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

Since this is the last round I will illustrate why the negative panel's reasoning is far superior to the affirmatives by deeply explaining my case in a summary. I will not attack my opponent because this is the last round and it would not be fair to him, nor I because I could not respond to his attack in the third round. So I will not motivate any more attacks upon my case. The resolution implies a society with a government that is a democracy. It does not matter if the democracy is a direct or representative. The only thing significant about the democracy is that the citizens in the society vote for their governors and officials. In this society certain citizens have committed harsh crimes. We know this from the mentioning of felons. The significant portion of felons is that the citizen has committed a brutal crime. We interpret the brutality of the crime from the American legal system definition of a felony. We also figure out that in this society that there is a legal system that prosecutes and punish citizens that commit crimes. No where in the resolution does it implies the American or any other democratic society. With the scenario the resolution implies illustrated above the resolution poses the question that should a felon retain the right to vote. Therefore we understand that the felon has already lost his right to vote. The question is asked because the society the felon dwells in has a democracy for a government where the citizens must vote for their governors. The negative panel will answer to the question that the felon should not retain the right to vote. The negative values democracy and will achieve are value through strengthen the power of voting. A democracy must have the populace vote, so by strengthen the power to vote the negative upholds the strongest facet of a democracy. The negative will strengthen the power of voting by only allowing certain individuals vote in elections. To vote one must not commit a felony. A democratic society can function if not all of its citizen's vote. The governors in the government purely must have gotten their through an election by the people. Strengthening the power of voting in a democratic society by disfranchising felons is morally correct. This is a debate of theory. The affirmative has the burden of proving that it is morally correct to allow all citizens in a democratic society to vote. The negative has to prove that it is morally correct to not allow all citizens the right to vote in a democratic society. When the minority that is disfranchised are only because they are felons it is morally correct. Any gender, race and age can be a felon, but they commit a felon. That ideology keeps others from being disfranchised because of sexism, racism or ageism. The negative panel presents contentions to why disfranchising felons is morally correct because a felon that loses the right to vote will not become a detriment to the society and it is just to revoke the privilege of voting as a deterrent for felonies in a democratic society. The felon in the society the resolution implies loses their right to vote because they have harmed the society and the society has endorse the lost of voting rights as a deterrent to prevent other non-felons from becoming felons. I have properly explained the negative reasoning and urge the judge to vote neg because the negative panel's reasoning is superior the affirmatives. Also I give thanks to my opponent for performing excellently in the debate it has been fun.