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

Value- Justice Value Criterion- John Locke's Social Contract "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Martin Luther King Jr. a famous American states here bluntly that injustice anywhere in the world is affecting the rest. In the resolution, "In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote," my value will be justice. According to Random House Unabridged dictionary, justice is the quality of being just; righteousness or moral rightness. Making sure justice is served, we must uphold everyone responsible for their actions. My value criterion is John Locke's Social Contract. This contract is based on giving the government our rights to have the them make choices for us, but when the contract is broken( I.E by breaking the law) you no longer are in the contract, and will automatically loose such rights. In other words, once a person commit's a crime, Locke states that the person has put they're self at war with the entire order of the contract. Locke also states that once they break the law, the person must face retribution from a higher power as a consequence for their actions. Locke emphasizes that truth and justice are the common ties of society. In the resolution, it talks about felons, which are people who have been convicted of a felony. Such people should not be allowed to vote. C1- Knowingly breaking the law, is disrespecting the law itself. When a felon commit's a crime, they know are doing so and are gambling that they won't get caught. They are knowingly breaking the law, showing right away that they have no respect for society or the law in general. Showing no respect for society also goes to show that they don't know how to act responsibly, therefore they should not have the right to vote. Such people obviously have a lack of good judgment to begin with, so why let them vote, when they can't make civil decisions for their selves, let alone their society. Giving felons the right to vote is similar to giving a young child candy after hitting their sibling. You are showing them that it's okay to do so. It is not. Another daily example is a teenager refuses to do his chores. They should automatically get privileges taken away for their actions. The same concept applies to this resolution. Taking away their right to vote is the only way they will learn that taking part in such ways is wrong, and will not be accepted in society. Affirming this resolution is rewarding felons for their actions, which is plainly going against justice and Locke's contract. Negating the resolution is agreeing with Locke that such people are no longer part of society and results in loss of rights preserved for citizens that do so. C2- Disenfranchisement is not too severe. Felons are people who have committed serious crimes. Not something minor like running a stop sign, but a felony. A serious crime such as murder, rape, or robbery, should not be rewarded with the rights everyone else gets. As far as justice goes; making sure justice is served is making sure that people are getting the punishment they deserve, as Locke agrees in his contract. Denying these people their right to vote is one of the only ways we can truly show them that taking part is such ways is wrong. They're taking away other people's human rights such as voting, by committing felonies. Disenfranchisement is the way we should show felons that taking actions upon someone else's rights in any society is wrong. They need to learn, and by taking away their right to vote, we are doing so. For example, a man goes and murders his wife; he is considered a felon. That man should not be allowed to vote in any kind of society. Taking such actions proves that he isn't responsible to begin with. He, not only took his wife's right of life, but he's violating the laws that were laid down for him. If felons cannot be trusted to follow laws already set out for them, they should not have any say so in the laws that are being created. A felon takes away someone else's rights, so they shouldn't have theirs, and should be treated with retribution. This is the only way that justice will be served, is if we hold everyone accountable for their actions and punish them for their doings. Doing such a high costly crime automatically makes them do the time, and loose rights that are saved for law abiding citizens. Dis affirming this resolution is the only way we will achieve equality throughout the world. Jock Locke shows us that in his contract, along with negating this resolution. attack on opposition contention 1; It is hard to say that one is competent when they go against the values that their own society bestowed upon them. Contention 2 attack; In a just democratic society race is never a criteria when determining felons. Also this would leave out an entire class of people, i agree with my opposition but this class is not determined by race, it is determined by actions and this negating this resolution provides a deterrence from committing felonies. Attack on contention 3. My opponent would be one to advocate that if Hitler was convicted that he could also vote because he may have been able to vote for the Nazi party. the simple fact is that they did something wrong to get their punishment. Contention 4 attack. It is a punishment to provide deterrence