in a democratic society a felon ought to retain the right to vote.

uuhhh i'm just trying out my cases. this is my first online debate. I affirm. Resolved:In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. "Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man"- Thomas Jefferson Value:relevant impacts In this crazy world we have crazy impacts. A murderer will be silenced forever like the poor guy who had to steal $150 to support his family. Would a same impact make sense?-no Value Criteria: Patriotic Duty The point of voting is to serve/fulfill patriotic duty. We already limit felons so much, that by taking away this duty we are literally just having them age in the corner and not try to make things square with society. Definitions: Democratic-pertaining to or characterized by the principle of political or social equality for all Society-a body of individuals living as members of a community Observation 1: The resolution just says democratic society, meaning that this resolution does not just pertain to one country. Contention 1: What's a felony? A)Felonies actually differentiate country from country and even state from state, so basically the argument that if a criminal commits a crime, that criminal deserves an equal punishment does not exist. Seeing the fact that countries and even states within countries have different ideas on what a felon is, there is no black and white way to label someone as a felon or someone who deserves to get their rights taken away. This also means that one person can be seen as the scum of the world in one country, and then the other can be seen as a person who made an honest mistake and just receives a misdemeanor. B) In Maryland, for instance, criminals cannot vote for the rest of their lives if they are twice convicted of a felony (or what the state calls "infamous crimes"). Yet, many of the 149 offenses so categorized--such as inserting slugs into a slot machine or using a false identification card are regarded in other states as misdemeanors. Another example would be that any resident of Florida who stops payment on a check of more than $150 with intent to defraud commits a felony; so does the teenager who is caught with an ounce of crack cocaine, but the recreational user who is nabbed for cocaine (in powder form) possession is guilty of a misdemeanor. Even in some states just stealing over $150 dollars is considered a felony, do they deserve a punishment? Yes. Do they deserve to be silenced forever by not being allowed to express their free opinion through voting? No. There aren't many felons that would be considered felons if they were caught in a different state, when it even comes to more serious issues like murder and rape, much, much less than 10% are even categorized under this. C) Not letting felons vote have three impacts The first one is that since the word felon can not be used universally for some crimes and can be used the same for other crimes in every state, then there can not be a universal impact for every felony. Does a person that stole $150 dollars deserve to be silenced for life like a mass-serial murderer? By voting Negation on the resolution and not letting felons vote we would be making completely unfair decisions that silence people who aren't even considered felons in other parts of the world or even country. Therefore there is no "concrete" social contract, there are always loop holes in it, some will get a slap on the hand through misdemeanors and little fines, and others will be silenced forever. The second one would be the dehumanization of human voices. Voting represents thoughts, and your own voice. If you can't vote, you can't speak, is there a point to think if you can't speak? Felons already have their lives limited after they get out of prison, they can't have any government employed jobs, and even privately owned jobs are hard to find. They already are living a life with actions cut short, but stopping the voting process would completely stop thinking. By not letting felons vote, we will support dehumanization of an ordinary person. The world can't even define him as a felon in every country, none the less in every state. The third is the whole point of prison itself. Prison is meant to rehabilitate and reintegrate prisoners through a process of punishment until they are able to walk back into society. By cutting out something as important as voting, we are putting them in their own world rather than society's world, not being able to vote is the fuse to repeating crimes. They can't get a city job, private establishments frown upon hiring such people, and now they can't even vote to change things, they can't use their own voices to let people hear their struggle because we smother them. Their dawn to midnight life in the fast food business leaves them hundreds of dollars short to pay rent, and no one wants to hear their problems. They rob and steal to make ends meet. If society spits on you, won't you spit back? Contention 2: What started it? What feeds the fire today? A)Many disenfranchisement laws were enacted as far back as the Civil War period. Many historians have clarified on the fact that the reason this all started was because of White supremacy. The whole idea of disenfranchising was made on racist roots. Now disenfranchising is used as a way of shaping the voting pool. By not letting certain people vote, an outcome of a state's election will be different. B) Now the funny thing is, if disenfranchising was such an obvious moral choice to make why did it almost take a century for it to be triggered? Many of them were triggered right around the time African Americans were allowed to vote. The purpose? To stop African Americans from voting. Back then and even now, many felons are of this race. Laws disempowering blacks were pivotal, historian Morgan Kousser explains, because they provided southern states with "insurance if courts struck down the more blatantly unconstitutional clauses." Now it's not so much of racist terms that make politicians keep this law up, but the issue of curving the voting pool. For example Even in the present era, according to Florida State Sen. Daryl Jones, "The state legislature attempts to classify more and more crimes as felonies so it can eliminate more people from the voter rolls." In 2000, Jones reports. the Republican legislature proposed a bill that would have increased from 365 to 366 days the jail sentence for anyone who cashes two welfare checks after gaining employment. What is the purpose of adding one more day? The offense then becomes a felony, and "You take one more person off the voter rolls. It's a fact that over one-third of felons are African Americans. It's another fact that only 14% of African Americans in total vote republican. By having more crimes become felonies, more African Americans can't vote. C) This has a few impacts By keeping this disenfranchisement around we are having something started out of unjust means stick around, meaning that our own society doesn't care that we have a law that was purely based on racist means and that civil rights mean nothing. The second one is that we are silencing minorities. The worst thing is that we are silencing them off of unjust means, those means are that politicians just want to silence them because of voting rates. The third is that we don't care how we stop them, we just want to stop them, meaning that we don't care how ridiculous we make laws, as long as we stop certain people from voting. Meaning that none of the movement for disenfranchising is even out of just motives, but just motives of wanting to win elections.