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

First I would like to rebuild my case: Then negative says that felons should not share rights and laws with law abiding citizens, but nowhere in the resolution does it state that we are debating over the felons citizenship. This is a debate of values, which as I will say is the core to finding the best and most moral solution. This debate of values is primarily over whether rights should be given or taken from felons. The negative also forgets that since he did not set clear boundaries to what type of democratic society we are debating in, that I did. Since I was the one who selected Liberal Democratic Society, and he did not oppose it in his rebuttal, it stands as the premise upon the society we debate. This being said he cannot say that in an "American Democratic society" because as I have stated we are debating in a Liberal Democratic society. And as follows in a Liberal Democratic Society we are representing what is right in the eyes of the Constitution of the United States. My opponent also states that in a Democracy you cannot "honor all citizens with equal privileges". This is a immoral and illogical statement, simply put it goes against the fabric Democracy is built on. In this way my value, equality of rights, supersedes my opponents. You cannot obtain a Democratic society with have equality for your citizens, to not give equality to felons because of actions committed in there past is not permissible in a democratic society, more specifically a Liberal Democratic society. On that knowledge alone I should gain your vote for this debate, but I will present you more reasons why affirming the resolutions is both right and moral. The negative states that a felon has "harmed society". Yes, a felon has harmed, but is not now harming. My opponent's arguement is irrelevant to the resolution again because he is bringing up points about what have happened in the past, not what is right in the present. My opponent also implies my ideology is incorrect, when it is his ideology that is incorrect. My opponent does not understand that in order for a democratic society to be a democratic society it must provide rights for each individual, and those rights must be equal. Citizens under 18 and those with mental disease are excluded from the voting process because of ineligibility, not because of deeds they have done or wrongs they have committed. If we were to uphold every crime, petty and serious, no one would be able to vote. My point being no one is perfect and everyone has done something to damage society, even if it was just littering. My opponent wishes to punish felons for wrong doings in the past instead of giving them a chance at a better future. My opponents value is democracy. My value is equality of rights. As I have said before my value is the greater value because my value submerses and supersedes my opponents. If we did not have equal rights we would not have democracy. My opponents value is dependent on my value, which makes his value weak and flawed. My opponent is basing his case around a weak value that is replaceable and changeable. My value is fixated into moral righteousness and the permissibility of this resolution. Also my opponent shows no clear pathway that connects his criteria to his value. How does removing a certain group of people, felons in this case, strengthen the voting process? My opponents also does not clearly relate strengthening voting to democracy. How does strengthening voting uphold democracy? In my eyes my opponents is not strengthening anything by excluding felons from the voting process, he is just making an impartial society which he believes is right. I bring up, again, my opponents claim to value democracy more highly then me, but in fact I am giving democracy greater value then my opponent. When the negative says he will not include felons in the voting process he is devaluing democracy because he is doing the exact opposite of what democracy stands for - EQUALITY and INDIVIDUALITY. This is the conclusion of my second round. I have listed reasons why voting aff. is more just, fair, and moral. My opponents wishes to create an impartial society where one's vote does not count. If we were to exclude felons simply because of there past, who would go next? Maybe we would take away the right to vote from people not born in America. Then we might take this right away from another group of people because of there religious, political, or ethnic views. The point is we cannot just take away a right our forefathers died to uphold because someone has made a mistake in there past. We must give everyone there own individual rights, so we can all be equal in society. Thank you.