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

Ok I first will apologize that from here on out this debate most likely will get messy. That being said, lets move on. Ill go Neg/Aff Look to the Value Debate. What my opponent doesnt understand when I say that under a Representative Democracy the one vote per one person rule doesnt apply is that the difference between a Direct Democracy and a Representative one is that a Direct Democracy is merely the "will" of the majority. Citizens vote on all issues and elections and whoever maintains a majority wins. Under a Representative Democracy all eligible citizens vote for Representatives and officials to represent them in making political and government decisions. The easiest example is the U.S. House of Representatives. The Reps. are elected by groups of citizens in designated districts to decide for them policy decisions. What that means is that My opponents analysis under my value is hereby invalid. Criterion- To answer the officials are people argument. I would say thats true, but Officials are subjected to higher public scrutiny and are expected to have higher qualifications than ordinary people to make important policy decisions. This is a major distinction between the two forms of Democracy. Under a Representative Democracy, the officials who are elected under the one vote per person principle are more qualified than the voters who elected them. Thats why I say his argument about society collapsing doesnt exist, because under a Representative Democracy the actual decisions are being placed into the hands of a few more qualified and knowledgable people than the hands of the largely uninformed general public. Next, I would say my argument ISNT conditional. Since I am still taking about a form of Democracy, which by the way anyone who took the time to look at wikipedia couldve known about, my argument is still resolutional. Also, I am distiniguishing that these felons committed acts against the state and that under a Representative Democracy the officials have the right to prevent or ban them from voting. Contention One- First let me turn my opponents's Conditionallity argument. He talks about elite theory. This is as my opponent puts it "a never heard of unimportant small example." But even if you dont accept that, I would argue that this theory is logically flawed. Regardless of how much influence a person has in a corporation or policy planning network an individual would be very hard pressed to move up in the public ranks without having voter approval. Take this primary season between Clinton and Obama. Clinton, who had the support of the party establishment and think tanks early on, was beaten by Obama, someone who didnt have that support but who had earned the respect of the voters. Furthermore, my opponent fails to cite a source that actually proves that the US is an Oligarchy. The United States is regarded by most scholars as being a Republic, or a Representative Democracy. Furthermore, even if you were to disregard all these arguments and exclude examples from the U.S. then you would have to disregard my opponents second contention. He states " In the United States, most of the inmates are black. This means that in society, blacks lose more rights than white. This is unfair and bias and is a violation of blacks autonomy. This would mean that his offense coming from his second contention would be disregarded. Opponents Contention 1: Disregard my opponents' turn. If a false conviction is not discovered then it is a problem of the legal system in question. A punishment must exist to punish those that HAVE commited a crime. Also, this problem is non-unique to felon losing voting rights. Any person can be falsely convicted for any crime including felonies and Misdeamors. However, the state must have established punishments for the crimes that have been actually commited. Under my opponents world, these punishments would not exist because a small minority of cases have resulted in false convictions. I argue that this is horrible policy making, and on principle wrong. My turn also is extended since only the negative world can enact these punishments to deter further felonies while including reparations for those that were falsely convicted. Opponents Contention 3: His argument on Capital Punishment is conditional. It has little relevance because the majority of felonies do not result in the death penalty. Furthermore, He doesnt directly answer the argument that by commiting a felony, an individual puts his rights and fate in the hands of the state. By violating the established contract between himself and the state, the state has the right to enact any and ALL punishments it deems appropriate to punish the individual and prevent him from commiting further crimes. Since the argument itself is unresponded to you can extend my response. This actually turns his case since it shows that the state has that right to enact any and all punishments deemed Neccesary. Lets look at his Bush vs. Gore argument. First off let me point out that I am a solid Democrat and that I live in Florida. Bush didnt win because felons couldnt vote. He won because when the first results were being called for Gore, Bush called his brother Jeb Bush, the Governor of Florida and asked him to help. Soon after, as a recount of the vote was called, Ballots started disappearing and hundreds were found on Interstate 95. I personally saw about 50 on I-75 on the Arvida Parkway (now Royal Palm Blvd.) exit. I ask that you disregard my opponent argument because he cant make a claim about the Florida vote in 2000 when he wasnt ACTUALLY there. I, on the other hand, have lived in Broward County, Florida since 1999. After reviewing the actual facts, I urge you to vote in Negation on Resolved: In a democratic society, felon ought to retain the right to vote.