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

I will defend my own case, then move on to attack my opponents --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------NC Observation 2) UN/felon and ex-felon --> OK, if you used my opponents logic then the UN database would barely consist of any words due to the fact that very little is shared by all nations. For example, the UN defines communism. Most nations are not communistic, but the UN still defines it. Same here. Although some nations do not differenciate between a felony and misdeamenor, the UN still defines it. Retain --> I am not making the resolution categorically false, because my opponent is changing the wording of the resolution with his false (and probably made up) definition. My definition is not inferior, because a definition (my opponents) that is made up is not superior to anything Value: Justice --> yeah, he kind of just gave up on his democratic society value. Hopefully you, the voting panel, will catch that VC: Maximization of Fairness --> he says I never defined fairness (sorry, common sense implied), so I accept your view of fairness. But this is why it is wrong. Notice, how my opponent says 'everyone' and 'maximizing the right to vote'. Okay, giving some child in Africa the right to vote would be giving 'equal rights to all' and 'maximizing the right to vote'. So, as you can see, this does not uphold justice and fairness to the people here. Cont: 1--> Retribution --> If ex-felon is a sub-category(under) of a felon, then felon is a superior category of an ex-felon, My opponent openly aknowledges the fact that his whole case is built upon ex-felons, which, according to him, is inferior on a resolutional scale to that of a felon. --> Okay, so now my opponent is saying you can only punish that which the felon violated. Let's take insider trading, shall we? Insider Trading does not violate anybody's pursuit of hapiness, yet, society puts them in jail which inherently violates their pursuit of hapiness. If you agree with my opponent, then you must rape rapists and asssault assaulters or just not punish them altogethher, neither of which would not uphold justice Cont: 2--> Legal Consistency --> states do not have different disenfranchisement laws through incarceration (outside the two that I argue should) You either retain your right to vote (which only 4% of states do, and I argue that they should do not) or you lose it (which they should) Cont: 3--> Double Standard --> my opponent did not attack this contention, therefore it can be extended through to the final round. My opponent is dropping more and more of my arguments [Rebuttal] Value: Democratic Society --> He concedes that my value is superior. End of Story VC: Maximizing Participation --> he does not defend my attacks on his VC. Therefore, you can extend to the final round. Cont: 1--> Contesting Views --> My opponent says that I did not understand my argument, so, therefore, as long as I prove that my first rebuttal was pertaining to his case, my attack stands through to the final round (he did not say 'well even if it was about my case, this is why it is wrong. .. ') --> My opponent says 'basically, it oppresses other peoples views'. So, by oppressing you or your views, I treat you as less than a normal citizen, ergo treating them as second class citizens. Just for review, I will list THREE reasons that this is false --> 1) Becoming a second-class citizen means losing some rights. If felons did not lose any rights in jail, then punishment could not exist. He is dejustifying ALL punishment 2) Felons have brought this on themselves. By committing a felony, they treat their victim as a second class citizen 3) (TURN) This goes against my opponent observastion of felons being felons for life. If we are not to make them into second class upon re-entry, then we would not be treating them as felons for life. My opponent has an option: Drop this contention (his only one) or drop his felon-exfelon observations. They cannot coincide with each other [Chrystallize] --> His value is noy only inferior to that of mine, but he openly aknowledges that it is as well. His whole case is based on democracy (democratic society), so proving his value inferior should destroy the rest of his case, as well as my attacks on them --> His value criteria attack was dropped, and cannot be defended in the last rebuttal. He realizes that my criteria better upholds the value of justice --> I attacked all of his contentions (only one) and observations (only one).