Resolved: In a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote.

I'm terribly sorry my opponent missed his time on the actual round. It's perfectly ok with me that you posted them into the comments portion (and I ask that voters pay absolutely no attention to that in deciding their vote). Lets open with some refuutes on my case and then further strengthen my side of today's debate. >>>"First off, you're assuming taht the convicted rapist is not sorry and is still malicious. Secondly, you're under the misconceived notion that someone who has a history of rape, can vote for someone who will rape america."~ Me Yes, I might be making some assumptions. Forgive me if I give the benefit of the doubt to law-abiding citizens. How dastardly of me.~ You --More like, "forgive me if a few million felons lose the right to vote." >>>" There is no harm that can come from a rapist, murderer, or thief voting because they can only vote on something that's productive for the society. After all, we let ex-convicts marry, reproduce, buy beer, own property and drive. "~Me False analogy, because the felon's decision to drink beer, get married etc. doesn't affect the rest of society.~You --Does it matter if the felon is affecting society as long as they are affecting it in a positive manner? >>>"If we thought criminals could never be reformed, we wouldn't let them out of prison in the first place. "~Me They can be reformed, but I'm assuming they're not reformed, until they prove otherwise.~You Problem, how do they get the chance if you don't give it to them? How can you say, "prove you are reformed," but then give no chance? We give prison sentances and let people out based on them being reformed. Keep in mind, when a persn committs a felony, they're ALWAYS a felon. You're saying this person should never gain the right to vote because they haven't proven they're reformed? Then why let them out of prison in the first place? >>> "The fact that you don't want people with different opinions to vote, is outragious! The whole purpose of voting is to weigh all opinions!"~Me Again, we already censor certain opinions that we deem immature or unfit, such as children's and mentally incompetent's. And again, the readers need to ask themself if the forgers and drug dealers are fit to decide your neighborhood's policeman.~You --Problem here is, these people we're talking about here aren't children nor are they mentally incompetent. Another problem here is that you think they'll be choosing policeman. These people will be voting on bills, representatives, senators, presidents, etc (all of which are for our benefit). The police Acadamy picks police officers. Seeing as how these senators, bills, and representatives will affect these felons (especially the felons that are out of prison) they should give their opinion on the issue. What harm does this have on society? Absolutely none. They are still forced to obey by the law after they get out of prison and still forced to pay taxes like everyother citizen, only difference is, they have a scar in their past. Note I said their past. Meaning they've served the due punishment for their crime ALREADY. What purpose then is there to disenfranchise the felon after he's rehabilitated? Lets take drug charges (which you speak of) for example. Now, idk the exact point where a certain ammount of drugs becomes a felony, but what makes you think someone who is a gram above the felony mark has worse judgement on voting for a president than someone who is a gram under the felony mark? Better yet, seeing as how Presidents have to meet a certain minimum to run for president (meaning there is no BAD choice), what makes you think they will be worse at picking a president then any other citizen? You must see that we are excluding these people solely on the purpose of them having a different opinion than us. Now, in an instance when these people can ACTUALLY hurt us, of course it's different, but if the worst that can happen is something that is STILL productive for society, what's the problem. Put it this way> Lets say that there is candidate A and B for any bill, governor, president, senator, mayor, reppresentative etc. Now, there are going to be non-felons who pick both A and B. What makes you think that if a felon picks either A or B that it will be detrimental to our society? Voting may very well not be inalienable in most societies such as monarchies and dictatorships, but in a democratic society, yes, it is inalienable. A way you can look at this is, take away what you're arguing is inalienable or not and see if the subject being argued upon, is the same. If it is the same without the subject, it's not needed. However, if without the subjetc it is something completely different, it is essential and inalienable. What is a democratic society without voting? Or Better yet, is a democratic society a democratic society without the right to vote? Of course not, in seeing this, you see that it is essential to have the right to vote if you're going to have an actual democratic society. I ask my opponent and audience again [...] What is a democratic society, without the right to vote?