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

Thanks to my opponent for picking up this debate and yes lets make this fun So to begin this round i would first like to rebuild my own case and move on to attack my opponent First i will agree with his counter definitions My opponent didnt attack my value or standard so you can extend both these and for that reason there is no doubt about voting aff because it means he agrees with my value of equality which says that felons should have equal rights as all citizens so this alone proves that he agrees that felons should have the same rights as felons. Extend my standard of Mills Marketplace of ideas which also basically states that when you have the most ammount of people contibuting to an idea then the best answer arrises. Both of these reasons prove you should vote aff He attacked my contention 1 by saying that if a vote came down to 1 vote and that deciding voter was a felon that he wouldnt want the felon to decide. Harvard Law review 1 clearly stated that "...even if ex-offenders were to base their votes on matters of criminal justice, it does not follow that their positions on these matters necessarily would be more permissive than those of he population as a whole..." What this proves is that although felons may have made a wrong choice that they may not have an opinion that is different than the general population. He attacks my second contention by saying disenfranchisement has nothing to do with rehabilitation. I would like to offer evidence against this, Harvard Law Review (counter 1) Fifteen American states disenfranchise ex-felons for life. This practice, although constitutionally permissible , is an anomaly in two respects. First, it defies the trend over the past 150 years tward expansion of the franchise exempified by courts' adn legislatures' abandonment of voting restrictions based on property, race, sex, and age. Seccond, it runs counter to the modern notion, still widely expressed if not always believed, that ex-convicts can and should be reintegrated into the communityas full members of society. What this proves is that disenfranchisement works against progression in this instance rehabilitation. He doesnt attack my third contention Disenfranchisement helps support discrimination and this is key because it shows that he agrees to this and this totally destroys the basis of disenfranchisement because it works against society by discriminating against members of the society. It is for all of these reasons i urge an affirmative ballot Now to attack my opponents case He offers the value of justice and says that it is defined as "giving someone what he or she is due" I pose the question "Who determines what deserved punishment is?" clearly whatever answer is given is still going to be contoversial to someone in a society so my value of equality fits the situation much better. I attack his Criterion by saying that he is harming the wefare of soceity by taking away voices in a society. When you do this then not all people have a say in the democracy and so this undermines the whole purpose of the democracy. My criterion is much better because it allows all people to have a say in society. Contention 1. He implys that since a felon has made one bad decision that this is a constant trend with felons. I have to say otherwise because that is a politically incorrect extreme. He also doesnt offer why or how this relates to his value or criterion. I would like to offer counter evidince aginst his claim Harvard Law review (counter 2) Disen. is not driven by pragmatic realities or theoretical principles but rather by an atavistic and dee-rooted social need to define the boundaries of the community by stigmatizing some persons as outsiders. As a symbolic act tat perpetuates and reflects a perception of criminality as an evil, alien force, disen. manifests a misguided desire to label as "others" those who commit crimes, in order that those who are not so chracterized may gain an increased sense of their own esteem as "good" Members of the community and deny responsibility for the creation or elimination of criminal behavior. Contention 2 He basically offers Lockes social contract to define punishment and crimes Harvard Law review (C3) It is hardly likely that free and informed individuals would enter into a contract in which a single failure to execute payment by one party would constitute a forfeiture of all goods previously obtained under the contract. Liberal theorists posit an individual who exists prior to and seprabel from the attachments and aspirations that she chooses. In the liveral frame work, justice consists of respecting the individual's dignity and capacity to reason, regardless of his/her choices or ends. Thus, real justice, "must permit inequalities that can be traced to the choices people have made about what kind of work to do, what kinds of risks to take, and what kind of life to lead. It is for all these reasons that i must urge an affirmative ballot and now turn it over to my opponent Thanks again to my opponent for picking up this debate and thanks to all the people who vote on this. Good luck and i hope this makes us both better