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

Going down the flow. Definitions: Democratic Society- My opponents argues that there are many democratic societies, and that any one of them must allow felons to vote. However, my opponent by doing this is being extremely vague. There are too many different types of democratic societies to look at. My opponent can then be abusive by looking at every democratic society and finding some sort of flaw in one of them. Therefore, we must limit it to "a democratic society", which in this case I have done by looking at an ideal democratic society. Observation One- My opponent in his round before his last one argued that a democratic society is one that follows the principles of democracy. However, I would like to turn this argument because the principles of democracy is to provide equal representation to its' people. Observation Two- You can extend this due to the fact no current society follows to the principles of democracy, which is essential according to my opponent. Felony- My opponent says that felony is not a violation of John Locke's social contract theory. However, I am first not looking at John Locke's social contract theory. Second, my opponent tries to argue it within the context of law dictionaries. However, since you have extended my second observation, those law dictionaries are irrelevant because they are not in the context of a democratic society. Therefore, look at my definition of a felony in the context of the violation of the Social Contract of a democratic society. Social Contract- My opponent argues that there are different philosophers views. However, my opponent failed to address the fact that all of these philosophers had the same views of what the contract is and does. They did however have differing views on what it protected. However, in this case since it is in the context of a democratic society, it is meant to protect and provide democratic values. This value is the right to equal representation. Vote- My opponent argued against this by giving the example of the United Nations. However, in this debate we are looking at vote in the context of a democratic society. The United Nations is not a democratic society, therefore his definition of vote is irrelevant. I have provided the definition of vote in the context of a democratic society. My case Value: Safety- My opponent argues he did not drop the point that safety protects democratic values. However, if you clearly look at my constructive you see I say safety is "Safety is the protection of rights that the society values the most. " I go on saying that it protects right democratic society values the most. Therefore, you can extend this point through. Therefore, in order to have democracy, you must protect the values of democracy. The protection of these values is safety. I have shown through my case that the felon voting is violating the social contract and in turn violating safety. My opponent then goes on and says that I would only let people who can make a good decision should work. This is untrue, I would let people who abide by the social contract vote, and those who do not will not be able to vote. Value Criterion: Social Contract- My opponent says he can show that I do not uphold the Social Contract. By doing this my opponent is trying to show how he upholds the Social Contract better. Therefore, my opponent is accepting it as a weighing mechanism for the round. Therefore, whoever better upholds the Social Contract will win the round, so this is the Value Criterion for the debate. My C1- My opponent is saying that they are still within the Social Contract if they are being punished by imprisonment. He uses Locke as an example. My opponent has no source behind this and this completely untrue. In fact it says in the philosophy of the Social Contract, "those who simply choose not to fulfill their contractual obligations, such as by committing crimes, deserve losing their rights. " . http://en.wikipedia.org... Therefore, one of their rights are the right to vote, and they deserve to lose it. Now you can cleanly flow my contention one through the round, and I show how I better uphold the weighing mechanism of Social Contract and Safety. My C2- My opponent attacks by saying that the rest of society would vote the opposite of the felon of a bad choice. He goes on and says that not all felons are bad. Both of these statements are flawed. The first for the reason that my opponent drops my Clegg quote which says we don't let felons run their own lives, why should we let them run ours. This says that with felons voting they have the influence to run our lives, which society cannot tolerate since they have shown they will make bad choices. As well, real life scenarios are not as clear cut as the example my opponent brings up. Moving on to the second point not all felons are bad. Clearly they are bad because they committed a felony. They have shown they are bad by committing an act that is violates the social contract. As well, we are dealing with the right to equal representation because that is the right to vote in a democratic society. Moving on to my opponents case: V: Already attacked. VC: Equality is not inherent in the definition of democracy. In fact a democratic society only guarantees the right to equal representation. As well, he moves on saying that felons do not have to be jailed but only fined, that would be equal. However, by fining only felons, that would be unequal. To achieve equality in this case then you would have to equally fine all of society. My opponents value criterion has no bright line. I have already shown how my opponent is "trying" to disprove how I reach the Social Contract, which in turn causes him to "try" to achieve it. C1: My opponent argues that felons can have equal liberty, and US is a democratic society. However, felons have to be punished in some way, which would not be equal. Otherwise this would lead to anarchy. Second, my opponent dropped that even in the US disenfranchisement is constitutional. C2:My opponent drops the fact that we cannot give preferential treatment based off of social class so extend this through. As well, poor had access to equal rights but still need to be punished. Social Contract argument addressed. C3: My opponent says felons don't have to be punished. However, this would lead to anarchy with massive crime rates. He dropped the imply argument I made so extend that they were punished in democratic society. C4: Disenfranchisement is the removal of the right to vote. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Therefore, only the government can do this. Therefore, it is in the setting that the government can organize the vote. Also, I did not say felons were mentally incompetent. I said we already limit people from voting, such as the mentally incompetent, so felons should be too. For these reasons, you must vote negative.