In a democratic society, felons out to retain the right to vote.

To my esteemed opponent: Thank you for your response, as negative as it is. >Social Contract is a theory, yes, and many people have different takes on it. I am simply using the definition of social contract that I previously defined. If you compare my definition to those of the men my opponent speaks of, it is closest to the Hobbes theory. :: Observation :: >My opponent has highlighted what I have and have not proved. What he has not done is related his statement to my previous statements which expressed the merits of the decisions that felons made. In my own words (R1), felons will "[show] the poor decision making that caused the felons to become felons in the first place. This will then adversely affect all members of society for the worse of the people. This in itself is a far greater crime than a felony is." This, in his words, is "why the Government SHOULD take away the right to vote." :: Value :: >See above. :: Contention 1 :: >Please note in addition to the Founding Fathers that I did mention the Constitution which I assume my opponent has forfeited as he has failed to mention it. The reason that a republic is not a valid form of democracy (because of my opponent's request) can best be noticed in the United States Court System. If there are twelve jurors and one of them votes innocent, then even versus eleven votes for guilty there will not be a guilty verdict. In a democracy one vote versus eleven would mean that the eleven (majority) wins. This means that the government values an innocent vote differently than a guilty vote. It is just like this with felon disenfranchisement, the innocent vote is always worth more. :: Contention 2 :: >See Observation. :: Contention 3 :: >As previously stated (R1), the affirmative must prove his case true in all cases. Not all rehabilitation is successful and not all felons rehabilitate. Therefore, rehabilitation is invalid because it is not true in all cases. :: Contention 4 :: >As I have stated pretty much all of the time, felons are counterproductive to society. I am predicting that I would be asked for elaboration, so I will simply say that felonies are not productive because committing felonies is not productive. :: My Contention 1 :: >Please note that I never said the word president in all of R1. Though my assumption is an assumption which is not always a good thing to make, it is a logical assumption because by following a logical trend of what the felon has done in the past (commit a felony mainly), they are likely to make another bad decision in the future. :: My Contention 2 :: >To my respected opponent: what other right do you propose we take away from felons? None of them work except for the right to vote. To name a few, the right to freedom of religion (as my opponent also mentioned) simply cannot be revoked because it is not possible to truly control what another individual believes. Another right, the right to freedom of speech (again mentioned by my opponent) being revoked would make the felon a less productive part of society, which, as my opponent suggests, is not the goal. Last right, freedom of assembly, would do no good to be revoked because it would just make life harder for the felon, which, again, is not the goal. :: Sub-point A :: >Voting is actually not an inalienable right because as my opponent has already admitted "[I] can prove that the government has the power to strip a felon of the right to vote", proving his own statement invalid and contradicting himself. By definition the right to life, in fact, can be taken from a felon: "Felon: a person who has been convicted of a felony, which is a crime punishable by death or a term in state or federal prison... Felony (elaboration): a crime sufficiently serious to be punishable by death or a term in state or federal prison, as distinguished from a misdemeanor which is only punishable by confinement to county or local jail and/or a fine." I have previously stated why speech and religion cannot be stripped for a person: "To name a few, the right to freedom of religion (as my opponent also mentioned) simply cannot be revoked because it is not possible to truly control what another individual believes. Another right, the right to freedom of speech (again mentioned by my opponent) being revoked would make the felon a less productive part of society, which, as my opponent suggests, is not the goal." :: Sub-point B :: >Please note that my Observation states that "due to the wording of the resolution, the affirmative has the burden of proof and must prove the resolution true in all cases." Murderers are felons; therefore, being exclusive to murders is perfectly valid. According to the definition of felon ("Felon: a person who has been convicted of a felony, which is a crime punishable by death or a term in state or federal prison... Felony (elaboration): a crime sufficiently serious to be punishable by death or a term in state or federal prison, as distinguished from a misdemeanor which is only punishable by confinement to county or local jail and/or a fine.") murderers can be killed. Additionally, rapists (felons in this case) can be killed as well due to the definition of felon, which I believe is worse than rape. To follow my opponent's "eye for an eye" lead, it is legal to not just go eye for eye, but eye for life in this case. In the case of a murder who murders twice, they cannot be killed twice, but they can be killed once in a more painful and/or humiliating way. This is like (different value of eye) two eyes for two eyes and an ear (you may value parts or you body differently than I, but my point still works). To my opponent: may we please abandon this overly elaborate metaphor? >On my opponent's last categorized remark, the negativity (as stated in R1 and R2) is which a person gets elected due to the extra votes from the felons.