Prisoners should be given the right to vote

So what my opponent does to start off is beg the question. To put it simply, con needs to give a reason for why prisoners shouldn"t be able to vote and in response, con says that because they don"t deserve their extra rights. So what this leads me to ask is, why don"t they deserve their extra rights. Yes prisoners don"t have the right to see their family everyday, but does that mean that they shouldn"t have the right to vote? The justice systems are not infallible in deciding what is right or wrong. Therefore saying that because the justice system thinks this, is invalid. And I say to con again, everyone commits things that have a negative impact on society, and my opponent assumes that a crime had to do with another individual"s rights. Someone could have being doing drugs alone, but that did not infringe on anyone else's rights. Then my opponent brings up a line that I believe is really foolish, "you can't do the time, don't do the crime", because this assumes that every prisoner did a crime on purpose, and that they had a choice, and that their other option was better. Then my opponent says, "there are only very RARE cases where people are imprisoned on false grounds", but this is equivalent to saying that not all rapes are reported, because how would you know if they weren"t reported? My opponent assumes on this point that people who have been imprisoned on false grounds, have been recognized as innocent. Con later says, "crimes that authority and the rest of society not only deems, but knows, are bad.", in which con sees something being bad as objective. Someone doesn"t know something is bad, but they can think it. Then my opponent attempts to attack my point about prisoners giving back to society by saying giving back is, "contributing to a community in some way", but my opponent neglects that giving a vote to someone who will provide a better future, is contributing to the community. And if my opponent says that prisoners won"t vote for the right person, then she assumes ignorance in prisoners, but not in the people from the outside. Has anyone heard of the prison debaters that beat a Harvard debate team? Then my opponent says they are leeching off families, well how does that make their opinion invalid. People leech off of families outside of prison, but this doesn"t make their opinion invalid. My opponent"s point is essentially, they have done something bad, even though everyone does bad things, therefore they shouldn't lose their right to have their opinions heard. "They may not even be out by the time this government they vote for is in power." Well to this I can just simply say, what about the people that will be? Also they don"t need to be outside of jail for the effects of the president to affect them. The president could make certain regulations to prisons, which will affect the prisoners. Therefore con"s point about vicariously living, is refuted. The purpose of the prison is not to remove them from society, unless my opponent makes the point that the people in prison aren"t a society. I would rather say that the purpose is to rehabilitate them. Then my opponent brings up the same foolish quote, after I made the point that some people make mistakes. And con states that if we saw every murder as an accident, then nothing would be punished, but i"m not saying everything is a mistake. I"m saying there are cases where it is, so therefore you would be taking away their right with no reason. Also my opponent neglects that people get punished for their mistakes. Even if it is a mistake, people do get punished. It"s not as if someone accidently murders someone in court the judge will let him go. Therefore my point that mistakes does make us human, still stands. My opponent continuously begs the question by saying prisoners shouldn"t deserve this and that, without giving actual contentions. I"m asking why they don"t deserve to be given those extra rights. Con then goes on to say that people don"t deserve rights if they took the life of another human being and brings up the Dylan Roof example. First con says that wasn"t a mistake which I guess makes my opponent a mind reader. Someone doesn"t need to seek help for something to not be a mistake, and even if someone put himself in a situation, that doesn"t necessarily mean that this person intended for this type of outcome. The stress and certain anxieties could have turned him irrational, and make him do something he regretted. Now whether something someone did was devastating is subjective to the person, someone may say something is a big deal and someone else may not. But since it still is a negative impact on society, we judge whether a negative impact warrants for someone to take away their voice. But I point out again that everyone has some sort of negative impact on society. My opponent keeps on bringing up the point of negative impacts which I have refuted, con also brings up how they have been taken away from society but I have refuted that as well, and then says they have taken away the rights of someone else, therefore their rights should be taken away but two wrongs don"t make a right so that point is invalid. Now, my opponent again brings up how raping or killing someone can not be counted as a mistake, but I feel like my opponent is confusing mistake with accident. Con is essentially saying that people can"t regret what they did, but as we all know is false. And my Ted Bundy example was not to prove that people can"t do mistakes regarding cases with rape and murder, but that they are criminals and smart. Again i"m not making the point that everything is a mistake, I"m making the point that prisoners can make mistakes. And my opponent essentially groups all the prisoners together by saying they are, family leechers, non mistake making, and dumb. Then con pulls out a straw man when saying, oh pro says mistakes are human, that must mean my opponent is saying rape and murder is human, which is not what I"m saying. I"m not saying that the specific acts we did is what makes us human, but I"m saying the fact that we are infallible and make mistakes, is what makes us human. Con is basically saying, if thinking is what makes us human, then thinking about raping someone is what makes us human. Con asks where is the line drawn to where we have the right to take someone's right away, I say where is the line drawn that we do? I ask my opponent if someone with an impeccable record loiters, do they really think that their right to vote should be taken away. "The last thing I would want to have as a victim of a traumatic incident such as a rape is knowing my rapist is voting and getting the sense of merging into society like "everyone else" and not really feeling the consequences of his crimes which is isolation from society. An election comes round every 3 years (in my country) and this should not be prioritised over justice and the isolation of a person who committed a felony from society (as prison does) and taking away any extra rights they may have is something they deserve as once again" Lastly, my opponent reiterates points that I have already refuted. If my opponent thinks that the purpose of prison is to exclude someone from society, then what are the harsh conditions for and I suggest the people and voters to look up the definition of society. Then con strawmans again by saying that they wouldn"t feel right if prisoners weren"t having the consequences for their actions, which is assuming that the only consequence they get is their right to vote taken away, which is not the case. And again begs the question by saying prisoners do not deserve extra rights, without saying why and me not refuting it. In conclusion, my opponent makes tremendous generalizations and assumptions, as well as making strawman"s.