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

alright, I will be Neg then.... Neg/Aff CV: Justice: giving each person his or her due VC: Social Contract The Social contact is a mutual agreement between the Government and the governed instituted to protect the rights of individuals in society. In exchange for the protection of Natural right the governed must accept restrictions of certain rights and must assume certain duties. When a society follows and preserves the social contract justice is created. When a society moves away from or abandons its social contract man shall right man, protecting the rights of none and creating no justice. This is relevant to the resolution because the idea of democracy is based on the social contract Observation: My opponent Must prove, in order to win, that ALL felons must vote. 1st –Social Contract A. Locke believed that the violation of the social contract negated the contract between the parties and entered them in a sort of state of war in which no rights were preserved. One of the things required of the governed in to uphold the laws and regulations put in place by society, So in this resolution the felons violated the social contract by not upholding the laws of Society so they are essentially allowing for the violation of their own rights and removal from society because, humans, being rational beings, made a conscious choice to not uphold the duties given to them by the government acknowledge that the government is not obligated to protect those rights. As said by philosopher Emmanuel Kant" if a man makes himself a worm he must not complain when he is trodden on" So By violating the Contact felons have essentially removed themselves from society and therefore must be considered as non-citizens to that society. Non-Citizens do not have the right to vote in a foreign country and that is how Felons ought to be treated. They are equal to non-citizens in that regard because just as the felons removed themselves from society non-citizens have not entered into the social contract. B. By allowing Felons to we would not only be giving them all of the rights of law-abiding citizens but would be elevating them above them by saying, even though you violated the contract you are equal to everybody else. By doing this you are creating a situation when felons ,who have broken the contract and essentially said the law doesn't apply to them, can make Laws for those who obeyed the laws. This is allowing for an attempted double-freedom which is plainly unjust. 2nd – Impact on society Under the social contract a government is only as strong as its people a government were many of the people have shown a disregard for society is not a strong one. So by eliminating those from voting you are creating a stronger government. Felons, because they have broken the social contract show that they have a disregard for society. Also In cases of small local election felons could have a massive impact on elections. The effect of this is apparent in small communities where felons may represent a majority. In this situation you get the Felons actually potentially silencing the law abiding which is unjust. Also look to such felon that have committed Voter Fraud or Insurrection and so advertise a blatant disregard for society and should not participate in governmental decision-making. If we allow even those who have actively worked to destroy society to decide how that society is run we will destroy that society. Conclusion: I have proven that the social contract is the best Criterion and that felons have broken it and therefore should not vote. If one instance is given in which felons should not vote a urge a negative ballot. Aff Case Cv: the Value of relevant impacts is inferior to the value of justice. This is because the resolution clearly states a democratic society and the goal of a democratic society is justice. Also my opponent defined his value by saying that a minor theft should not have the same consequence as a murder. This is true, there is more ail time for a murder and often times $150 is not a felony. Also if you are to say a thief should not be disenfranchised but a murderer should then my opponent has agreed with my stance and a negation is in order becuase, in this resolution it is the burden of the Aff to prove all felons should vote, not just a select group. VC: Patriotic duty does not make or break a society, infact it is not even relevant because many people are not-patriotic. A democratic society cannot exist without a social contract therefore making SC the most relevant. 1st contention A) people who receive a misdemeanor are not inside the parameters of this debate. Also this contention is rather non-topical. it is a felony, therefore society has deemed to be a dangerous crime. Also if degree mattered, sat Murderers could be disenfranchised that automatically negates the resolution. B)Also it does not matter what is a felony or not, as a said before if the Aff supports the disenfranchisement of rapists,murderers or anyone else then the resolution MUST be negated. C: Cross apply my other arguments against this contention here. 2: They have broken the social contract, and should therefore lose the political liberties guaranteed under it. If we allowed them to vote it would elevate them as I say in Contention 1 Subpoint B. This is not dehumanization but justice. 3. What about people voting in prison? They are still felons. Also felons have sacrificed the right to vote by committing a felony. Also even in states without disenfranchisement the recidivism numbers are just as high. 2nd Contention It may have BEEN something but it is not know. the system is color blind. If someone commits a felony they are a felon, it doesn't matter what race they are. Silencing minorities? it may just be that statistically they commit more crimes I don't know but it seems that this is an over generalization. and in itself in unequal becuase it is saying we should abolish it becuase one group does it more? THAT is racist.