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

I too thank you for this debate. It has been a good one with a direction of a good finish. Good luck! Value Clash: My opponent made a claim that the values are the same thus it is a tie here. But this is not true at all. They ARE the same, but only CON achieves it. This is because throughout the process of a person being a citizen, and a person being a citizen with a felony, people are equally treated. All citizens can be felons; however, we only take the right of voting away from those who actually commit a felony. Therefore, the CON side achieves the value of Equality/Fairness. Criterion of Just Deserts: Here, you assume that the court's sentence means that they are off scott free. This is not true. There can be (an is) more than one punishment for being a convicted criminal/felon. Just like a convicted sex offender must register as such, a felon can't vote. Just like a restraining order can be issued against someone who commits a crime against someone, a felon can't cast a vote FOR society when he/she has already gone against it. The criterion serves its purpose as such: If you commit a felony against our society, you lose the right to have your voice (vote) heard on how the society is run. And thus, we are FAIR (equal) in our system. Since the resolution talks about a theoretical situation, I must admit that we are not being fair/equal to the people as of now (states Maine and Vermont vs. Mississippi). However, in each of these states, one another ARE treated equally to each other. Furthermore, I advocate that ALL felons should not get the vote back. Therefore, I urge that the government recognizes everyone as equal by having additional punishments of not being able to vote after committing a penalty. The value still stands on the CON side. Here, you make two interesting points worth addressing. 1) You assume that all of these elections are only federal elections. But the right to vote goes beyond just the national level it also has state and local elections. In one city, the mayor race was won by one vote. In another election, a school board race was tied and decided by a coin flip. What if instead of a coin flip, it was a felon who decided. Has the felon really earned that right? 2) Also, you assume that 2% of the vote and 2% of the population are the same. For example, you say that the closest presidential race was 2% so that means it's 2% of the vote. 2% of the vote very well could be substantially under the 5.3 million people that have committed a felony. --> Besides this, the biggest question you have to be asking yourself is "Have these felons earned the right to vote? The answer is no. Contention 1: To be honest, a crime against society = a person not deserving to be a part of that society. But since that isn't a political option, removing their right to help run society (through their vote) is the best way to say "If you commit a crime against society, you can't decide how society is going to be run." Therefore, they do get what they deserve. Perhaps they do deserve to be exported after committing a felony, but that is non-resolutional. So for now, let's just take away their right to vote. Contention 2: I think you misinterpret the point of my argument. You see, felons wouldn't ALWAYS be the swing vote, however, sometime they will be (whether local, state, or federal election). And when they are, you must ask yourself, do they really have to right to have a say in the same government and society that they go against, the answer is NO. Contention 3: You do not have to qualify in order to vote, but you can't be unqualified. The law states that the ‘right of voting can not be denied because of' (several things). This means that it can be denied for other reasons such as felonies. And as long as this law has been around, no abuse has been created. You can't vote if you're not 18 (excluding some rarities in state laws) and you can't vote if you're a felon (also excluding some rare state laws). These are ways to be able to lose your vote, but you don't have to qualify by passing tests or having money, it is guaranteed unless you're not registered, not 18, or not a felon. I see no abuse in the system and my opponent has not pointed out any abuse so this argument must be flowed to the CON side. HIS CASE: Contention 1: Again, felons wouldn't control all of the elections, but they will be the swing vote in several of them. Once again, they do not deserve this right. Contention 2: Woah woah woah, where is your evidence that says that felons that can vote have a 50% less chance of committing a crime. This claim is abusive and unrealistic. Other than that, my opponent claims that felons have the right to have their voice heard. Even though he doesn't say why they deserve to have their voice heard (I have proved the opposite (crime against society = no voice in society)). Contention 3: This argument is completely abusive. Amendments talk about why rights CAN'T be taken away, not who we guarantee them to. Felons are not one of the reasons to be able to take it away, so legally, CON wins. Even though they're minorities by definition, everyone is capable of being one and no one is born one. Becoming a felony is a CHOICE, and they are assumed to know the consequences of making that choice particularly in the states that outlaw a felony from voting. Analysis: Democracy STILL exists whether pro or con wins. This criterion is thus useless. However, when you vote CON, you gain the criterion of just deserts (by them getting what they deserve) AND both of the values (taking away the right of felonies voting is fair and equal among the states). NO amendment says that felonies MUST be given voting capabilities, so this argument is useless. There is no substantial reason to give felonies a right to vote but I give you plenty of reasons as to why to take away the right to vote (crime against society = no voice for society). Therefore, I urge a CON vote. I eagerly await your speech and good luck!