In a Democratic Society Felons ought to Retain the Right to Vote

Let's begin with the Value/Value Criterion debate. I gave no source to why democracy was founded on equality because it is not proven through any sort of statistic. Democracy relies on people voting, and those votes being held equally. If the upper-class's vote has more power than the poor's, it isn't a democracy but an aristocracy. By equality, and I clarified in my definition, I refer to political equality. When people have a larger say in the government than others, political efficacy (belief that an individual can enact change) is diminished if not destroyed. Without political efficacy, people cease to vote. And as you said, a democracy relies on people voting. People will only vote if they are politcal equals. Therefore, political equality is needed for democracy. That was my opponent's only attack on my value. Onto my opponent's value of justice. I do agree that value's can be vague, but not so vague as we do not know what we are valuing. Giving each person there due (her definition of justice) is contradictory to democracy. That's called communism. People who are more knowledgeable about the issues deserve to vote more than an ignorant voter. But in a democracy, everyone can vote. Therefore, my opponent's value is not topical to what a democracy ought to do, but what a communist government ought to do. So you default to the pro's value of equality. Onto the value criterion. Societal Welfare and Kant's Categorical Imperative (my VC) serve the same weight in this round. Both measure the degree society is helped. Therefore, no debate is needed on the VC. To my observation 1. My opponent said there was no citation so they don't matter. If she had read them, they would have logically made perfect sense. However, here is one source: . http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:N4PLftV7H3sJ:www.fes.org.af/mainpages/ylfnewsletter4a.pdf+a)A+political+system+for+choosing+and+replacing+the+government+through+free+and+fair+elections.+b)The+active+participation+of+the+people,+as+citizens,+in+politics+and+civic+life.+c)A+rule+of+law,+in+which+the+laws+and+procedures+apply+equally+to+all+citizens.&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a These criteria are found multiple places, from a Stanford lecture in Iraq about democracy, to the above link. So we still maintain that my observation is true. My opponent attacks my observation 2 by saying that a felon can lose their right to vote, but regain it. Wrong. A felon is still a felon in jail and out. If felons are barred from voting, they can not regain their right because they will always be a felon. Furthermore, if my opponent is arguing that felons should not retain their right to vote (they lose it), but should regain it later, she is not really advocating the loss of voting rights. My opponent makes two comments that I would like to discuss. We will label them, for the sake of debate, observations 3 and 4. Observation 3: If felons believe they are above society, they deserve less rights. I completely agree with this statement, felons deserve less rights. But my opponent gives no clarification of what rights. Do I believe a felon should face a punishment for a crime? Of course. Should losing suffrage be a punishment? Not at all. Why should it? Observation 4: Committing a crime removes an individual from society This may be true in some countries, but not in democracies. And here is why. By removing someone from society, but still having them in society, you create a state with biopower (coined by Foucault and adopted by Agamben). A state with biopower has people in society (felons in jail) but out of society (can not vote in society). A state with biopower is the most evil state, for it can do what it wants with the homosacar (the felon in this case) without facing punishment. In other words, if my opponent's observation is held true, then the democracy becomes a biopower that can kill felons and face no punishments. The best paradigm of a biopower is Nazi Germany in the holocaust. This is obviously bad. Therefore, felons should not be ejected from society but still put in jail. Now onto my Contention 1a and 2a. By opponent says they are contradictory, but they aren't. In 1a, I argue that felons can not influence an election that is for something obviously good to society. If bill A is proven to help society, then most if not all of society will vote for it. Therefore, giving felons the right to vote will have no effect on the outcome. So no harm is done to society. In 2a, on the other hand, I discuss a close election, where bill B is not proven to help society. It may be an appropriations bill that will give money to prisons. A good portion of society would not care the state of prisons. Felons would. In this instance, the election would be close, and felons voting would have a greater impact. The democracy not represents the people better, and society is bettered. So my contention 1a and 2a serve to prove that felon voting has no harms, but has some benefits. My opponent did mention that people do not vote on bills. Then let's call the propositions that people DO vote on. It doesn't matter what they are called. One more point to add, however, is that voting for elected officials that vote on your behalf is a republic, not a democracy. My opponent has no attacks on why felons out of jail should vote, so they automatically extends towards the pro side. I will end with some crystalization: On the value debate, equality is needed for democracy, justice (as my opponent defines) is needed for communism. Since we are debating a democracy, we must default to my value of equality. Both our VC's measure the same thing, so they do not need to be debated. My opponent and I are trying to weigh the societal benefits of felons voting over the societal harms. I have given arguments to why felons voting will have no harm (C1a and C1b). I have also given arguments to why felons voting will have benefits (C2a and C2b). My opponent gives no reason to why felons voting is hamrful or why felons not voting is beneficial.