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

His case: Overview: The major flaws of his argumentations are his numerous assumptions. From the very beginning of this debate, he frames it under a "just" society or attaining "justice." However, the way he reasons to attaining justice is the implications of the resolution and the implication he correlates with democracy. Since the resolution is framed under a predicated democracy, we must view this procedurally: there is no legitimate basis for any preferences to be rejected. He offers no brightline as to what is the universal concept of "just" or attaining justice is. This means that under the democratic framework, justice can never be attained. His definition of "democracy" indicates governed by the people. Inversely though—the majority of the people's decision or consensus is what determines a decision rather than whether it is "just or not" Observation 2: Felons and exfelons are both inevitably put into society. Because exfelons are a product of once-felons, the debate should centralize around HOW felons should be conducted in the status quo and post-resolution. Contention 1: Retribution The first line of his contention states that it is giving punishment that is "deserved" or punishment that fits the crime, but there can never be a clear brightline as to what is "deserved" or "not" Felons will use this non-delineated brightline of what is deserved or not as a loophole to perform their actions in a different society or framework that doesn't impact the magnitude of "deserved" as badly as the other one does. The denotation and predication of this contention is also off since it assumes that the punishment of the government to the felon has to be the equivalent of what the felon did. For example, if a felon was convicted of rape, that does NOT necessarily mean the government has to rape the felon back. Instead, the focus should be on the magnitude of the punishment towards the felon. For the magnitude of the punishment, he assumes that we must ALWAYS treat EVERY felon as a political non-entity. This is flawed for two subpoints a) It assumes that all felons are convicted of crimes that need the magnitude of dehumanization and b) there is one alternative or one type of punishment that is to be ultimately attained by these felons. It fails to regard other types of punishment that would sever the impact of how rehabilitation into society could be performed. 2) Flaw- "Why, then, should criminals be allowed to maintain their political rights and the freedom to vote? There are many rights which are more basic taken away from the individual during his imprisonment?" Let's take a look at this sentence and thematic concept. First off, the first sentence implies that maintaining political rights and the freedom to vote is of utmost greater magnitude than any of the implied correlative comparisons. The immediate sentence after that then goes on to state that there are many MORE BASIC rights taken away. Exactly, since there are so many of these basic rights taken away from the felon during their imprisonment, the magnitude of taking away the right to vote or the right to possess societal importance is unnecessary and past the prerequisite of basic rights being taken away. Since there are basic rights taken away, then there is a net loss of the felon's rights in society. As long as there is a net loss of the right to society, the felon is being shunned or punished for their activity. Cross apply Contention 1 Subpoint A—it does a good job of explaining how the loss of the right to vote is an ADDITIONAL consequence pass the prerequisites. "Other than serving a retributive function, disenfranchisement certainly does not meet the goals of incapacitation or deterrence. Individuals who are not already deterred from crime by the threat of incarceration are unlikely to be swayed by the prospect of losing their right to vote. " Look further into my contention as well it also places an impact on the unnecessary removal of the right to vote: "Once we begin to impose character requirements, voting slips back from being a right for all Americans to a privilege granted by the powerful." In other words, to prevent a tyranny or autonomy by one, centralized force, instilling the right to vote to these felons is what keeps the democracy upheld. The syntax he also uses in this contention with "fair" and "basic" ties hand in hand with the overview argument—it's an assumed value that can never be reached by universal consensus or by his own definition of democracy. Contention 3- Double Standard This contention is the epitome of too many assumptions. Look to his first line "essentially condoning violent acts." This is flawed for two reasons a)Look to Contention 1, Subpoint A – Turn: by not upholding the right to vote to the majority of the people and practicing social equality (definition of democracy) you are condoning tyrannistic autonomy b)If we were to look at his own value justice, by negating something on the "just" reason or the just way wouldn't necessarily be the equivalence of condoning the negative option. For example, if I didn't want to give money to a poor robber, I would not be condoning poverty, but rather acting on a just decision –that giving money to a robber or burglar is not just. Turns his own value Look to his last sentence "By affirming the resolution, you are saying that people who brake the law in the most brazen way, by committing a felony, would be better than a law-abiding citizen because they broke the law and still have the same amount of rights." This is flawed for four reasons a)If they had the same amount of rights for something they committed, they would not be SUPERIOR to law-abiding citizens but rather the right that both are instilled with is of great magnitude to the society/democracy b)They would not have the same amount of rights. Your contention 2 tells me that they are revoked "certain, basic rights" c)Not all of what felons convict are "the most brazen way". Poor generalization d)Extend/Cross Apply my previous argument that different states/societies/frameworks have different punishments/retributions. Different types of behaviors/performances in different areas equate to differentiating magnitudes of what they actually did. My case: The value debate 1)Great way to read my value out of context. I'm not talking about any attainment of equality during incarceration nor the magnitude of punishment. The value is there to support the prepositional phrase of the resolution "in a democratic society" a democratic society usurps the idea of "equality" or social equality (refer to my definition). To sustain social equality, there has to be a uniform approach to treating these felons post and pre convictions 2)No warrant to dejustification. C/A no standard of "just" The criterion debate 1)His definition never ergo-s "protecting society" Rather, look to my uniformed definition—the practicing of social equality and the uniform approach to felons pre and post conviction 2)Contradicting. The first part of his argument states that maximization of fairness better upholds justice. Then he goes on to state that democracy is not always just. Flawed for two reasons a.No brightline to just or justice b.No brightline to what is "fair" or "not". If the universal ruling of the people turned out to be "unfair" would it yield to be "fair"? Contentions: 1)Great way to dehumanize them by calling them parasites 2)Not "more democracy" but a comparison of the magnitude/quality of how you uphold the ideal 3)Children do not have the right to vote. This argument seems to go nowhere, but if it's going where I think look to contention 1, subpoint b - productivity is checked by the participation in voting and activities regarding the quality of society 4)"A felony inherently hurts society" and "therefore government" Cross apply my rebuttal on his contention 3 about the extra topical assumpti