in a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote

I will begin by addressing my case and then my opponents. Many great philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes and Thomas Paine have all believed that every individual has inalienable or in other words natural rights. There are 2 types of rights humans are indebted to. The first type of rights is legal rights which are rights created by a society and natural rights which are rights that are consistent in any society. Legal rights can be changed, however inalienable rights are consistent in all situations. By preserving inalienable rights, I will affirm the resolution that in a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. I would like to clarify the following definitions from the Merriam-Webster's dictionary. Grant- to bestow or transfer formally Ought- used to express obligation; Retain- to keep. My value for this case is equality. My value criterion is preserving Natural rights. I have 1 observation in this case. The resolution must be consistent with both felons who are currently serving their punishment and felons who have finished their punishment. I have 1 observation in this case which is the way of determining who is eligible to vote in any democratic society. My first contention is by not allowing the felons to be granted voting rights, we are oppressing them. According to the widely accepted Doctrine of Inalienable rights, Article II states that Humans are granted liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression. If we do not believe that every human has inalienable rights, then we cannot have: 1)A democratic society because democracy depends on every member of society to have a way of voting for what they want. However, if some people who contribute to society do not get these rights, then it is contradictory democratic ideals because the felons are not being granted equal representation. 2) Equality among humans because the lack of inalienable rights would give some humans a greater intrinsic value than other humans. Without equality among humans, that it would be okay for slavery to exist. It would also be okay to disrespect a felon because they are less in value. Clearly, by not owing the felons the right to vote, we oppressing them from having a say on what direction they would want a certain government to run. Is it fair that you as an individual be deprived of these rights? Would that allow you to disrespect felons? Felons are no less than you if you cannot treat them with proper respect. My second contention is that by not giving the felons a right to vote, then we are not allowing them to have a second chance at redemption. Currently, we are in a world in which it is natural to make mistakes and faults, however we must be able to learn from those very mistakes and prosper as humans. By taking away their rights to vote after they have served their term you are not allowing redemption in that democratic society. Even convicted felons can still contribute to society. Gandhi and Malcolm X had been considered felons for they served time in jail, however they revolutionized his nation. So such figures like them cannot be treated right just because they are felons? My third contention is that by not giving felons the right to vote, we are encouraging the felons to commit another felony in the future. For example, say a person commits embezzlement and is on probation as a punishment. Now, say the person, who contributes to society, is denied from this society which does not welcome the person back. However the person is expected to follow all of the rules again however, loses his/her rights. Should the person continue to be less than all of the individuals in the society? NO! By taking away the felon's rights you are saying its okay to disrespect the individual. Empirical studies supporting my reasoning have been conducted which show that in those societies in which felons retain the right to vote, they are 50% less likely to commit another crime than in places which deny felons the right to vote. With natural rights in mind, we cannot allow felons to be valued as less of humans than others. Felons are people just like me and you. In William Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice, this quote holds true to this situation "If you prick felons, do they not bleed? If you tickle them, do they not laugh? If you poison them, do they not die? From the contentions above it can safely be stated that in a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. Now i will address my opponent's case. My opponent's value and criterion are both controdictory because punishment's purpose is redemption. When you give felons punishment, the goal is for them to rehabilitate. So if they are rehabilitated, they should be welcomed back with open arms. My opponents first contention is that Felons are considered less trustworthy. Full rights are often not completely restored following conviction. however, it is not true because felons are rehabilitated after they serve punishment. Remeber felons are people too. So this contention does not stand My opponents seconds contentions is that Under the affirmative they have to say felons who have committed voters fraud should be able to vote. However, i have proven why they should within my case so this contention is not pertainant. My opponent's third contention is that voting needs requirements. However, the resolution suggests a purely democratic society in which everyone can vote; it does not specify whether kids can vote or not. With this inconsistency this contention does not stand. I have proven how every part of my opponent's case does not stand while my case is the best resolution.