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

I will begin with defending my case, and then move on to my opponents -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------NC-------------------------------- Observation 1) --> my opponent did not attack this argument, thus you can extend this through the round. America can be used Observation 2) --> The UN does in fact define a felon in its database, accessible through their website, as "a person who has been tried and found guilty of a serious criminal offense through a fair legal court and is currently serving their incarceration." The United Nations also goes on to clarify what makes an ex-felon different from a felon. An ex-felon is "one who has successfully completed their sentence and re-enters society." The negative makes no argument against ex-felons, for ex-felons are not implied or stated in the resolution. The negative argues why felons, as stated in the resolution, ought not retain the right to vote --> Not one definition online or any dictionary I have found defines the word 'retain' in the future tense. For example, merriam webster defines retain as "to keep in possession or use", therefore implying not only the present tense but the constanst keeping of a right. This, along with the wording of the resolution and my first argument with the UN, points to the conclusion of an incarcerated felon Value: Justice --> His only argument to my value is that it is 'not inherent to the resolution'. Therefore, as long as I prove that it is implied by the resolution, then my value is extended through the round. The resolution deals with how we should deal with punishment and what rights are maintained or denyed in incarceration. (Turn)--> You can actually turn this against my opponents inferior value of a democratic society, because the resolution specifically deals with the punishment of prisoners, and for a society to be truly democratic, all punishment must be fair and JUST (justice) Value Criterion: Maximization of Fairness --> As I already have stated, the resolution states a felon. I have already proven why it deals with incarcerated felons, just look to my defending of my second observation. Just as the affirmative made no attempt of arguing incarcerated felons, the negative makes no attempt in arguing an ex-felon because it is not inherent to the resolution. Contentions: 1) Retribution: --> a) Because a felon, by definition, is one who is serving their incarceration, once they re-enter society and thus the contract, they are no longer a felon, thus not inherent to the resolution --> b) Taking away the right to vote and influence government is perfectly proportionate, for when one commits a felony they physically, mentally, or financially take or restrict someone else's rights, and thus inherently hurts the government. A felon hurts society, which is why society (as part of the jury) sentences a felon to imprisonment. Because a felon also hurts the government, the government has a right to restrict or take away a felon's rights, such as political rights and the freedom to vote --> c) this is simply wrong and furthermore proves my opponent's poor logical reasoning. Let's take kidnap, for example, because my opponent brought it up. The Free Dictionary defines kidnap as 'to seize and detain unlawfully'. Because the government's incentive is not to cause pain (as a kidnapers is) but rather to protect society, as well as the fact that the government is not breaking any laws ('unlawfully'), this argument is dropped. Once again, the government does not rape rapists or steal millions from people who commit fraud, because the government cannot treat a felon as a moral non-entity, and thus must treat the felon as a political non-entity (because the government still has an obligation to punish the felon) 2) Legal Consistency -->a) He says that we do not have legal consistency because of the length of incarceration, but I do not argue that. Let's take parental rights, for instance, because I argue them as an example. You do not lose your parental rights while incarcerated in Texas and retain them in New York. I am arguing that for a government to be fair and just, it must uphold legal consistency via rights during incaraceration. Because 48/50 states, or 96%, disenfranchise during imprisonment, the government should be able to disenfranchise in all states (the remaining 4%) --> b) Once again, when a felon re-enters society, they are now considered an ex-felon by society, because the payment to society (imprisonment) is over and repaid. However, because a felony inherently hurts the government, the government now has an obligation to punish the felon. The government then takes away the felons say in said government. 3) Double Standard --> a) This is nothing new. The government also restricts rights of ex-felons through the violation of the right to bear arms, violation of the right to serve on a jury...(etc) Still, however, this deals with ex-felons, versus felons. My opponent essentially agrees with the negative when he says that I am "undoing the balance incarceration achieves." My opponent then in turn agrees that disenfranshisement is justified while incarcerated, and because felons are CURRENTLY serving their sentence, he agrees with the negative ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------AC---------------------------------- Value: Democratic Society --> As I have proven, justice is the 'higher standard'. Both are implied by the resolution, but for a society to be democratic it must uphold justice through punishment VC: Maximizing Participation --> Not inherent to the resolution. My criteria is better to uphold justice because the negative argues how a nation with less participation can be equally, if not, superior on a justice scale to a nation with more 'participation'. --> Also, letting children (who are citizens) vote would increase participation. As you can see, however, this would not increase justice or lead to a strong democracy Observations: 1) Felons and ex-felons --> a) when a felon commits a felony, the government, because the felon has not fully repaid his debt to the government (he repaid his debt to society during imprisonment) aknowledges the felon as a felon. However, the resolution implies how society should punish this criminal, and upon re-entry of society, society essentially views the felon as an ex-felon, thus anything pertaining to an ex-felon is not resolutional. -->b) All felonies are committed in the 'past tense'. For example, you would not be on trial for "is killing", but rather "have murdered". My opponent is saying that you cannot punish a felon for a past occurrence. But, because all felonies are committed in the past tense, my opponents logical reasoning is to dejustify all punishment, because all felonies have already been committed. (Turn)--> My opponent is dejustifying all punishment, and for a democratic society (his value) to exist, there must be punishment to insure the protection of said democratic society Contentions 1) Society uses disenfranshisement in order to prevent contestation of existing values --> My opponent is essentially saying that we cannot force felons to be second class citizens. This is wrong for 3 reasons: 1) Becoming a second-class citizen means losing some rights. If felons did not lose any rights in jail, then punishment could not exist. Once again, my opponent is saying that all punishment is unjust, which goes against his value 2) Felons have brought this on themselves. By comitting a felony, they treat their victim as a second class citizen. 3) (Turn) This goes against my opponents observation of felons being felons for life. If we are to not make them second class citizens upon re-entry, then we would not be treating them as felons for life