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

I accept all definitions but with a question against "Social Contract". Social Contract is a theory set forward by multiple people and there are different takes on it. Which Social Contract is my opponent using? (Locke, Hobbes, etc. ) Observations: Although my opponent can prove that the government has the power to strip a felon of the right to vote, he still has the burden of proving why the Government SHOULD take away the right to vote. (What negative effect is there of letting felons vote? ) Values: First of all, I'd like to bring up Social Contract again. My opponent's framework is based on this idea, and without specifying which social contract he is using in this debate, I have no idea what he values. Affirmative Defense: 1C: My opponent says that referencing the Founding Fathers is invalid because the resolution does not refer specifically to the U. S. However, as I stated before the United States IS still a democratic society (making it a valid example for this resolution) and I have also proved that a democratic republic is the best form of democracy with a large population. My opponent does not state why a democratic republic is not a valid form of democracy - something he needs to do in order to make my example invalid. Against the question that my opponent asks: The reason that we allow them the same rights is to help them merge with society once again (elaborated on in my later contentions). A Democracy aims to give the supreme power to the people - once we start limiting who gets to have this power, we stray away from a democracy. My opponent has yet to prove that voting is not a right. 2C: My opponent has yet to prove why letting felons vote would negatively affect our government. His statement of ". .. poorly influencing the processes of the government" falls without a warrant for why there would be a poor influence. (I will address this on my attack) 3C: As my opponent seems to imply, I wasn't arguing that felons would become normal civilians. I was arguing that felons are entitled to the right to be rehabilitated and an attempt must be made to merge them with society once again. By letting felons retain the right to vote, we encourage the rehabilitation process. The names of certain prison facilities clearly show the goal of the facility - to rehabilitate. 4C: My fourth contention was an argument against any argument that felons would be counterproductive to society. Negative Case: 1C: My opponent assumes that felons would make a bad decision in voting for president. However, we must understand a democracy values the majority. Felons do not make up the majority in any society. Also, if a felon were to vote for someone that a normal civilian were voting for, do we consider them both as "negatively influencing" our government? We cannot assume that a felon would vote for someone against society. This is proven in my fourth contention - because felonies aren't agreed upon universally, we cannot assume that all felons are against society. 2C: My opponent makes an argument that felons ought to be stripped of their rights because they have committed a felony. However, the only right stripped when incarcerating a felon is their right to liberty. Because they are felons, do we strip them of the right to free speech? religion? Stating that felons should have their rights stripped just because of a felony is absurd because my opponent bases this argument on the idea that only the right to vote should be stripped. SA: Although people may not stay equal based on the actions they choose, voting is an inalienable right. My opponent again bases his argument on the idea that rights can be stripped if people commit felonies. My opponent does not state why voting is the specific right that can be stripped, but why the right to life/speech/religion is not or cannot. SB: My opponents subpoint B is exclusive only to murderers. Also, my opponent bases this argument on a "eye for an eye" type of principle. Because the murderer took away the right to vote by killing, they cannot have the right to vote. First of all, I'd like to point out that using this type of logic, the murderer would have to be killed anyway. Second, this principle implies that we should rape rapists. Or for someone who killed two people, kill them twice. It is impossible to run a justice system on the principle of eye for an eye. I'd like to point out that my opponent doesn't point out any sort of negative effect on society (except for the implication in contention 1 that I already addressed) from letting felons retain the right to vote.