Felon Disenfranchisement

I'm starting on my side of this debate then moving to the affirmative's side. My value: My opponent for some reason says my value is inferior because "democracy is a means to obtaining human rights for everyone." If this is true, then my value of the Preservation of a Democratic Society is the best because clearly we want to keep our democracy. My criterion: He says my criterion is only doing what the people want... that is not what it is. It is upholding a democracy that best serves the interests of the people. I am not saying that whatever the people vote for should be done... obviously just because the society votes for slavery doesn't mean that we should implement slavery. But the purpose of government in general (including a democracy) is to protect the people, and i have shown/ will show more why I am serving the best interest of the people and my opponent is not. My 1st contention: First off, my opponent agreed that it is important to follow the social contract, so if i can show that disenfranchising felons is consistent with the social contract, I win this contention. My opponent's only response to this is that the punishment felons should get is jail. I agree, felons should be put in jail, and while in that jail they should have their vote taken away. In jail people don't have many important rights like liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. If we don't allow them these basic rights, why should we allow them to vote? Jail is also not the only punishment. After felons are released from jail they cannot carry guns for obvious reasons. My opponent also says "This is in no way proportional to a felony": I agree, taking someone's vote away is not nearly as bad as raping or killing someone. So the main point is, while the felons are in jail they should not get to vote because they have not completed the rehabilitation process or paid there debt to society. And once again, LET THEM VOTE ONCE THEY'RE OUT OF JAIL. Another point, my opponent dropped my Richard L. Lippke card about treason... so I win this round because i proved that a group of felons ought NOT have the right to vote. 2nd contention: My opponents only response to this is that i agreed to his definition of democracy, and best benefiting the people is not in it. I do agree to his definition of a democracy, a democracy is a government in which supreme power is vested in the people. But the people choose this type of government because they believe that they themselves can best make laws to benefit society. Also, in the U.S gov't does determine laws. We elect congressmen who are part of the government, and the CONGRESSMEN vote on laws, not the people directly. UNDERVIEW: my opponent didn't respond to this AT ALL. You can vote negative because we can't decide what ought to be done in a democracy. We cannot establish a normative rule in a democracy because what democracies ought to do is listen to the people. ================================================================ Now the Affirmative's case: Value: I was simply saying that voting is not a human right, it is clearly a political right because you can only vote if you have a government. So my opponent cannot say that we need to protect human rights and have it be relevant to this debate. Criterion: My opponent talks about felons being treated as secondary citizens because they can't vote. Again, let them vote OUT OF PRISON, but while they're in prison don't let them vote. In prison you already are a second class citizen pretty much, so taking away the right to vote will not hurt them anymore. My opponent also says "all citizens need to have an equal voice to protect their basic human rights." This is not true: just because people can't vote doesn't mean they don't have rights. For example children can't vote and they still have basic human rights. Also there are millions of people who choose not to vote, but just because they don't share their voice doesn't mean they don't have rights. Contention 1: "He never says the reason to disenfranchise felons this argument falls"... that is what my whole case is about. To my second response to this contention he says that the purpose of democracy is to protect the felon's rights. I agree that we need to protect felons rights in general, but when they commit such a serious crime we have a reason for restricting their rights. It's the same when we send someone to prison, we try not to restrict rights, but when someone commits a felony they clearly deserve to have some rights taken away. Also, taking away the felons' right to vote while they're in prison is not restricting any of their "human rights". My opponent makes no connection to not letting them vote in prison and not having human rights. Contention 2: My opponent's second contention is all about reintegrating felons into society. I say that taking their vote away ONLY IN PRISON will not hinder the reintegration process at all. My opponent's response to this does not make sense at all, "I defined the democratic society as the US and it is a problem in the US.". If my opponent is trying to say that because this is about the US, then we're talking about permanent disenfranchisement... then i propose we change the law limiting it to only disenfranchisement in prison. So pretty much you can take all of the affirmative impacts of helping reintegrate felons and put it on the negative's side. Contention 3: My opponent's 3rd contention talks about how felons would not be able to get welfare if they couldn't vote. I ran out of letters responding to this, but i meant to say LET THEM VOTE OUT OF PRISON. If we let them vote once they are released from prison then they will be able to get welfare. Conclusion: One of the key points of this debate is about letting felons vote out of prison. Take away their right in prison while they haven't rehabilitated yet, and give them it back once they leave prison. This point is key because it takes away his 2nd and 3rd contention. My opponents first contention is irrelevant because he talks about human rights, but voting clearly isn't a human right, it is a political right. Voting is only a right at all if you live in a democracy, so it cannot be considered a right that can be applied to all humans. I win on my side of the case because i defended all of my contentions, and my opponent never responded to my underview. Good luck.