in a democratic society a felon ought to retain the right to vote.

First i will attack his value of justice by asking, "what really is justice? " Justice i guess is defined by people, but how do people define justice? My opponent clearly only covered one side of justice, claiming that his justice is the only justice. Justice is never black and white like how my opponent is trying to paint it as, in fact many people don't get the same impact of disenfranchisement by becoming a felon as others do. My opponent describes his shallow justice as "what is due to one by their actions" and uses social contract to back it up, but can my opponent explain why/how one crime can be considered a misdemeanor like stealing $150 in one state and receive a slap on the wrist, and in another state years in prison and dehumanized by being silenced for life? Basically my opponent will have to answer why some people get some harsh "justice" and others don't, why justice as how he tried painting it so black and white is so different in different countries and even states , and how his expression "what is due to one" doesn't even apply in our justice system as you can see one man that does the same crime gets a different impact, and how a murderer and a petty theft can have the same due/impact? Basically my opponent's idea of justice doesn't exist, and is too black and white to even use in this round, none the less life. My opponent's criteria is of social contract. Social contract is flawed as can be. 1) It's never the same in every country, or even state, therefore how can we base everything on something that contradicts itself? 2) It's always changing! !! Before the civil war it was part of every african american's social contract to be a slave and 3/5 of a human. if they denied, they were beaten, and killed. Even 50 years ago gay marriage was seen as abomination, now it's almost every where. People don't have the same picture of justice, or even the legitimacy of the social contract. 3) technically this superficial contract is already fulfilled. Every one of those felons are/ have already served their punishment, disenfranchisement is just an added impact, not a punishment. the social contract just asks for a punishment, not an added impact. I would also like to bring up again that this impact isn't the same everywhere, thefore can not be seen as common justice like how my opponent may try to make it. for my opponent's first contention, i would like to extend the same argument i used against his criteria. Also to point out his second sub point is a load of B. S. He says by allowing them to vote the law doesn't apply to them and that they will be considered equal. 1) Uuuuhhhhh, weren't they already punished for years? isn't that enough for them to tell that they are punished, and that they have to follow the law? Also the added impacts of not being able to get a state job, also it being hard as hell to even get a decent job with a private institute. My opponents is trying to limit them so much to where justice isn't even an issue, but revenge just become the priority. 2) Also the point of prison is to reintegrate people back into society and once again be equals, why would we plummet them even more? even for the ones that are still in prison, they are still fulfilling their punishment and will eventually be pushed back into society. - 2nd contention. he says felons will affect voting and cause "bad things". in a democracy voting is seen as the market place for ideas, there are no wrong ideas. Basically my opponent is saying they will have unjust impacts, so basically the felon that votes republican is making a wrong decision, and the harvard law student that votes for a Nazi party is making the right choice. My opponent is saying the man that stole 150 dollars will always make the wrong choice and contaminate the vote, and some loose law following citizens will always make the right choice. Not only is that foolish, but he is putting many groups of people under one shallow category. Also no idea is ever wrong in democracy, by he proposing this he is tearing apart the resolution itself, and completely contradicting himself about what is "just". also my opponent never did any research on this, if he did he would know that the majority of felons don't vote, for instance in Utah less than 5% of felons were even registered to vote before becoming felons, therefore they wouldn't even cause a dent. Even if they did, it wouldn't matter, there is no wrong choice in dmocracy. My case value- his attack was that his value is superior to mine. like i have shown his value is very shallow, one cited, and even contradicts itself by saying "what is due to one", like i have shown this "justice" changes everywhere. No one gets the same "due". He even agreed with me by saying, "he's right". Then he said i have to allow all felons to vote. okay that's fine with me, murderers and rapists make up less than 5% of felons, they are just simply the metal needles in a hay stack, why bring down everyone for them? every program has it's "needles". Welfare has people that just leach off the government, should we get rid of it? -no Public schools have people that just drop out and don't care about their education, should we get rid of it? -no. Therefore my opponent's arguments are futile. value criteria- he says many people are not patriotic. .. so? They still fulfill a patriotic duty if they know it or not. It doesn't take a founding father to vote, just a normal every day man can do the same patriotic duty. He says it's not relevant, but if every person were to not vote, then there would be no new president, and a total anarchy would occur. my 1st contention A) he says misdemeanors are nor relevant. the only problem is that then half of felonies would not be relevant either, seeing that many felonies are just misdemeanors in another place. I just showed how flawed a social contract can be. he also says felonies are deemed as serious crimes, so then what about that misdemeanor for the same crime somewhere else? are they not serious, but these are? felonies don't have to be serious to be felonies, they can be petty crimes. Also my opponents keeps going back to murderers, who cares? they make up less than five percent. That's like calling all white people racist because a small percent are. B) why must it be negated? i just gave examples of other programs we have of which people exploit it but we still have them. Calling all felons murders is completely ignorant. it's like calling my opponent hitler because he comes from german decent. it's ridiculous. 2 He pitches justice and social contract, i have already destroyed these two ideas over and over again. he even admits that the social contract is different everywhere, how can dehumanization of one, and a petty fine to another that committed the same crime be just? the two ideas destroy each other completely. Also i will point out again, that the social contract only calls for punishment, disenfranchisement is just an impact and not even relevant. this impact isn't the same everywhere. all of his arguments are the complete opposite of justice. 3) they are paying their crimes already, who cares if they vote? it's not like a loan, or a bale issue, i mean they can't skip town right? they are stuck there. 2 contention my opponent argues that race doesn't matter, justice is color blind. .. but are juries? There are already many cases in which a man is freed 2o years after their prosecution because the woman that got raped said black man did it, and they happened to be black. just him saying that racism doesn't exist, shows how ignorant my opponent is. also i even stated that it started that way, but now is mainly used to control voting rates. he didn't even argue my evidence cards, he just randomly claimed minorities commit more crimes, where's his evidence? if you were a socialist cand. , wouldn't you want as little as possible conservat