In a Democratic Society Felons ought to Retain the Right to Vote

Thank you for posting this debate. Since this resolution is an LD topic, I will outline what Lincoln Douglas Debate is for anyone who votes. If my opponent disagrees with how I explain LD, we can argue in the comment section. However, this is a basic outline of how to judge LD debate. The value is each debater's goal for the round. Values must be topical. The value criterion (sometimes called standard, criterion, VC) is a weighing mechanism used to determine if and to what degree the value is met. If an argument is never attacked, it is called a "dropped" argument. Once dropped, the opponent can not refute it in later rounds. Furthermore, an argument must always be extended (carried on in the next round) to have any impact. Neither side can ignore one of their own arguments and then bring it up in the last speech. Also, no new arguments can be brought up in round 3. They should be ignored if they are. And lastly, the affirmative side always has the burden of proof, and the negative side has the burden of refutation. When voting, you should first decide what value is the "paramount value" for the round. Next, you decide which VC best measures to what degree the resolution achieves the value. And finally, you look at the contentions (arguments) and determine which ones weigh the most on the VC. Whomever has the arguments that best achieve the value through the VC wins. It is possible to lose ones value and VC, but still win. Now my case... ************************************************************************************** Aristotle once said, "If liberty and equality are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost." Because I believe this statement, I stand in firm affirmation of resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. Before continuing, I offer the following definitions: Democratic society: is government by the people in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. Abraham Lincoln summarized this best in the words "of the people, by the people, and for the people." Felons: as defined by Black's Law Dictionary as one who has committed a felony. Ought: Should, or in the best interests of the actor Since these definitions will set the grounds for today's debate, a few observations are required – Observation 1: A democracy has three key elements that are essential to its existence: a)A political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections. b)The active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life. c)A rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens. It is with utmost importance that we all recognize the necessity of all three of these elements. By violating one, the democracy ceases to be a democracy. Therefore, both sides of this debate have the burden to prove that there position will not ignore any one of the three. Observation 2: A felon is not only a person currently in jail, but anyone who ever committed a felon, now, or decades in the past. In other words, a man who was convicted of a felon in 1960 is still considered a felon in 2008. Therefore, neither my opponent nor I can overlook this group in our argumentation. With both these observation in mind, we can look to my paramount value for today's round of maximizing equality. There are multiple reasons why maximizing equality is the paramount value: 1.Equality is the foundation for a democracy. All three elements of a democracy involve equality. If equality is not achieved, then the democracy falls. Therefore, equality has necessity 2.Equality can clearly be defined. When two individuals have the same possibility to act in the political process, equality is established. Other values, such as morality or justice can not clearly be defined, for they are subjective. To achieve equality, my value criterion is philosopher Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative. The Categorical Imperative is simply a cost-benefit analysis for an action. If the net gain outweighs the net loss, according to Kant, then the action should be done. The Categorical Imperative is the best standard for maximizing equality because: 1.The Categorical Imperative is a clear weighing mechanism and has a clear bright line. In other words, we know when an action meets the categorical imperative. 2.The Categorical Imperative is topical. With the word ought, the resolution implies an agent must determine if he or she will have a net benefit from the action. 3.The Categorical Imperative is needed for equality. A democracies primary goal is it's survival. If it falls, it can no longer achieve any of it's other goals. Equality is how a democracy is maintained. So in the context of this debate, an action that preserves a democracy, one that leads to equality, will always be the ultimate benefit from the Categorical Imperative. Therefore any action, according to my criterion that should be done, will lead to equality. Contention 1: Felon suffrage has no harms Subpoint A: Felon suffrage for those currently in jail has no harms I would like to reference my definition of ought, which describes an action that is beneficial to the actor. Therefore, my opponent will try to argue that suffrage to felons is harmful to society. This is simply not true. Since a democracy follows majority rule, a minority can only enact change when a section of the majority switches sides. Because of this, felons can not change public policy in a manner that will benefit them and harm the majority on a greater scale than any individual voter. Let's analyze a hypothetical scenario. A bill to abolish the death penalty is being voted on. If the death penalty is proven to help society, then the majority of society will vote to maintain it. So even if every single felon votes to abolish the death penalty, it will remain in place. Since no harm can come from allowing felons the right to vote, how can we say they don't deserve the same opportunity as everyone else. Subpoint B: Felon suffrage for those out of jail has no harms. It is understood that criminals deserve a punishment, but do they deserve a punishment beyond that decided on by a judiciary? Absolutely not. After serving their sentence, be in a fine or time in jail, a felon should be treated like the rest of society. By abolishing the felon's right to vote, we unjustly increase their punishment. Therefore, a felon, who has served their time, deserves the right to vote. Contention 2: Felon suffrage has benefits. Subpoint A: Felon suffrage preserves equality The expansion of suffrage is needed for equality to exist. If voting rights are distributed on different levels for different people, equality is obviously not met. Equality can not be achieved with anything else but suffrage. If two individuals are treated completely equal by a government, except with the ability to vote, then the individual with suffrage has an unfair and unequal advantage in changing public policy for his betterment. Subpoint B: Felon suffrage helps society progress Sometimes the majority is only a slight majority when the issue is highly debated or has no clear answer to it's net gains. In this instance, felons can add another perspective to the equation. For example, most individuals do not know the quality of their prison system. Felons do. In the case of a bill that wants to give millions of dollars to fund prison reform, the opinion of voters will split. Many will consider it a waste of precious money, while others may see the benefits of a better prison system. The majority may be those against the funding, but they aren't necessarily right. If felons have the right to vote, they can add numbers to the minority and possibly make it the majority.