a lot of types of democratic societies, then there cant be "a democratic society." So therefore we must deal with one type of democratic society, which is the ideal kind. Therefore, we can deal with only one type, unlike my opponent. My opponent attacks my felony counter definition because it isnt a dictionary definition. However, it is a logic definition. By this I mean in an ideal democratic society this is what a felony would entail. My opponent attacks my social contract definition by saying there are 3 types. However, I am dealing with the concept of the social contract theory and how it would be applied in a democratic society. My opponent attacks my definition of vote by saying it means to express one self's will, however we are dealing with this resolution in the context of a government. A government defines voting as taking advantage of your right to representation, and with an ideal democratic society it would be equal representation. My opponent attacks my value of safety by saying democracy is implict in the resolution. However, my opponent drops my point that in order to protect these democratic values we must have safety. Therefore, democracy cannot be achieved without safety. Therefore, safety is more important. My value criterion my opponent fails to disprove, because he says it doesnt represent a philosopher. However, it does not have to, in fact it is the idea of a social contract. It is how the social contract would be applied in a democratic society. Attacking my contention one my opponent fails to understand the social contract theory. My opponent again trys limiting it to a philosopher but fails at that. He doesnt understand that all social contract philosophers accept the fact that if you do not uphold your obligation to follow the law, then you violate the social contract. Therefore, the felon has violated the social contract and has threatened democratic values. Therefore, you can extend this contention because the felons have violated the social contract by not following the law. Attacking my contention two my opponent says that felons vote is not important, however it has been proven that the felons vote can decided elections. http://media.www.thefamuanonline.com... He goes on attacking by saying that you cannot take away rights for no reasons, however they have violated the social contract and can have their rights taken away. Finally he says that life and liberty is not stated in resolution. However, then the only right that can be stated on the social contract would be the right to equal representation, which would be the one that would be taken away. Opponents case: Since I have attacked the value I will move on. My opponents value criterion is flawed, because society does not treat felons equal because they jail them and deny them equal liberty. Therefore to apply by my opponents value criterion we would have to let felons out of jail. Therefore, we must look the Social Contract. My opponents contention one is flawed because he is advocating equal rights and this is not possible with felons being denied equal liberty. As well, the United States is not an ideal democratic society, and second felon disenfranchisement is constitutional. It was proven in the case of Richardson vs. Ramirez. My opponent dropped the attack on my opponents second contention was dropped that they have access to equal rights. As well, this is merely coincidence and preferential treatment cannot be given based off of social class. They violated the social contract and deserved to be punished. My opponents contention 3 is again wrong because he advocates equal rights. However, felons already do not have equal rights for they have been given reduced liberty. As well, the resolution implies they were punished in a democratic society, not a dictatorship. Finally his contention 4 is again wrong since voting in this case is being in the context is in an election. There is not disenfranchisment for other cases only governmental elections. As well, voting qualifications are already being limited by not allowing children or the mentally incompetent to vote. Felons belong in this category. For these reasons vote negative.