Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote (LD Topic and Format)

LD format. Good I demand two weeks to prepare. http://wiki.idebate.org... http://www.farragut.cps.k12.il.us... and noting, under "criteria:" In any case, by definition, a criteria is a standard, the real question, and one that should be debated in every round, is what it is a standard for and of. It is also critical to know how the value and criteria are intended to relate. My opponent goes first and has not come anywhere near LD format. Technically I believe that forfeits the right to make a case since it must be made in the first round. My opponent has three minutes. My opponent is so far behind maybe I can make some suggestions. This is a major giveaway. It would not be fair to ask me to go any farther. The value-criteria relationship need not be exactly as follows but they need be. I need to know what the criteria for a good policy for participation in public life should be How these criteria support equality; Complete description of the proposed participatin policy my opponent supports, including for example children, completely uninformed, non compos mentis, etc, including who should be allowed to become doctors, teachers, run for public office own a business, etc; How the propoesd policy meets those criteria; And an example of a democratic country. If thee are none then what is the value of this debate? What if this fictitious democratic society does not have felons or voting? If it has consensus that means a felon can block a proposal singlehandedly. What if the UN is long gone before there is a democratic society? Does my opponent propose to let felons run for public office? Would my opponent issue a felon a business license? The proposed policy, and the idea that you can "pay off" a crime, is unfair to those who have been law-abiding citizens their whole lives. A felon should never be considered morally equal to a law-abiding citizen. Participation in public life requires above all morality. Teaching, operating a business, and many other functions are regulated, and for good reason. We need to be able to trust individuals who have responsibility to behave responsibly. The good of the society depends on honest people participating in it. I am leaning toward something of the form Resolved, that a policy for participation in public life needs to address a variety of possibilities. A con artist should not be allowed to handle money. A criminal should under no circumstances get the opportunity to commit the same crime again. In an enlightened society when someone commits a crime, this represents a failure of society We must address this issue. The most important question we must ask is why this happened, and how to prevent another occurrance. Punishment does not seem to be working. The second priority will be the victims, and finally the rehab of the felon. And that, in an enlightened society everyone would have a multi-dimensional rating which would designate their qualification to hold public office, serve on juries, vote, make an arrest, carry a weapon and serve on public policy boards such as Parks and Rec. There would be professional designations for doctors, lawyers, accountants, teachers and child care workers. but Instgator goes first. Well I have some room left. The way a debate works is first one side takes a position and defends it; then the opposition takes a stand disagreeing with them and they take turns admiring their own stand and trashing the other guy's. I am really considered quite a radical in these parts when I insist this is the way it works. It will take a long time for this to become accepted in debate.com land and it certainly is terribly unfair to let the opposition take a stand just like the other guy but that's just the way these unfair rules are written. These unfair rules should be changed becuse better debates happen when all you have to do is make some stupid statement like "Murder is wrong," and no matter what happens at the end of the debate it is scored by stupidly asking if you still believe that murder is wrong. http://www.debate.org... But I argued that since murder is the illegal killing of another person with malice aforethought that a better statement would be that ANY killing of another person with malice aforethought is wrong. It's a good thing this sleasy tactic was soundly defeated by the judges. Everyone knows that murder is wrong.