Question: Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote?

Released Felons Should Be Allowed To Vote. Thank you to the person who accepts this debate. I wish you luck and hopefully one of us will be able to convince the other. Felony disenfranchisement or in simpler terms – denying the right of a felon to vote, has been a long practiced throughout many parts of the world. People who agree with this say that the felon in question has broken their 'social contract' with society and therefore should not be allowed to vote. First off we have to consider the people who this law affects. Many people get convicted in high school of minor crimes that still fall under the heading of a felony. An example of this would being stealing street signs. Then many years later that person who by now has presumably learned their lesson and paid their debt to society wants to take part in one of the greatest and most important acts they will ever do - voting. But because of their past crimes they will be denied their right to do so. What if someone is convicted for a crime like drug possession, but they and many other people think that it shouldn't be a crime. Because of laws that prohibit them from voting you are denying perhaps their only way to disagree with the system that got them in trouble in the first place. It is because of examples like the ones above that Felony disenfranchisement falls under the category of 'cruel and unusual punishment'. We have prison sentences and fines handed out by the courts for a reason, which is to pay your debt to society. To add onto this by denying people the right to vote, by saying because of something that you did in your past and now regret you will never be allowed to vote again is heinous.

Released Felons Should Be Allowed To Vote. Thank you, Caseyuer, for posting this debate. I feel this is a topic that I can argue persuasively and, at the very least, a pleasure to compete with another new member. I would flip your statements on you. Felony disenfranchisement is a necessary evil to provide us with a just society. Roger Clegg, of the General Counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity wrote, "We don't let children vote, for instance, or noncitizens, or the mentally incompetent. Why? Because we don't trust them and their judgement. [. .. ] so the question is, do criminals belong in that category? And I think the answer is clearly yes. People who commit serious crimes have shown that they are not trustworthy. " While there might exist special circumstances that might be deemed unjust; there are just as many examples of felons who express a pathological hatred for justice. . http://www.youtube.com... The episode I provide, produced by gonzo documentarian Louis Theroux, gives insight into the thought processes of prisoners who are currently moving through the justice system. Technically, the people contained have the right to vote. Already, a majority of them have a sense of sudo-honor, a vigor for throwing "piss-bombs" and public masturbation (usually pointed at female guards). Members of the public can reasonably come to the conclusion that these people would not vote in favor of the public good. Instead, they would vote, lobby and manipulate our judicial and election system to their own corrupt means. And these inmates depicted are FIRST time offenders. You point out that former felons could possibly be in these circumstances because society has not given them the opportunity to give their opinions. While this sounds like a good point, you could also say the reverse. In that if you give them the capacity to vote their opinions to the legislative branch, you would have a chunk of society who would be in a state of permanent dissent. That, being said, I hold a similar premise to the voters of Massachusetts in 2000. In one of the most liberal states in the country, they collectively voted to bar inmates from voting. This showed, even in liberal circles, that public opinion is against serious lawbreakers from electing representatives. My final point regards the constitutionality of barring voting rights. I acknowledge that the eighth amendment bars excessive sanctions and demands that punishment be to the scale of the crime. However, this amendment is ultimately refuted by the following particulars of the constitution: *Article 1, Sec. 4; *Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment, and *Section Two of the Fifteenth Amendment. Overall, this legislation provide states the right to strip criminals of their voting rights. So, because of the examples I've provided, Felony disenfranchisement falls under the category of just punishment.

Convicted Felons should be allowed to vote in all U.S. elections Judge, we have to realise that giving people a second chance doesn"t hurt, and in some cases, felons are unintentional. A robbery happens usually for money to support a family and to make ends meet, and some murders are unintentional, usually done in self defense. We cannot degrade felons and snatch their voting rights from them, because that will have devastating effects on how the society views them as an individual. According to MSNBC, when felons are given voting rights,they, 93% of the time, will not commit a crime again. Now lets see how this helps felons blend back: According to Columbia Univ., when given the right to vote, felons feel as if they are like everyone else when they are giving their opinion on who should be the person who they want to govern over them. they feel like they have a say in the nation"s matters, which makes them fit in. After all, voting is a constitutional right and as citizens they should have that right regardless of their past. Judge, not only does giving felons the right to vote help them blend back into society, it also helps the SOCIETY ITSELF. Fox News said that felons usually help in services such as helping people become fit, marriage arrangers, and overall, jobs to enhance a person"s life. The reason is simple: a person wants to give back what they "stole" from the society, and basically, they are giving back to the society. Judge, our point is clear: voting rights help felons blend back comfortably, and in the end, it positively affects the society as a whole. One of the largest purposes of prison is to make sure that the crime never happens again with the same person so why would we not let these citizens vote if it prevents more crime from taking place, helps the citizens rehab to become a normal citizen, and lets them blend back into society? Also, maybe these felons broke the law because they did not support it. The felons should have a say in it because they are citizens. As citizens, they have the constitutional right to vote. They aren't making the laws because it also requires society to agree with them. It just gives them a voice that they don't have in anything else which helps them in the long run to fit back in and rehab, and prevents more crime from taking place.

Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections. My three main contentions are: P1: Restricting felons from voting violates the Constitution. P2: Felon disenfranchisement encourages racial discrimination. P3: Ex-felons deserve the right to vote. Definitions: Felon = an individual who has committed a felony. Felony = a crime punishable by heavy fines, jail/prison time for more than 10 years, and/or death. Disenfranchisement = restriction of an American citizen from voting. FRAMEWORK: The topic strictly states ex-felons, meaning felons released from prison, parole, and/or probation. P1: Restricting ex-felons from voting violates the Constitution. Voting is a right given to all US citizens by the Constitution. Since an ex-felon has been fulfilling their duties as citizens, they must be able to enjoy the full rights of citizens, which includes the right to vote. Also, ex-felon disenfranchisement violates the 8th Amendment. According to the 8th Amendment: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. " According to the Atkins v. Virginia Supreme Court case: The 8th Amendment "succinctly prohibits excessive sanctions. " Disenfranchising an ex-felon is an excessive sanction in the sense that it extends the punishment beyond the felon"s sentence. Furthermore, the 15th Amendment is violated by ex-felon disenfranchisement. According to Section 1 of the 15th Amendment: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Since ex-felons had already been released from prison, according to the 15th Amendment, they cannot be denied the right to vote. We can conclude that ex-felon disenfranchisement is unconstitutional. P2: Felon disenfranchisement encourages racial discrimination. A disproportionate percentage of convicted felons are a minority race. According to the Guardian: The people overwhelmingly affected by felony disenfranchisement laws are minorities. Only 2.5%, 5.8 million people in the voting age population were made ineligible to vote by felon voting laws in 2010. That percentage tripled to 7.7% among African-Americans. Another way of putting this is that 38%, 2.2 million, of all those stopped from voting by felon restrictions are African-American. About a million African-American ex-felons are disenfranchised. According to the Washington Post: In Virginia, Kentucky, and Florida, 1 in 5 African Americans are affected by felon disenfranchisement laws. This is way more than the amount of Caucasian individuals affected by the same laws in the same states, thus creating an imbalance at the ballot box. This creates discrimination against minorities, especially when they have the potential to change the outcome of a race. According to the Georgetown Law Journal: Felon disenfranchisement has tremendous effects on the political landscape - leading researchers report that felon disenfranchisement "may have altered the outcome of as many as seven recent U. S. Senate elections and one presidential election. " When P3: Ex-felons deserve the right to vote. A felon is only released from prison, parole, and/or probation after they have abided by the law, paid off their fines and/or served their sentence. Ex-felons have already paid off their debt to society. Inflicting disenfranchisement upon them is unfair. They deserve the right to vote, no matter what they've done in the past. Emphasis on the PAST. Many other countries allow felons to vote. According to Think Progress: 21 out of 45 countries surveyed have NO restrictions on felon voting at all. Only 5 out of 45 countries bar felons from voting after they've served their sentence. These countries are doing quite well with felons being able to voice their opinions in politics. According to the 2012 Sentencing Project: Nearly 6 million Americans are barred from voting due to their previous conviction. This means that 1 out of 40 adults in this country cannot vote. America is supposed to be a democracy, but how is it democratic when so many otherwise eligible citizens can't vote due to crimes they've committed and have already been punished for? These people deserve their full rights. They deserve to vote. Thank you, this concludes my argument.

Ex-felons who commited minor crimes or crimes at a early age should be allowed to vote Intro: Voting is a right that everyone should have, voting allows people to express how they feel and different opinions and this is a belief that is an important American value to have. Since ex-felons are citizens and since they have served their time and went through all the requirements to get out of their punishment they have every right to vote. Also not allowing criminals to vote will not change the way they act or help them become productive citizens so there is no benefit from it anyway. 1.Broadness of a felon/some committed crimes as kids A felon could be a man who raped and murdered someone in cold blood, but also could be a young man who, after crashing his car into another, drove off out of fear. A felony conviction doesn't automatically make someone so bad of a person that they shouldn't be allowed to vote. Also some committed a crime or action as a kid or teenager and since then they have changed or learned from it, so their right to vote should be given back. 2.Taxation without representation "If you are free and required to pay taxes, which funds the salaries of government officials, then you should have the right to vote for those who will receive those salaries. "America was founded on the concept of no taxation without representation. If felons have paid their debt to society and did the time for their crimes, they should be allowed to vote. They shouldn't be required to pay sales tax and income tax without the ability to influence governmental policy through the ballot. 3.Some claim that some ex-felons go back to jail "Justice.gov shows that 50% of felons who could not secure any employment during the time of their supervised release (generally two-to-five years) committed a new crime or violated the terms of their release and were sent back to prison. However, an astonishing 93% of those who were able to secure employment during the entirety of their supervised release were able to successfully reintegrate back into society and not return to prison. "So the clear solution is to help ex-felons returning to the society find jobs and again not all return to jail anyway. 4.Benefits of ex-felons voting "According to Think Progress: 21 out of 45 countries surveyed have NO restrictions on felon voting at all. Only 5 out of 45 countries bar felons from voting after they've served their sentence. These countries are doing quite well with felons being able to voice their opinions in politics. IF we really want to remain status as a free country as a country you can have opportunities in we shouldn"t limit freedom of speech. "Returning the vote to ex-felons promotes re-integration and gives them representation not only in presidential and state elections, but in the evolution of the laws governing the criminal justice system, which most of us can agree is imperfect also the best way to see problems and issues with the criminal justice system is from people who have experienced it themselves. 5.Racial felon disenfranchisement laws/ racist voting "In America the majority of felons tend to be minorities. In fact according to the Department of Justice for every 15,000 felons sentenced to prison 450 were white 1,356 were Hispanic and 3,188 were black. Although well over a century has passed since post-Reconstruction states used these measures to strip African Americans of their most fundamental rights, the impact of felony disenfranchisement on modern communities of color remains both disproportionate and unacceptable. Throughout America, 2.2 million black citizens " or nearly one in 13 African-American adults " are banned from voting because of these laws. This is way more than the amount of white individuals affected by the same laws in the same states, thus creating an imbalance at the ballot box. This creates discrimination against minorities, especially when they have the potential to change the outcome of a race. According to the Georgetown Law Journal: Felon disenfranchisement has tremendous effects on the political landscape - leading researchers report that felon disenfranchisement "may have altered the outcome of as many as seven recent U.S. Senate elections and one presidential election." Conclusion: the main point however is the fact that no harm comes from letting a ex-felon, even a felon vote. I am not arguing for felons but I am just trying to point out something here. Felons/ex-felons are just as ignorant to politics as most Americans so they have the overall similar political knowledge, since both ex-felons and Americans harm voting by overall being ignorant of the voters they are voting for, both should be allowed to vote. Response to what my opponent said: Since most of the felons/ex-felons who commit these crimes as a kid tend to be in poorer/ghetto areas they do not have any knowledge whatsoever over the privileges lost when doing something, they do not realize they will lose the right to vote.

Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections. An excellent opening argument put forth by my opponent. My opponent's contentions were P1: Many felons return to prison within 3 years for the same or a different crime P2: It would not be fair to citizens who have never been convicted of a felony P3: Felons should gain the right to vote, by proving that their judgement is valid I'll start by refuting them. P1: Many felons return to prison within 3 years for the same or different crime It may be true that many ex-felons are convicted again, however, my opponent fails to realize that a felon is usually put on parole and/or probation for 3 or more years after being released from prison. These felons are allowed to vote if and only if they are released from all kinds of probation/parole. P2: It would not be fair to citizens who have never been convicted of a felony My opponent claims that giving citizens and ex-felons on even ground is somehow unfair to the group that did not commit a crime (normal citizens). However, the whole point of letting a felon out of prison is to try and let them blend back into normal life, so to speak. But how can they blend back if they forever have a black shadow looming over them? It would not be "fair" to hand a prisoner a lifelong sentence if they've already served their time, but this is what my opponent wants to do. P3: Felons should gain the right to vote by proving that their judgement is valid The main point here is "gain the right to vote" not HAVE the right to vote. By serving their sentence and fulfilling their civic duties, felons gain their full rights. Also, I'd like to request that my opponent provides evidence for this point and put forth a more detailed solution. How will they earn the right to vote? Having refuted all my opponent's points, I'll move on to my own: P1: Restricting felons from voting violates the Constitution. P2: Felon disenfranchisement encourages racial discrimination. P3: Ex-felons deserve the right to vote. P1: Restricting felons from voting violates the Constitution. I've proven in the previous round that not just one, but multiple amendments are violated. 1. The 8th Amendment -- Disenfranchisement for LIFE falls under the category of "excessive sanctions." The prisoner has already served his sentence. He's supposed to be free now, right? But the government still sanctions him on the right to vote. This is clearly a violation of the felon's 8th amendment rights. 2. The 15th Amendment -- Disenfranchisement after release from prison/probation/parole is like denying the citizen the right on account of "previous condition of servitude." The main point here is PREVIOUS condition. It is (quite obviously) true that a ex-felon has been in prison, and I'm not arguing for them to be allowed to vote FROM prison. But after they're out, logically their right should be returned to them by the 15th amendment. P2: Felon disenfranchisement encourages racial discrimination. When so many people of a minority race are not allowed to vote, this clearly creates an imbalance between races. America is known as the "Great Melting Pot" of diversity, but how can we continue to boast this if one minority is a million people down at the ballot box while others go on almost like normal? An overwhelming majority of ex-felons are African American or Hispanic. Not only is this unfair, it actually bolsters crime later on -- it backfires, doing the opposite of what it's supposed to do. According to USA Today: The right to vote helps people get more educated on issues they care about. Also, people who can't voice their opinion in the law might resort -- AGAIN -- to breaking it. Sentencing Project: An overwhelming 78% of all repeated offenses had been disenfranchised. This creates an endless cycle: person commits crime, person can't vote, person commits crime again, person still can't vote. We need to prevent things like this from happening by allowing ex-felons to vote. P3: Ex-felons deserve the right to vote. A felon is essentially a person who makes a mistake. True, a BIG mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. They are still human beings and part of our society, like it or not. They could be limited on the issues they are allowed to vote on, like bills and laws, but they should be allowed to vote in elections. Ex-felons are still affected by the next President. They are still affected by their next Senator. If they're going to follow the law, they should have a say in who makes the law. People can't be persecuted for the past. This concludes my argument for this round. Thank you, I look forward to my opponent's response :)

Resolved: In the United States, Felons should be allowed to vote upon release from prison. Today I stand to affirm the resolution: "resolved: In the United States, Felons should be allowed to vote upon release from prison." Not only are American felon voting laws outdated, they work against the democratic process, and they slow rehabilitation back into society. 1. One of the foundations of democracy is that everybody should vote, and that those elected into the United State's government are those who are supported the majority of the population. By not allowing released felons to vote, it is taking the vote away from up to 7% of the adult population in some states (1). In fact, in 2010, 5.9 million people in the United States were left unable to vote (2). Because of this, up to 6% of the United States (5.9 million people) are left without a vote, and their voices are not heard as loudly in government. This takes away from the democratic process, as despite the fact that the United States is built off of giving everybody a voice, these felons are left with none. So, not allowing felons to vote is taking away from the democratic process, and is making electoral decisions not truly represent the views of the people. 1a. Restricting felon voting rights can change the results of elections. If felons in Florida were allowed to vote in the 2000 presidential election, it would have affected the result. Ex-felons have been seen to almost always vote democratic, and the 527 vote margin of victory of George Bush would undoubtedly be wiped out if the 600,000 felons barred from voting could have exercised their opinions (3). So, it is clear that not allowing felons to vote can change the results of elections, and by not allowing felons to vote, elections clearly do not always represent the people's true views. 1b. Taking away the right to vote does not make logical sense. A fundamental of the American Justice system is that once you complete your prison sentence, your punishment is over. Not allowing felons to vote for extended periods after their release from prison is extending their punishment, and by not allowing felons to vote, it makes rehabilitation into society even harder. This claim is supported by former Attorney General Eric Holder, as he said that taking the right away from felons "Defy[ies] the principles of accountability and rehabilitation that guides our justice system" (1). So, taking away a felon's right to vote is unethical, and unnecessarily extends punishment. 1c. The bill of rights in the constitution of the United States "prohibits excessive sanctions", and reads "punishment for crime should be graduated and proportioned to the offense". Not allowing felons to vote for decades seems to be "excessive," as it is a fundamental right of being an American Citizen. So, not allowing felons to vote for decades is going against the concepts of excessive sanctions, and is an unnecessary right to remove. 2. Allowing felons to vote would help with their transition back into society. Felons without voting rights often feel fed up with the slow pace it takes to be fully re-admitted into society, and because of this, they are often three times more likely to re-offend than those with full rights upon release from prison (1). So, if felons were allowed to vote upon release from prison, not only would they transition more smoothly back into society, they would also be less likely to re-offend. 2a. Small offenses, like even tampering with crab traps illegally can trigger over 7 years without voting rights is some states (3). This simply does not make sense, as these criminals are clearly non violent, and have no intention of hurting anybody. Furthermore, these criminals usually show nothing that hints towards an inability to vote. 3. Felon voting laws are racist, and take the voice away from racial minorities. According to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, up to 20% of adult black males are left unable to vote in some states due to felon voting restrictions (2). African Americans are already a minority, with a relatively small voice in government. By taking the vote away from up to 20 percent of adult male African Americans, the voice of a relatively unspoken minority is being further quenched, as less of them can vote. This gives them even less of a say in elections, and is thus making them further under-represented in government. This also gives white people, the majority, an even larger voice in government. So, felon voting laws take voice away from already overshadowed minorities. 4. Felon Voting laws in the United States are outdated. In most other industrialized countries, felons are allowed to vote, sometimes even while still in prison (1). Additionally, they are even encouraged to do so, in promotion of the democratic process (1). In comparison, American felon voting laws, which take away voting rights until long after prison release seem incredibly restrictive, and outdated, while the laws in these other countries are innovative and modern. If American felon voting laws were loosened to this level, the United States would appear to be a modern, innovative country in one more way, and it would maybe gain more international respect. So, it has been shown that felon voting laws defy the democratic process, make elections seem not to fully represent the people's views, are unconstitutional, harm rehabilitative processes, take the voice away from under-spoken minorities, and are outdated. As such, it seems that felon voting laws need to be changed to become less restrictive. Sources 1- http://www.nytimes.com... 2- http://www.startribune.com... 3- http://america.aljazeera.com...

In a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote Alright... your on... I'm a varsity LD debator and this is the case that i just ran... fri/sat of this week.... It has a few holes... but I still like it. My value for today's debate shall be that of Democracy. A democratic system is one which, according to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, refers very generally to a method of group decision making characterized by a kind of equality among the participants at an essential stage of the collective decision making. In essence this form of government is intended to focus on the majority of citizens. When government is run by the majority of citizens, policies favor the many, not the few. When government is run by a few individuals, policies favor the few – the rich or elite, and ignore the rest of society. Only rule by the entire population can preserve freedom and equality because these values benefit the most citizens, while ruling elites are rarely concerned about freedom and equality for the average citizen. My criterion for today's debate shall be that of individual rights. The point and purpose of democracy is to protect the people. A democracy hinges upon the assumption that each individual within the society is entitled to certain rights and privileges. Without individual rights a democracy simply cannot exist. To negate this resolution is to advocate for the disenfranchisement of a certain segment of the populace. To ignore the rights of this segment of the populace is to ignore an intrinsic part of democracy, thus harming the democratic process. Therefore I affirm this resolution; felons ought to have the right to vote within a democratic society. Contention 1, Felon disenfranchisement laws do not help the process of rehabilitating felons and re-integrating them back into society after prison. Subpoint A) The denying of felons the right to vote ultimately causes these felons to lose an important sense of community. It is saying to these people that their thoughts and opinions no longer matter to society because of past mistakes. This sends a negative message to these citizens. The governor of Florida has a similar opinion. He states that, "Giving a person a meaningful way to re-enter society, make a living and participate in our democracy will incentivize good behavior." Subpoint B) A very important question that needs to be asked is why does society punish criminals? According to Merriam Websters Dictionary, as stated earlier, punishment is meant for the purposes of reformation and prevention of crimes? How does the disenfranchisement of felons increase their desire to reform? It doesn't. In fact it has exactly the opposite effect. Labeling an individual a second class citizen will ultimately harm the rehabilitation process. Kevin Krajick of the Washington Post agrees stating, QUOTE "To condemn millions to eternal political silence is to stab our democracy in the heart, and to provide cause for bitterness and alienation. Felons may face many other disabilities: They cannot sit on juries, serve as teachers, firefighters or -- often -- even barbers or plumbers. They cannot receive food stamps or live in public housing. Add to all this the knowledge that whatever they do, no matter how much they have changed, their voices will never be heard in the public arena." END Quote He goes on to say, QUOTE "Voting is not a privilege; it is the basic right that defines a citizen. Those denied it are, in effect, stateless -- people without a country. This is not a partisan issue, but one of basic human rights. People who have paid their debt to society should have their rights restored." END QUOTE Contention 2: The disenfranchisement of felons ultimately harms democracy. Subpoint A) To deny an individual his or her right to vote, regardless of how others may view them, violates the very premise of democracy. A democracy is something which has a main focus of the concept of equality. To disenfranchise a certain group is create a vacuum. That segment of the populace deserves a voice. They have opinions and their opinions should be heard. When a society denies a felon the right to vote they are silencing that individual. They are silencing quite a large segment of the populace. In doing this, the society spreads inequality, and this goes against everything that democracy stands for. Which me to my Subpoint B), when felons are disenfranchised, they are forced to follow without being involved in the decision making process. In essence it is taxation without representation all over again. Matt Welch, Editor-in-Chief at Reason magazine, said "The combined [felon voting] laws have created the democratic world's largest pool of adult citizens living under a system of taxation without representation." This is simply unacceptable. These individuals are being brought subject to gross injustices that ought not be there in the so-called land of the free. To close I shall use the words of Justice Earl Warren a former member of the United States supreme court who presided over the Reynolds v. Sims case in which he stated that, "… history has seen a continuing expansion of the scope of the right of suffrage in this country. The right to vote freely for the candidate of one's choice is of the essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government."

In a democratic society, a felon ought to retain the right to vote. This is an infringement on equality because felons are in fact not equal with the rest of the citizens. And in a democracy, everyone has to be equal, or it is no longer a democracy. Punishment is for people to learn from mistakes. If felons are punished by taking their right to vote away FOREVER, then they will never learn becasuse they wont have that chance to learn. In a democracy everyone must have equal rights and the same individual rights.

Felon Voting Five point three million Americans are denied the right to vote, simply because of their criminal records. If these convicts were able to vote it may amount to the difference in who our country's own president may be. It could have a huge impact on the laws that are in affect as well. This is why I stand in firm affirmation of the resolution; Resolved: in a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. President of John Jay College of Criminal Justice, Jeremy Travis, stated that, "In more than a dozen states, a convicted felon loses the right to vote-for life. Thirty-two states prohibit offenders on probation or parole from voting." "In states with lifetime bans, the consequences for democratic participation are deeply disturbing." Before we discuss the topic any farther I would first like to establish and clarify some key definitions and terms. Democratic:pertaining to or characterized by the principle of political or social equality for all Society: a highly structured system of human organization for large-scale community living that normally furnishes protection, continuity, security, and a national identity for its members Felon:one who has committed a felony Retain:to continue to use, practice Right to Vote:a legal right guaranteed by the United States Constitution Contention 1:Convicts and Ex-convicts are treated like any other average citizen in every other aspect of their lives. Felons are expected to follow and obey the laws just the same as you and me. Why should we not give them the right to help choose the leaders they have to follow and vote on the laws that they are expected to obey? If felons are responsible to uphold the standard set by society, they should have the same rights and privileges as others. Steve Chapman stated, "We let ex-cons marry, reproduce, buy beer, own property, and drive. They don't lose their freedom of religion, their right against self-incrimination, or their right not to have soldiers quartered in their home in a time of war. But, the assumption in most places is that they can't be trusted to help choose our leaders. If we thought criminals could never be reformed, we wouldn't let them out of prison in the first place." In some states, Maine and Vermont, felons are allowed to vote even while being incarcerated. How can one justify this being fair to a convict in Missouri. It should be a standard all across the board that everyone's voting rights are treated equally, even a felon's(see Equal Protection Clause, Contention 3). Allowing one felon to vote and not allowing another to is creating a double standard based on location, which has no legitimate effect on voting rights. Contention 2:Felons are serving or have served the punishment they were sentenced for their crime. A judge is a highly trained professional. They make decisions to determine punishments and consequences accordingly. When they sentence a felon they sentence them to a punishment that is adequate to the crime they committed. There is no reason for society to think of themselves above a felon and impose further regulations. It is not our place to judge others when we ourselves could just as easily be in their place. By denying a felon this right we are demoralizing them and depriving them of their basic human rights. We are alienating them from society. A felon has already been given a punishment for the crime they committed so why should we make them keep suffering for something that happened in the past and was already dealt with? We are taking away the capability for a felon to fix their life and reform into the "average Joe." By doing this we are putting society in a susceptible position. Contention 3: The right for everybody to vote is protected by the constitution. Amendment VIII of the Constitution states, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishments inflicted." Also according to the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, "Congress finds that the right of citizens of the United States to vote is a fundamental right." Contrary to the beliefs of many that voting is a privilege, Congress itself wrote that it is a right that ALL United States citizens have, regardless of any discriminatory factor. Lastly, there is this little part of the Constitution that is referred to as "The Equal Protection Clause.(Amendment XIV, Section 1)." It states that, "No state shall enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." This makes it clear that any ordinance outlawing a citizen's right to vote is unconstitutional. The United States was established under the values and morals of our country's founding fathers. As I have shown with my three points of contention, they clearly had the intent of allowing all citizens the right to vote, no matter what the circumstances may have been. Felons, as I stated in my first contention, are expected to follow the same laws. Taking away more basic human rights separates them from society. If citizens expect laws to be followed, everyone needs equal input on the making of these laws. Not only do we need to follow through with the resolution because of the hypocrisy and double-standards involved, but also because it is protected constitutionally. The VIII amendment to the constitution, The National Voter Registration Act of 1993, and the Equal Protection Clause all reference that disenfranchisement is wrong. Also, Making a felon pay for their mistake even after completing their sentencing completely violates my second point of contention. They were given an appropriate sentencing. Taking away the right to vote was not included in it. For the reasons I have stated above I know the affirmative side is the right side. This is why I urge you to return a negative ballot today. Thank You.

In a democractic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. When looking at the basis of the resolution, we read in the first prepositional phrase "in a democratic society," therefore the resolution assumes that felon disenfranchisement is taking place in a democratic framework. Even if some people would view those preferences as "bad" society, a procedural view of democracy would hold that there is no legitimate basis for any preferences to be rejected and equality of all is the implied value. To define key terms: Felons - A person convicted of a serious criminal offense punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year. Democracy (root of democratic) - Of, characterized by, or advocating democracy, Of or for the people in general; popular, Believing in or practicing social equality The value for this round will be equality, and my criterion will be democracy. This means that whoever allows for the equality by the ways of democracy, will win this round. This is a fair value and criterion because the resolution is talking about what is best for a democratic society, ergo my criterion; and equality is essential to a democracy, ergo my value. Moreso, a democracy is defined as in having or practicing social equality and inversely, without equality, a full democracy cannot be established. CONTENTION ONE: ENFRANCHISING FELONS IS DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO THE INCREASE OF DEMOCRACY A. FELON DISENFRANCHISEMENT HURTS DEMOCRATIC VALUES AND RIGHTS Mauer, Marc, assistant director of The Sentencing Project, "Felon Disenfranchisement: A Policy Whose Time Has Passed?" American Bar Association, http://www.abanet.org..., accessed September 9, 2008 Regarding individuals who complete their sentence, it is difficult to develop a compelling argument for the denial of voting rights. Americans long have professed that once you "pay your debt to society," you are free to rejoin the community. But a felony conviction may continues to deny these rights of citizenship decades after a sentence has been completed, even for a one-time, nonviolent offense. (Regrettably, policymakers in recent years enacted a series of collateral consequences of conviction, many tied specifically to drug offenses, that also extend after sentence. These include bans on receiving welfare assistance, living in public housing, and obtaining financial aid for higher education.) But serious questions can be raised as well regarding the loss of fundamental rights for people currently serving a felony sentence, whether in prison or on probation or parole. Our legal system generally makes a distinction between punishment-the loss of liberty whether in prison or on probation-and the loss of rights. The only exceptions generally conceded by law and policy are those exercises of speech that might conflict with public safety concerns. If we think of voting more broadly, as a fundamental expression of speech, then disenfranchisement becomes an even greater challenge for a democratic society. Suppose, for example, a legislator proposed a bill to make it unlawful for a probationer to write a letter to the editor or to participate in a protest rally. Surely few policymakers or citizens would find this an appropriate consequence of a conviction. Yet in the twenty-nine states that currently prohibit probationers from voting, such restrictions on political expression are firmly in place. The traditional goals of sentencing also leave little justification for disenfranchisement and most other collateral consequences of conviction. Other than serving a retributive function, disenfranchisement certainly does not meet the goals of incapacitation or deterrence. Individuals who are not already deterred from crime by the threat of incarceration are unlikely to be swayed by the prospect of losing their right to vote. Placing a character test on voting eligibility also is reminiscent of past practices that run counter to modern notions of democratic procedure. Once we begin to impose character requirements, voting slips back from being a right for all Americans to a privilege granted by the powerful. The racial impact of disenfranchisement policies is sometimes justified as an inevitable if unfortunate aspect of a race-neutral criminal justice system: if members of a particular racial or ethnic group are more involved in crime, the consequent disproportionate loss of voting rights is merely a result of their activity. Such an argument, though, ignores the compelling evidence of discriminatory racial dynamics in the criminal justice system-racial profiling by law enforcement agencies, the racially disparate prosecution of the war on drugs, and glaring inequities in adequacy of counsel as a function of both race and class. Affirming the resolution allows for reenfranchisement, which changes how felons function in the electoral system. B. RESTORATION OF THE RIGHT TO VOTE ENABLES REHABILITATION AND REINTEGRATION INTO DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY Mauer, Marc, assistant director of The Sentencing Project, "Felon Disenfranchisement: A Policy Whose Time Has Passed?" American Bar Association, http://www.abanet.org..., accessed September 9, 2008 In a more positive vein, the restoration of voting rights can be seen as being in harmony with the rehabilitative goal of sentencing. If an objective of sentencing is to encourage offenders to become less antisocial, then it is in society's interest to engage offenders in productive relationships with the community. Voting is clearly one means of doing so. Such a rationale is employed by the many nations (and the states of Maine and Vermont) that do not relate voting rights to criminal punishment and permit even prisoners to vote. By the standards of most democratic nations, American disenfranchisement policies are extreme, as is our excessive use of imprisonment. No other democratic nation disenfranchises former offenders for life; some countries deny voting rights to citizens after they have completed a prison sentence, but this generally is for a limited period of time and for specific offenses. During the past decade, constitutional courts in Canada, Israel, and South Africa have affirmed the fundamental right of all citizens, including prisoners, to be part of the electorate. The Israeli case is particularly intriguing because it resulted from a challenge to the voting rights of Yigal Amir, the man convicted of killing former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Reintegration is a key step to achieve a truly democratic society, which increases the legitimacy of democracy. Democracy impacts to providing the most social justice through the protection of rights, both on a domestic and international scale. CONTENTION 2: Allowing felons to vote, once released, is consistent with the return of other rights. Jeffrey Reiman, "Liberal and Republican Arguments against the Disenfranchisement of Felons," Criminal Justice Ethics, 2005 Technically, disenfranchisement is not considered part of an offender's sentence but only a "collateral consequence" of conviction. Consequently, one rarely sees judges defending disenfranchisement as punishment. With regard to imprisoned felons, the argument implied in this rhetorical question has some force. Because the idea of Felon Disenfranchisement does not promote the best for society in the form of the preservation of democracy and the creation of justice, the reverse must also be true. If Felons were re-enfranchised It would strengthen the democratic process and would be the most just solution because it preserves democracy by means of marketable ideas being expressed.

In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. I affirm that in a democratic society felons should retain the right to vote. Definitions Democracy- is a government elected by the people. Felons- a person convicted of a serious criminal offense punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year. Society- is a grouping of individuals which is characterized by common interests and may have distinctive cultures and institutions. My value premise for this round will be equality and my value criterion will be democracy. My value premise and my value criterion relates because equality is essential to a democracy. I contend that by taking away felons rights to vote it will violate constitutional laws. Everyone is supposed to maintain their citizenship. As written by Steven Earl Bennett in the American Journal of Political Science, "the most fundamental criterion of a fully functioning democratic system is citizen participation. Myrna Perez, author of report "Voter Purges" and an attorney for the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice states that there are 5.3 million people that cannot vote because of felonies. Those 5.3 million people will never be full citizens again. For my second contention I refer back to my definition of democracy. My definition states that a democracy relies on citizens voting; it is a government elected by the people. You cannot have a full democratic society without all citizens voting. "Once a person begins to interfere with the voting qualifications one can be sure that sooner or later it will abolish it all together" stated Alexis de Tocqueville, author of "Democracy in America". Abraham Lincoln once defined America's democracy as a government "of the people, by the people and for the people." This quote refers to the American people. For my third contention I contend that felons don't need extended punishment. They had already paid their debt to society. When they get out of jail they are expected to contribute to society. They still have to pay taxes. They can no longer get a decent job because they are no longer trusted in their society. Their record has already been messed up since they do not have the same trust because they have been in jail. Their future has been messed up. Felons should be able to start life with a clean slate once released from jail. Voting is a form of freedom of speech. You cannot take away someone's right to vote. That is against the amendment as citizens. We are rightfully supposed to follow the amendment. A democratic society is a community of individuals that follow preset commands created by our four fathers. These preset commands are the amendments.

In a democratic society felons ought to be denied the right to vote. Voting is a right, but not an unconstrained one. The right to vote is not granted to those under the age of eighteen. That age limitation demonstrates that voting rights may be restricted when there is reason to doubt the potential voter's good judgment. Resident aliens are excluded from voting on the grounds that their interests are not necessarily coincident with the interests of ordinary citizens. Convicted felons are another class of citizens whose judgment is reasonably called into question. The interests of convicted felons are likely to be contrary to the interests of citizens as a whole, who want to be protected from criminals. The U.S. Constitution does not grant individual citizens the right to vote for president. The electors for the President are determined by state legislators *by any means*; Clearly, the Constitution does not make voting in a preeminent right. The Constitution defines a republic, which generally subordinates the right to vote upon legislation to voting for legislators. There are clauses granting equal rights based based upon race and religion, and equal voting rights based upon gender, but there is nothing that prevents voting restrictions based upon other criteria. Non-citizens are also excluded from voting. That is because the interests of non-citizens are likely to diverge from those of citizens on some important issues. The argument that the interests of criminals diverges from that of ordinary citizens is stronger than that for non-citizens. Convicted criminals have demonstrated where their interests lie, but for non-citizens it is only a reasonable supposition. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall claimed that once a prison sentence is served, that felons have "fully paid their debt to society" [1] However, being a jurist qualifies one to interpret laws, not to make them. Whether or not felons have fully paid there debt is a matter to be determined by law, and ultimately of the values of society as reflected in the lawmaking processes. For example, convicted sex offenders must register with the government and are restricted from certain interactions with children. The "three strikes and you are out" laws identify career criminals and remove them from society. The justification for both sex-offender registration and "three strikes" is that convicted felons are more likely to commit additional crimes than persons without a criminal record. One can argue what the correct level of continuing debt to society ought to be, but the fact that convicted felons are more likely to commit crimes is unquestionable. The U.S. Bureau of Justice reports that "over two-thirds of released prisoners were rearrested within three years" [2]. Note that the two-thirds only reflects released felons who where caught within three years. It does not count those who committed crimes but were not arrested. Overall, only about 45 percent of violent crimes are solved, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Statistics [3] Factoring in the criminals not caught, we may reasonably suppose that the true recidivism rate is in the neighborhood of 85 or 90 percent. Because recidivism rates are so high, the debt to society at the heart of this issue is not with respect to serving a sentence for a particular crime, it is in having adopted a criminal lifestyle. The convicted felon ought to have the obligation of establishing that his interests have become aligned with those of ordinary citizens and contrary to those with a criminal lifestyle. For example, that might be established after ten years without an arrest for a felony. It is not established by release from prison. Only eight states currently prohibit convicted felons from voting for life. Two states (Vermont and Maine) permit felons to vote while in prison. Thirty-three states remove the franchise while convicted felons are on parole. Thus even if one accepts Thurgood Marshall's argument that voting rights should be restored after felons have paid their debt, it is not mainly about criminals who have done so. The issue is mainly about criminals who are in prison or on parole and have not paid their debt. Criminal rights advocates claims that in the 2000 election in Florida, that felons would likely have swayed the presidential election to John Kerry and away from George Bush. They claim that preventing that was undemocratic. There is no doubt that in a close elections the votes of those with an established criminal lifestyle voting for someone they feel to be in their interests could determine the outcome of an election. That, however, is a powerful argument that justice demands that election not be determined by such people. Criminal rights advocates claim that fencing off a certain voter demographic is a fundamentally unjust principle. In reality, it depends upon the reason for fencing off the demographic. People under the age of 18 are fenced off on the reasonable grounds that in general they lack the knowledge and experience to cast an informed vote. Note that this is done despite some seventeen-year-olds being more informed than some citizens who are fifty or sixty. The fencing off is justified because the odds are so heavily against it. Similarly, not all convicted felons remains committed to the criminal lifestyle. But with about 85% recidivism, the odds are much against it. Therefore, it is reasonable and just to identify the demographic and exclude them. Convicted felons are an identifiable target for politicians, who can seek votes by making various promises to tilt the justice system in favor of criminals. Politicians are clever enough not to go to prisons to make the appeal directly, as that would alienate other voters. They would use surrogates who espouse "improving" the justice system by weakening it. Even if no targeted appeal were made, criminals would figure out for themselves which candidate was most likely to facilitate their criminal lifestyle. Crime victims are also an identifiable demographic. However, victims are less likely to vote based upon the single issue of weakening the justice system. For example, victims are citizens who worry about the health of the general economy because a good economy facilitates their making a living. A criminal lifestyle, however, is only facilitated by weakening the justice system. The issue has frequently posed as one in which removing the right to vote is either punishment or retribution. This a false dichotomy. A completely separate reason for imprisoning criminals is to keep them from doing further harm. That is why convicted felons should not be allowed to vote. We should not want people whose primary interest is in pursuing a criminal lifestyle determining the outcome of close elections. 1. http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu... Richardson v. Ramerez, in which three ex-felons sued to restore their voter registration. The applicants lost the case. 2. Bureau of Justice, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov... Recidivism 3. http://www.ncpa.org... National Center for Policy Analysis, Violent Crime Clearance Rate http://www.ncpa.org...

Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. A felony is a serious crime in the United States and previously other common law countries. The term originates from English common law where felonies were originally crimes which involved the confiscation of a convicted person's land and goods; other crimes were called misdemeanors. Most common law countries have now abolished the felony/misdemeanor distinction and/or replaced it with other distinctions such as between summary offences and indictable offenses. Crimes commonly considered to be felonies include, but are not limited to: aggravated assault and/or battery, arson, burglary, illegal drug abuse/sales, embezzlement, grand theft, treason, espionage, racketeering, robbery, murder, rape, kidnapping and fraud. People have the right to vote to form a democracy. A democracy is run by the people and for the people. The people vote on there leaders, there laws, and many other important issues. If the people think that felons should not be given suffrage, then in order for a democracy to be kept they mustn't vote. In some cases like maine and vermont voting is allowed by all felons because they have so many prisons in such little area that they make up much of there population in these states. Is this who we want to be voting? or should we have the hard-working americans who actually abide by the laws that felons help make?

Felon Voting Resolved: In a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote Value: democratic society Value Criterion: Maximizing political participation Contention 1: A democratic society can not be legitimate if the people in it are not voting. This is because the definition of democracy dictates that we let every competent adult vote. If we bar felons from voting then we are not truly a democracy. Contention 2: Furthermore if we continue to disenfranchise felons then not only are we undemocratic but we are also racist. This is because in America the majority of felons tend to be minorities. In fact according to the Department of Justice for every 15,000 felons sentenced to prison 450 were white 1,356 were Hispanic and 3,188 were black. Therefore as one can clearly see felon disenfranchisement excludes a whole class of people from the voting process. As stated in my previous statistic the two major minorities that make up the majorities of felons in America are blacks and Hispanics. Due to this the voices of these two groups of people is not generally heard. So if one were to vote neg. this could in effect lead to the genocide of minorities as their voice would be stifled in the government. This proves that supporting felon disenfranchisement supports racism. Contention 3: Not only does felon disenfranchisement supports racism but it can change the result of important elections. Blacks and Hispanics generally vote Democratic. As these minorities make up the majorities of felons felon disenfranchisement favors the white dominated Republican party and skews the results of elections. An example of this would be my state of Florida in the 2004 election. If felons had been allowed to vote there is no way that George Bush would have won the presidency. Though Gore had the popular vote Bush had more electoral votes which enabled him to win. However if felons had been allowed to vote Gore would have had not only the popular vote but the electoral votes necessary to win. Contention 4: Additionally felon disenfranchisement is not truly a punishment. Disallowing felons from voting does nothing correct their behavior or to prevent them from committing a crime again. If anything it further separates them from society. This is injustice for if a man committed a felony in his late teens and is kept from voting from every election each time a new political figure come to power he will have to remember the mistake he made as a teen. He may be a reformed and upstanding member of society yet he will still be unable to vote. For these reason I support the affirmative of this resolution.

Ex-Cons should not be denined the vote. First, it should be readily apparent that denying a convicted felon the right to vote is NOT unconstitutional; my opponent has already (and apparently without realizing it) quoted the very text from the Constitution which shows this. Repeating that quotation - the 14th Amendment - here, with the relevant text highlighted: "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Carefully note that phrase, "without due process of law." The rights enumerated in the Constitution, and specifically in the Bill of Rights, are not and never were intended to be absolute and inviolable. The fact that we imprison people in the first place (a clear violation of the "right to liberty," if that right were to be considered "absolute"), and that such imprisonment and other punishments were clearly and explicitly anticipated by the Constitution, shows this. The States can, through the due process of law, deny various rights as punishment for infractions of the law. But why deny voting rights to convicted criminals? First, this is clearly a part of the punishment prescribed for various crimes (in general, that class of crimes that we call felonies). You know going in that if you commit certain criminal acts, and are convicted of them, that you are going to be stripped of certain rights that otherwise would be yours as a citizen. In short, this is your choice - and if you value your right to vote, it is an additional incentive not to commit the crime in the first place. And from society's perspective, this makes sense. We do not grant the right to participate in government, through voting, to just anyone. You must be of a certain age, and in general you must be of reasonably sound mind. But a convicted criminal has already demonstrated one major shortcoming regarding a quality that any reasonable society should expect of its voters. Simply put, in committing a crime, you are demonstrating that you are NOT willing to abide by your society's laws in the first place - should you then expect to have a hand in the making of those laws? Our system of voting rights is based on the assumption that voters will have an interest in promoting the good of the society as a whole - why should we grant voting right to those who have demonstrated the exact opposite? It might be claimed that the permanent loss of the right to vote constitutes an unusual and extreme punishment, one which is not warranted in many cases. That's fine, and the law already provides a means through which it may be addressed. The ex-convict retains the right to petition the State, through legal channels, for their right to vote to be returned. In many states, the right to vote is automatically restored after a specified time period following completion of the convict's sentence, assuming of course that no further crime has been committed by the individual during that period. Given, then, that the franchise IS very commonly restored to ex-convicts - especially if it is important enough to them that they pursue it - what justification can there be for eliminating this part of the punishment for such demonstrably anti-social individuals?

ToC:Resolved in a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote. I will post my argument and then rebut my opponent's contentions in subsequent rounds. I will also provide a few definitions for this round. * Democratic - representing or appealing to or adapted for the benefit of the people at large [1] * Society - an extended social group having a distinctive cultural and economic organization [2] * Felon(s) - A serious criminal offense, which, under federal law, is punishable by death or imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. [3] * Ought - used to express obligation. [4] * Retain - to keep in possession or use. [5] Hence a democratic society would be a group of people or culture sharing a representative or other directly - elected government. Observations: Felons in this sense can and will represent both incarcerated and ex - felons. The burden of proof rests with PRO to prove that it is acceptable and morally correct to allow both the privilege to vote. Value : Societal welfare - The well being of a society in matters of health, safety, order, and economics. However this debate will mostly focus on safety and order. It has been noted that the value of a democratic society hinges on whether or not the constituents are safe. When there is disorder and lack of safety the value of democracy is depleted. Value Criterion : Utilitarian punishment - A punishment that serves to benefit the most amount of people after its implementation. Contention 1 : Right vs. Privilege -- In today's society it seems as though the line between rights and privileges have been significantly blurred. It is a privilege, not a right to vote and felons ought to recognize this. A 'right' is something that is generally inherent - 'right' to life, 'right' to die, etc. , however, when a person is born, they are not guaranteed a right to vote. For example, children and the mentally unstable are not permitted to vote. If we allow felons who often times commit egregious crimes to vote we might as well let well - read 4th graders do the same. Voting is a privilege that is earned. This privilege is earned when one reaches the age of 18 and is responsible and competent enough to make a good decision. Felons lack in this maturity and responsibility, and therefore should not be granted the privilege to vote. Contention 2 : Rational thought process -- Felons have blurred the line between right and wrong and in the process have stripped other citizens of life, liberty and other unalienable rights. This is heinously unfair and should not be tolerated. When we cannot trust felons to function as average/contributing members of society then they cannot be trusted to make decisions that concern the well - being of others. Felons have shown that they do not follow through with rational decisions and cannot be trusted to differentiate between right and wrong. As a result, there is no guarantee that they will make the right decisions when it comes to voting and on other issues. Contention 3 : Disenfranchisement is a utilitarian punishment -- By not allowing felons or ex - felons to vote, we are providing a punishment that benefits the most amount of people. Seeing as felons do not make up a vast majority, restricting their privilege to vote promotes the societal welfare of other citizens. When felons decide to tear apart the social and moral fabric and infringe on societal welfare of other citizens they should be expected to lose privileges. By denying incarcerated felons as well as ex - felons the privilege to vote we are ensuring that the voting base can make rational, well - thought out decisions. Not ideas actuated through impulse.

In a democratic society felons ought to retain teh right to vote. I affirm the resolution, Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. In order to clarify the resolution, I offer the following definitions. (Webster's New World Dictionary) Democracy (root of democratic) is defined as a "government by the people either directly or through elected representative." This includes "acceptance and practice of the principle of equality of right, opportunity and treatment." A Felon is defined as a person guilty of a major crime that is punishable by more than one year in prison. It is important to note that the majority of felons who are denied the right to vote are no longer in prison. My value for the round is democracy. By confining the round to a democratic society, the resolution implies that democracy should be valued. The value criterion is maximizing rights. A democracy is grounded in the fact that all citizens have equal rights under the law. When rights are violated, this degrades the democracy. The most important right in maintaining a democracy is the right to vote and participate in government. That is the fundamental principle of a democracy. As written by Steven Earl Bennett in the American Journal of Political Science, "the most fundamental criterion of a fully functioning democratic system is citizen participation." Therefore to ensure that we have a stable democracy we must maximize people's rights, especially the right to vote. Contention One: By banning felons from voting, we set the stage for others to be disenfranchised as well. Felons are a unique part of society. Most felons are part of poor minority groups. They have unique experiences and a unique point of view. If we allow this minority group to be disenfranchised, what is to stop us from doing it to others? As Alexis Tocqueuille wrote in his book Democracy in America, "Once a people begins to interfere with the voting qualification, one can be sure that sooner or later it will abolish it all together." By denying felons the vote, we make it possible for other minority groups to be disenfranchised as well. This is bad because it can multiply to violate the rights of many more people. That goes against democratic values which are to maximize rights for everyone. Contention Two: To ensure that rights are not violated, it is important to restore ex-felons the right to vote and to reintegrate them into society. Sub point A: Ex-felons are trying to rejoin society. By denying them rights, we alienate them, making them more likely to commit another felony. As outlined in the Democracy Restoration Act of 2008, "allowing people to vote after release from prison encourages participation in civic life and helps rebuild ties to the community that motivate law-abiding behavior." Without the restoration of this right, ex-felons are more likely to commit another felony, violating the rights of other. Whether it is right to life property, or some other right, this hurts a democracy. This kind of violation of rights is bad and contributes to destabilizing a democracy. Sub point B: By denying ex-felons the right to vote, we continue to violate their rights. Ex-felons have already served what courts deemed to be a just sentence and have already paid their debt. There is no reason to continue punishing them. As U.S. Senator Russ Feingold said, "For a nation that depends on the participation of its citizens, it is fundamentally un-American to deny the vote to people who are living and working as law abiding citizens. Furthermore, the more doors we close on people trying to rejoin society, the more likely it is we will drive them back to the behaviors we want them to leave behind." Ex-felons are hard working, newly law abiding citizens. By denying felons the vote, we not only violate their rights as a citizen but undermine our democracy. In order to have a good democracy, we must maximize the rights of everyone, including felons and stripping ex-felons of the right to vote does not achieve this. Contention Three: By banning felons from voting, we cripple our democracy. For a democracy to work all views must be taken into account. Felons belong to the group of lower class minorities that are least represented. If these groups do not cast many votes, they have little influence and it becomes likely their rights will be violated. In the American Journal of Political Science David Resnick writes, "Nonvoting is said to skew policy in the direction of participants because politicians and officials are under no compulsion to pay much heed to classes and groups of citizens that do not vote." Banning felons from voting quiets the voice of minorities with high percentages of felons. According to Resnick, this will make it unlikely that politicians will pay them much attention and more likely that politicians will violate their rights. This goes against what we strive for in a democracy, maximization of rights, and weakens the democracy as a whole. For all these reasons, I affirm.

Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. Legislatures in 16 states have loosened voting restrictions on felons over the last decade, according to a new report, a trend hailed by some rights advocates as a step toward democratic principles and fairness, especially for black Americans. What voting restrictions, if any, should be placed on felons? Because of their high incarceration rate, blacks are most affected by the voting bans that vary widely among the states, with many barring current inmates and parolees from voting until they have fulfilled their sentences, and some barring felons for life. In recent years, Iowa, Nebraska and New Mexico have repealed their lifetime bans on voting by people who have been convicted of felonies, and several other states made it easier for freed prisoners or those on probation to vote, according to the report, issued yesterday by the Sentencing Project, a liberal advocacy group in Washington. The recent changes have restored voting rights to more than 600,000 individuals, the report said. But because the country's prison population has continued to rise, a record number of Americans, 5.3 million, are still denied the vote because of criminal records, it concluded. "It's good news that many people who'd been disqualified from voting are being re-engaged as citizens," said Jeremy Travis, president of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York and a leader of the movement to smooth the re-entry of prisoners to society. "I think people are realizing that the country had gone too far in marginalizing a large group of people who have been convicted of felonies," Mr. Travis said. "This has had profound consequences for our democracy and the participation of minorities." But some conservatives remain philosophically opposed to any wholesale loosening of voting restrictions. "If you're not willing to follow the law, then you shouldn't't claim the right to make the law for someone else," said Roger Clegg, president of the Center for Equal Opportunity, a conservative advocacy group in Washington. Mr. Clegg, who was a senior Justice Department official in the Reagan and first Bush administrations, said that those convicted of felonies should be given the vote only case by case, when they have proved to be constructive members of society. Some restrictions on voting date to the early years of the country or to the post-Civil-War period, while others were tightened during the "get tough on crime" era of the 1980's. By federal law, voter rules are mainly set by the states. As a result, even in presidential elections, former prisoners can vote in some states but not others. Only two states, Maine and Vermont, have no restrictions, even permitting inmates to vote. At the other extreme, three states, Florida, Kentucky and Virginia, still have lifetime bans on voting by felons. Nine others bar selected groups of offenders for life. New York, Connecticut and New Jersey, like most states, do not allow current inmates or parolees to vote. In a ballot initiative in Rhode Island this November, voters will decide whether to restore voting rights to prisoners on parole or probation, who far outnumber inmates. Early polls show public support for the measure. Advocates of change emphasize broad arguments about democratic process, but the racial disparities give the issue a special resonance and raise questions about the representation of minorities in politics. In 2004, one in eight black men were unable to vote because of a felony conviction, the report said, a rate many times higher than that for other groups. Felony convictions have left one in four black men barred from voting in five states: Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Virginia and Wyoming, said Ryan S. King, author of the report and a policy analyst at the Sentencing Project. But Mr. Clog argued that the voting restrictions were applied evenhandedly, and that just because they had a disproportionate impact on one group, that did not make them racially discriminatory. Though data on felon voting patterns are murky, a large majority of former prisoners are believed to lean Democratic. Even with a low turnout rate, their participation could make a difference in close races, experts say. Florida's rules, for example, might have been a factor in the 2000 presidential election. Most black voters in Florida say that the state should overturn the law that prevents a half-million people of all races from casting a ballot because they are convicted felons, a St. Petersburg Times poll shows. The survey says that nine of 10 black voters in Florida think that felons who pay their debt to society should automatically have their voting right restored. Florida is one of nine states that deny the right to vote to all convicted felons who have served their time. Felons can have their rights restored by appealing to the governor and Cabinet, often a lengthy process. Support for a change to the state law is uniformly high among men and women, Republicans and Democrats, and all age groups, according to a survey of 600 African-Americans conducted by Washington-based Schroth and Associates for the St. Petersburg Times. Florida's law has been part of the state's political landscape since the 1800s and has spurred a federal class-action lawsuit against the governor and spawned several legislative efforts to overturn it. The law disproportionately impacts blacks, who tend to vote Democratic. Indeed, some research suggests that ex-felons of all races lean toward the Democratic Party. Some experts contend a change could have a big political effect in a state that was shown during last year's presidential race to be closely divided between Republicans and Democrats. The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law estimates that 500,000 felons in Florida are affected by the law. Of those, 139,000 are black people, according to the center. Christopher Uggen, a University of Minnesota sociologist who has studied the political consequences of felon disenfranchisement laws, contends that Gore would have won Florida if felons would have been allowed to vote last year. He also speculates that Florida's retired U.S. Sen. Connie Mack probably would not have won his close 1988 election if felons had been allowed to vote. However, lawyers for Gov. Jeb Bush's office have argued that the number of people who can't vote because of the law is much lower than the 500,000 cited by opponents. State Rep. Chris Smith, D-Fort Lauderdale, has filed two bills that would give felons their voting rights one year after they satisfy all sentences. Four similar bills are filed in the Senate. All are assigned to several committees -- a sign that they might have tough going in the GOP-controlled Legislature. But Smith said House Speaker Tom Feeney has floated a compromise that would allow ex-felons to apply to a local judge for clemency. Feeney was not available to comment. House Majority Leader Mike Fasano said he was unaware of any compromise offers, adding that he thought the state's present clemency process is adequate. The Republican caucus has not taken a stance on the bills though, Fasano said, and he expected vigorous committee discussion on them. Whether the bills make it to the floor of the Republican-dominated body depends on the committee chairs, he said. Gov. Bush's Select Election Task Force also has identified the issue as critical and referred it to the Legislature for review and possible action.

Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. In this round, I will state my arguments. First off, Felons already have voting rights when they get out of prison. For example, in California [1] California – Voting rights are restored after parole is completed and no longer incarcerated. Anyways, I will argue why Felons shouldn't have the right to vote. Contention 1; Dishonesty and Poor Character. [2] "We don't let children vote, for instance, or noncitizens, or the mentally incompetent. Why? Because we don't trust them and their judgment... So the question is, do criminals belong in that category? And I think the answer is clearly yes. People who commit serious crimes have shown that they are not trustworthy." People who are felons have committed crimes and have taken other rights of people. Such as committing murder and taking away an innocent life. As my opponent has stated above "“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” When a felon takes can take a life, and the happiness of that person, and the happiness of that family. What gives that felon to have rights that every American bestows? "Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. When someone commits a felon, they should have some rights taken away. Voting privileges should be taken away as well. [3] " Children, non-citizens and the mentally incompetent can't vote because of standards involving trustworthiness and responsibility. The same requirements should apply to felons" Contention 2; [2] Congressional Authority over Voting "Most prominently, the 14th Amendment makes felon voting a state prerogative, not a federal one..." According to section 2 of the 14th Amendment, it's okay to take away a felons right to vote [4] "Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment grants states the authority to deny voting rights to anyone with a criminal conviction, and it is up to the states to determine their own restoration process if they choose to enact one." The 1st Amendment doesn't state "Every U.S citizen no matter what the background, has the right to vote." The 1st Amendment doesn't give that right to everybody, instead they give the states the choice. This is to show, Felons don't have the right to vote, it's not a right. By the 14th Amendment, Felons don't have the right to vote depending on the States choice. This Amendment clearly shows, it's not taking away a right. What should happen. [5] " Your July 16 editorial “Disenfranchised Felons” asserts that the only reason not to let felons vote is “to stigmatize them or to continue punishing them.” To the contrary, the fundamental reason we do not let felons vote is that we have certain minimum, objective standards of responsibility, trustworthiness and loyalty to our laws that must be met before someone can participate in the sacred enterprise of self-government. So we don’t let children vote or the mentally incompetent or noncitizens — or those who have committed serious crimes against other people. The right to vote can be restored to felons, but it should be done carefully and case by case, to ensure that the person has really turned over a new leaf. To put it another way: If you are not willing to follow the law, you cannot demand the right to elect those who make the law." Felons should be able to vote once they have turned over a new leaf and have shown over a span of time that they are capable to vote in a trustworthy matter. They need to have consequences, if they don't, what have they learned? Sources: [1] https://exoffenders.net... [2] http://felonvoting.procon.org... [3] http://www.newsmax.com... [4] https://www.aclu.org...

Convicted Felons should be allowed to vote in all U.S. elections Countries like our own are succeeding with letting their felons vote Half of all the European countries allow all current inmates to vote, and virtually all former inmates in Europe have full voting rights. Take Ireland for example. For elections in the Republic of Ireland, there is no disenfranchisement based on criminal conviction, and prisoners remain on the electoral register at their pre-imprisonment address. Prior to 2006, the grounds for postal voting did not include imprisonment, and hence those in prison on election day were in practice unable to vote, although those on temporary release could do so. In 2000 the High Court ruled that this breached the Constitution, and the government drafted a bill extending postal voting to prisoners on remand or serving sentences of less than six months.However, in 2001, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court ruling and the bill was withdrawn.After the 2005 ECHR ruling in the Hirst case, the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2006 was passed to allow postal voting by all prisoners. Also, judge, we have Germany, in which the law even calls on prisons to encourage prisoners to vote. Only those convicted of electoral fraud and crimes undermining the "democratic order", such as treason are barred from voting, while in prison. However, as soon as they are released from prison, they regain their voting rights! Now judge, i would like to mention how these countries are going in their criminal ways. According to a 2004 study done by Oxford Univ., former prisoners who vote are half as likely to re-offend, and so far, half of these European countries, whom are letting their felons vote, are having their repeating felons reduced by half. Judge, this shows that with letting their felons vote, these countries are not having repeated crimes! This is reducing the amount of crimes committed by ex-felons by HALF, Lets also think about this logically. these countries are both democracies, and their governments are very similar to ours. and yet, they are letting their felons vote. while letting their felons vote, they are not only reducing the amount of crimes occurring in their countries, but they are also letting more people have a say in who gets to govern over the people. How judge, how can this be harmful to anybody? and judge, as i will state in my 2nd cont., giving people a second chance does not hurt, and in some cases, it even provides benefits.

In a democratic society, a felon ought to retain the right to vote. Not allowing felons to vote is not an infringement on equality. Anyone can commit a crime and become a felon. Everyone is born with the assumption that when they turn 18 they will be allowed to vote. The standards and the expectations are the same for all citizens. Voting is not the only important way to function as a part of a democracy. The revoking of voting serves as an occasional reminder of mistakes.

R: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Look forward to a great confrontation in round 3! BOPNow, my opponent's case is that felons should be able to vote; logically, this means we should restore voting rights for all felons, and that future felons would not be penalized by removing their right. My opponent bears sole BOP, which means he is responsible to prove that felons should be able to vote. If he fails to do so, or I demonstrate any situation where a felon should not be allowed to vote, I would win. Contention 1 - Government is just, and its powers derive from societyThomas Jefferson says it best in the Declaration of Independence, "All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". The idea of God-given rights form the cornernstone of American justice and a key part of traditional American values. Jefferson continues: " That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". That is, government exists to protect rights. Its powers, when derived from and held by the people, are just. This includes, by nature, the power to punish those who violate rights. Contention 2 - Punishment consists of revoking of rightsWhat does punishment entail? In general, the idea in common law is that punishment should fit the crime - that is, the more severe the crime, the more severe the punishment. The most common methods of securing punishment - those society has, throughout our history, deemed most just - are through fines, community service, and imprisonment. Outside of a governmental context, these all would be crimes. If I were to forcibly take money from you, require you to work without pay, or lock you in a small room and make it impossible for you to leave, I would be arrested. But, for governments, this is fine. Why? Because when you violate the law, you forfeit rights. Essentially, by refusing to respect the rights of others, you lose some of yours. Loss of voting privileges is just another way to punish people. It's serious nature connotes the seriousness of the crime. Roger Clegg of the Center for Equal opportunity says "It makes sense that felons should lose their right to vote. You don’t have a right to make the laws if you aren’t willing to follow them yourself. To participate in self-government, you must be willing to accept the rule of law. We don’t let everyone vote – not children, not noncitizens, not the mentally incompetent. There are certain minimum and objective standards of trustworthiness, responsibility, and commitment to our laws that we require before people are entrusted with a role in the solemn enterprise of self-government. Those who have committed serious crimes against their fellow citizens don’t meet those standards. "[1]Contention 3 - Voting rights should only be revoked for violent criminals. One area of common ground might be that there are many people who are felons that do no deserve that connotation. Felonies should be limited to the most serious crimes - things like arson, sex crimes (rape, child rape, incest), murder, and treason. In the past and presents, states have been too loose in regards to drug crimes. People can become felons for what should be minor drug crimes, if they should even be crimes at all. The definition of 'felon' should be reduced to violent or treasonous crimes - the most despicable and terrible of actions. It is on firm ground to say a convincted child rapist, murderer, or rapist has forfeited his right to decide laws for others through his actions. These violent criminals have rejected society and its laws, and society is well within its rights to reject them. Contention 4 - Rights could be restored through an arbitration committeeAfter a felon has served their time, it might be reasonable to consider returning their right to vote. This would not be automatic - it might be handled in a similar way to how we handle parole - there might be a voting board, which would thoroughly vet the person to determine if they are truly sorry for what they have done and are committed to living by the laws of society. This would provide incentive for felons to reform - they will be accepted back into society if they are willing to accept the laws that the government of the people has made. ConclusionIn short, there is nothing wrong with restricting voting rights for felons. It works with the American legal tradition, and is a reasonable way to punish those who have decided to reject the laws of society. While the definition of 'felon' might need to be smaller, and a system to allow restoration of rights might be reasonable, there is no reason a pedophile or murderer should be allowed to decide the laws of a society he plainly rejected. References:1. . http://www.ceousa.org...;

In a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote CV: Justice: For this I give the Platonic definition of-- giving each person his or her due VC: Social Contract The Social contact is a mutual agreement between the Government and the governed instituted to protect the rights of individuals in society. In exchange for the protection of Natural right the governed must accept restrictions of certain rights and must assume certain duties. When a society follows and preserves the social contract justice is created. When a society moves away from or abandons its social contract man shall right man, protecting the rights of none and creating no justice. This is relevant to the resolution because the idea of democracy is based on the social contract 1st –Social Contract A. Locke believed that the violation of the social contract negated the contract between the parties and entered them in a sort of state of war in which no rights were preserved. One of the things required of the governed in to uphold the laws and regulations put in place by society, So in this resolution the felons violated the social contract by not upholding the laws of Society so they are essentially allowing for the violation of their own rights and removal from society because, humans, being rational beings, made a conscious choice to not uphold the duties given to them by the government acknowledge that the government is not obligated to protect those rights. As said by philosopher Emmanuel Kant" if a man makes himself a worm he must not complain when he is trodden on" So By violating the Contact felons have essentially removed themselves from society and therefore must be considered as non-citizens to that society. Non-Citizens do not have the right to vote in a foreign country and that is how Felons ought to be treated. They are equal to non-citizens in that regard because just as the felons removed themselves from society non-citizens have not entered into the social contract. B. By allowing Felons to we would not only be giving them all of the rights of law-abiding citizens but would be elevating them above them by saying, even though you violated the contract you are equal to everybody else. By doing this you are creating a double standard by which those who violate the social contract are on level with those who have not which is plainly unjust. 2nd – Impact on society Under the social contract a government is only as strong as its people so in a government were many of the people have shown a lack of Judgment is not a strong government, so by eliminating those from voting you are creating a stronger government. Felons, because they have broken the social contract show bad judgment in society In cases of small local election felons could have a massive negative impact on elections. The effect of this is apparent in small communities where felons may represent a majority. In these communities you get a sort of Trojan horse effect, the Greeks entered troy and destroyed it from the inside out and so would felons destroy these communities. Also Felons who have committed Voter Fraud or Insurrection show a blatant disregard for society so should not participate in governmental decision-making. If we allow even those who have actively worked to destroy society to decide how that society is run we will destroy that society. I will move to my opponents Case. CV: My Opponents Stated core value of democracy is inferior to my core value of justice for one main reason. Now as can be seen the resolution specifies a democracy, However the goal of EVERY democratic society is Justice and the reason a society is democratic is because it believes it is the most just for of government. VC: the Social contract is more valid in today's debate because the only for for a society to thrive or even exist in under a social contract. Individual rights would not exist without a Social contract. So in other words my opponents criterion is irrelevant without first adopting a social contract. Contention 1 A) You must keep in mind that these felons have knowingly violated the social contract and have in essence removed themselves from society. They have then shown a blatant disregard for the state and should not participate in deciding the laws for the law-abiding. This bring me back to my Contention 1 Subpoint A, If you allow the law makers to become the law breakers then you are creating an unequal stage and are devaluing the vote of the law-abiding citizens. B) the idea of rehabilitation is seen to be inherently flawed as it is. I would like to point out that 47% of single time offenders commit another offense within three years and the recidivism numbers continue to grow as per number of arrests to 82%. Second of all the right to vote, if it is deemed to be so important by my opponent does not mean much to felons. Only 5% of felons are actually registered to vote. Also since Felons are consciously committing a crime and a possible punishment for that crime is disenfranchisement it will then act as a deterrent to crime because they will know they will lose the right to vote. Contention 2 A) As I have said earlier not only are we creating inequality by allowing them to vote we are devaluing the voice of the law abiding citizen. Allow me to explain, if we allow felons to move against society then create the laws for that society we are creating a double standard and essentially elevating felons above the law abiding populace. Second, if we allow felons to vote we are giving them equal voice to non-felons and are then putting those who have followed the laws on the same levels as felons. This is plainly not equal and not just. B) My opponent brings to the table the taxation without representation idea in this point. However in the case of felons this can be seen as incorrect. They still can send their children to public schools, the police or firefighters must still come to their help. if we did not tax felons we would be essentially either making them above everybody else by allowing them to have certain services for free that everybody else must pay for. Thank you once again

Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections. Now into the summary and impact round! No new arguments and refutes as this is the last round :) thanks To summarize, my points were P1: Restricting felons from voting violates the Constitution. P2: Felon disenfranchisement encourages racial discrimination. P3: Ex-felons deserve the right to vote. Ex-felons cannot be barred from voting on legal premises since disenfranchisement for life violates the Constitution. It violates the excessive sanctions part of the 8th amendment as well as the 15th amendment. America needs to defend everyone's voting rights, but how can we fulfill this if ex-felons are still not allowed to vote? Everyone is supposed to be part of the American Dream. We all should have an equal opportunity at life, but ex-felon disenfranchisement violates this. Voting still is a big part of society. Ex-felons are affected by the results of elections. They should be able to have a say in who leads their country. Once a felon starts fulfilling his/her civic duties, they should have their full rights returned to them. On top of all moral values, ex-felons who actually have a say in their government are less prone to committing crime again. Since this reduces crime rates, it only further proves that ex-felons SHOULD be able to vote. What this debate really comes down to is weighing my opponent's main points (bad judgement and potential dangers of felons recommitting crimes) against the simple reality that ex-felons are people who abide by the law and deserve their full rights. If a person has bad judgement, does that mean he can be denied his Constitutional rights? The fact remains that ex-felon disenfranchisement is illegal. Furthermore, the past is the past; we cannot continue to punish ex-felons for mistakes they made long ago. They are already on lower ground than normal citizens. Also, if an ex-felon has bad judgement, he would not have gotten out of parole or probation -- felons have to be reviewed to get fully free. The potential dangers of felons recommitting crimes are not relevant because studies show that ex-felons who can vote are way less likely to commit crime. This is what sets me over my opponent. He has failed to prove the morality and legality behind disenfranchisement, but I've proven the moral and legal reasons behind allowing ex-felons to vote. I suggest voters cast their ballot for my side because I've proven convicted felons released from prison/parole/probation should be able to vote for both legal and moral reasons. I've refuted all of my opponent's refutations/contentions effectively (his refutations were quite repetitive and can be refuted by my rebuttals in previous rounds) and provided more detailed evidence. Overall, I have presented a stronger case. Thank you. Also, I'd like to say thank you to my opponent for an excellent, engaging debate. Your arguments were very well thought out. It was fun debating with you :)

In a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote As stated by Former Supreme court justice the late Thurgood Marshall "It is doubtful...whether the state can demonstrate either a compelling or rational policy interest in denying former felons the right to vote. [Ex-offenders] have fully paid their debt to society. They are as much affected by the actions of government as any other citizen, and have as much of a right to participate in governmental decision-making. Furthermore, the denial of a right to vote to such persons is hindrance to the efforts of society to rehabilitate former felons and convert them into law-abiding and productive-- (dissent of Richardson v Ramirez) Because I agree With Justice Marshall I affirm the resolution that in a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote." My Core Value will be that Of Justice defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "the administration of law or some other authority according to the principles of just behavior and treatment (oxford) My Criterion Is Preservation of Democracy. Preservation of Democracy means to do what is best to preserve the democratic process and democracy itself. This fulfils Justice because in a democratic society, justice is achieved when the people run the society and everybody has an equal voice. John Rawls Believed The three most fundamental ideas political culture of a democratic society are that citizens are free and equal, and that society should be a fair system of cooperation. 1st contention It must be agreed that racial prejudice in society is a fundamentally unjust principle. Now I would like to point out that the judiciary statistically is prejudice against ethnic minorities. Blacks comprise 13 percent of the national population, but 30 percent of people arrested, 41 percent of people in jail,and 49 percent of those in prison.. Nationally, blacks are incarcerated at 8.2 times the rate of whites. That is, a black person is 8.2 times more likely to be in prison than a white person. Further around 70% of all felons exonerated on DNA evidence are black. So not only are black overrepresented in prison, but there is evidence that the judiciary tends to be racially prejudice. 13% of all Black males are disenfranchised making for 1/3 of the total disenfranchised population. 13% is also just a national Average. In Florida and Alabama 31% of all Blacks are permanently disenfranchised. Nationally 2% of the Population is disenfranchised, However, 13.1% of Adult Black Men are disenfranchised. As African Americans are an ethnic Minority it makes no sense for them to represent a prison majority. Also as I have said many of them have been wrongfully convicted so that a disproportionate amount of Blacks are unfairly losing their democratic right to vote without even having committed a crime. This is No way Is Just and does nothing to preserve the democratic process and democracy. 2nd Contention The United Nations released a "Standard Minimum Rule for the Treatment of Prisoners" that stated "The treatment of prisoners should emphasize not their exclusion from the community but their continuing part in it" This standard establishes that it is the best interest of society to fully rehabilitate ex-prisoners back into society because it provides for the betterment of that society. According to statistics taken in 1998 a total of 3.9 million adults, or 2.0 percent of the eligible voting population, is currently or permanently disenfranchised as a result of a felony conviction. Also around 30% of all eligible black males can not vote in election due to felon disenfranchisement. ï¿½ Six states, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, New Mexico, Virginia, and Wyoming, exclude from the vote more than 4 percent of their adult population. And each Florida and Texas Disenfranchise more than 600,000 people. ï¿½ Lets look at the democratic implications of felon Disenfranchisement In 1996 the number of disenfranchised eligible voters in Florida was 647,100. In the 2000 Elections George Bush won Florida By 1725 Votes. The state of Florida has 27 Electoral votes. In that election George Bush won the presidency by 5 electoral votes. If all 647,100 of these Voters were re-enfranchised and 1726 more of those voters cast ballots in favor of Al Gore than in favor of George Bush the presidential election would have turned another way. So, by disenfranchising voters, Florida brought down the potential voter turnout, and by doing so restricted the democratic process. Because Disenfranchisement Restricts the democratic process it cannot be just as it does not help to preserve Democracy. The fact that these voters were disenfranchised caused a serious lapse in democracy, and therefore did no justice. Because Disenfranchisement restricts the democratic process the resolution is a just principle. 3rd Contention Among democratic countries the united states may have the strictest felon disenfranchisement laws. We are the only known democracy in which felons who have either fully completed or been released from, their sentence are still permanently disenfranchised. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights "Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives…" This Document establishes basic human rights in governments internationally and states quite clearly that every citizen has an innate right to take part and vote in elections. Because Felon disenfranchisement does not respect this basic right then it is an unjust principle that in no way, provides for the preservation of democracy. If a country can decide it can break any universal code as it please it would not be in the best interests of society and would not in any way preserve the democratic process. Conclusion: Because, as I have proved, the idea of Felon Disenfranchisement does not promote the best for society in the form of the preservation of democracy and the creation of justice, the reverse must also be true. If Felons were re-enfranchised it would strengthen the democratic process and would be the most just solution because it preserves democracy.

Ex-felons who commited minor crimes or crimes at a early age should be allowed to vote I will first reply to his comment that only 2% of American population is not allowed to vote, he is saying that that isn't enough Americans worth fighting for, there are a total of 316.13 Americans in the U.S. Just 2% is a big chunk. Also what my opponent is clearly saying is that if lets say only 5 million Americans lets say, had any sort of rights violated, or needed help it doesn't matter. My opponents next argument is about prioritizing companies hiring the ex-felons rather then voting rights, I agree that getting them a job is important, so why not do both? All we have to do to allow them to vote is get a law passed or a bill or whatever may be needed to get them to vote, there is no reason why you can't prioritize both. Again in my case I specifically talk about how some felons go back to the economy and find jobs so of course that is on my side and has no impact onto he round. Here is part of the contention I posted earlier for reference. an astonishing 93% of those who were able to secure employment during the entirety of their supervised release were able to successfully reintegrate back into society and not return to prison. His main point however is that we should teach them a lesson not to break the law, and I agree with that, but I don't see how removing voting rights will make them better citizens or effect them heavily, yes they would love to vote but removing voting rights isn't as sever a punishment as going to jail or being fined. The punishments already set for a felony are more then enough to teach them a lesson. "Nineteen states "may terminate the parental rights of convicted felons. "In twenty-nine jurisdictions (includes states and the District of Columbia) being convicted of a felony is "legal ground for divorce." "In twenty-five jurisdictions, convicted felons can never hold public office. "In six states a felon can never hold public employment. "Federal law forbids felons from holding many government jobs or receiving federal contracts. "In thirty-one jurisdictions convicted felons are permanently barred from serving on a jury. "Federal law forbids all convicted felons from owning a firearm. "Forty-six jurisdictions require former felons to register with local law enforcement. "All sexual offenders must register with local law enforcement officials for at least ten years after release from prison; longer times for certain offenses. The names of those registered are made available to any member of the public. "People convicted of a drug felony can be denied all forms of federal assistance, including food stamps. Although states can opt out or narrow the focus of these penalties, only twelve states have entirely rejected them; slightly more than half have narrowed the scope of these rules. "Everyone convicted of a drug-related felony, and indeed, many former felons, can be denied access to federal housing. "The Higher Education Act of 1998 suspends their eligibility for student loans for at least a year, even for simple possession; longer, for second offenses and for selling drugs. This loss of benefits may be reinstated if the person goes through an "approved" drug treatment program. The scope and significance of these collateral consequences show that the real world of punishment is far different from the one most people imagine. In this world a felon's debt to society is rarely paid in full. For these felons the Mark of Cain is permanent. The current punishment is just like my opponent wants it, deadly, strict, and hard to resolve, he wants to add even more punishments for felons in general and keep them restricted instead of helping them develop the qualities of a proper citizen to ensure crime is less. Felons have more then enough punishments so why not give them the right to vote? Also the only reason some felons are repeat offenders is because lack of job opportunities , "Justice.gov shows that 50% of felons who could not secure any employment during the time of their supervised release (generally two-to-five years) committed a new crime or violated the terms of their release and were sent back to prison. However, an astonishing 93% of those who were able to secure employment during the entirety of their supervised release were able to successfully reintegrate back into society and not return to prison. So since some find job opportunities and become citizens they should be allowed to vote, again I agree if we provide more job opportunities for ex-felons this method will be even more effective. So the clear solution is to help ex-felons returning to the society find jobs and again not all return to jail anyway. 4. Racial disfrenchment laws are still a big problem as I pointed out "In America the majority of felons tend to be minorities. In fact according to the Department of Justice for every 15,000 felons sentenced to prison 450 were white 1,356 were Hispanic and 3,188 were black. I also pointed out that if these people were allowed to vote it would have effected as much as seven recent U.S. Senate elections and one presidential election. Conclusion: I agree that some level of punishment must be set for actions in order to ensure order and tranquility continute to be established, however I believe the current punishments are more then enough and that crimes committed at a order age, either due to the influence from their environment or stealing food because they are poor and hungry shouldn't make them lose the right to vote in the future. Sources: 1. http://www.bing.com... 2.http://www.justice.gov... 3.http://www.hughlafollette.com...

You Choose the Topic! My opponent mentions how people must learn the consequences of their actions, however, felons have already served their prison time and completed probation. They have already been punished. Why now does the state get to strip them of their Constitutional right as citizens because they committed a crime? A good point Politico magazine makes is the following: "If prisoners remain citizens and retain their civic status throughout their sentences, then it follows that prisoners should enjoy the most basic of their civil rights, the right to cast a ballot. Disenfranchising them creates a class of people still subject to the laws of the United States (they were, after all, punished under that law) but without a voice in the way they"re governed"not unlike taxation without representation." How can we make them abide by the law but then in the same breath say that they don't get a voice in the law. https://www.politico.com... Some people make the argument that felons can't be trusted but this is a silly argument. "We let ex-convicts marry, reproduce, buy beer, own property and drive. They don't lose their freedom of religion, their right against self-incrimination or their right not to have soldiers quartered in their homes in time of war...If we thought criminals could never be reformed, we wouldn't let them out of prison in the first place." It is also unconstitutional because our 8th amendment specifically states: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." This sort of punishment is cruel and unnecessary. By stripping their right to vote, we are stripping their right as a citizen. Yes, felonies are bigger deals than misdemeanors but to assume every convicted felon is evil is unfair. In a just society, we are supposed to try and help felons become better and improve. We don't continue to punish them even after they've served their time. As Robert F. McDonnell, JD, MPP, MBAI says: " I also believe that once an offender has fully paid his debt to society, he deserves a second chance... It is a mark of good government to restore felons' rights and provide them the opportunity to succeed and become law-abiding citizens again...Therefore, I am amending the criteria used to adjudicate non-violent felons applications for restoration of rights. With these changes, Virginia will have an automatic restoration of rights process." https://felonvoting.procon.org... Barring felons from voting is unconstitutional, unfair, and illogical. We can not allow this to happen any longer.

In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. I affirm. In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. I value democracy. This value is preferable because it is the most relevant on a resolutional scale. Any given society is better off under a full democracy. The Stanford Encyclopedia if Philosophy explains. "Two kinds of in instrumental benefits are commonly attributed to democracy: relatively good laws and policies and improvements in the characters of the participants. John Stuart Mill argued that a democratic method of making legislation is better than non-democratic methods in three ways: strategically, epistemically and via the improvement of the characters of democratic citizens (Mill, 1861, Chapter 3). Strategically, democracy has an advantage because it forces decision-makers to take into account the interests, rights and opinions of most people in society. Since democracy gives some political power to each, more people are taken into account than under aristocracy or monarchy. The most forceful contemporary statement of this instrumental argument is provided by Amartya Sen, who argues, for example, that "no substantial famine has ever occurred in any independent country with a democratic form of government and a relatively free press" (Sen 1999, 152). The basis of this argument is that politicians in a multiparty democracy with free elections and a free press have incentives to respond to the expressions of needs of the poor." Democracy is extremely beneficial and thus is the ultimate goal of any society. The standard is individual agency. The main goal of a society is to assure each indviduals right to agency. If people could not make decisions then society would not exist and democracy could not exist. Violation of an individual's agencies are therefore baad. Any action denying an individual of his agency thus is also bad. My burden is to prove denying a felon the right to vote in a democratic society violates that felons agency. 1. Convictions may be wrong. This means that we are denying a felon of automatic right when he actually may not have commited the crime in the first place. A innocent person may lose a right guarenteed to them by democracy. This is a clear violation of the agency of the innocent individual. 2. Discrimination. In the United States, most of the inmates are black. This means that in society, blacks lose more rights than white. This is unfair and bias and is a violation of blacks autonomy. 3. By commiting a felony, convicts are being punished by being confined in jail. It is unfair to provide extra punishments and violates their autonomy.

ToC:Resolved in a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote. I look for ward to this debate and hope my opponent does too. Value: Democratic society Value Criterion: Maximizing political participation Definitions: Democracy:government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system Felon:a person who has committed a felony Ought:used to express duty or moral obligation Contention 1: A democratic society can not be legitimate if the people in it are not voting. This is because the definition of democracy dictates that we let every competent adult vote. If we bar felons from voting then we are not truly a democracy. Contention 2: Furthermore if we continue to disenfranchise felons then not only are we undemocratic but we are also racist. This is because in America the majority of felons tend to be minorities. In fact according to the Department of Justice for every 15,000 felons sentenced to prison 450 were white 1,356 were Hispanic and 3,188 were black. Therefore as one can clearly see felon disenfranchisement excludes a whole class of people from the voting process. As stated in my previous statistic the two major minorities that make up the majorities of felons in America are blacks and Hispanics. Due to this the voices of these two groups of people is not generally heard. So if one were to vote neg. this could in effect lead to the genocide of minorities as their voice would be stifled in the government. This proves that supporting felon disenfranchisement supports racism. Contention 3: Not only does felon disenfranchisement supports racism but it can change the result of important elections. Blacks and Hispanics generally vote Democratic. As these minorities make up the majorities of felons felon disenfranchisement favors the white dominated Republican party and skews the results of elections. An example of this would be my state of Florida in the 2004 election. If felons had been allowed to vote there is no way that George Bush would have won the presidency. Though Gore had the popular vote Bush had more electoral votes which enabled him to win. However if felons had been allowed to vote Gore would have had not only the popular vote but the electoral votes necessary to win. Contention 4: Additionally felon disenfranchisement is not truly a punishment. Disallowing felons from voting does nothing correct their behavior or to prevent them from committing a crime again. If anything it further separates them from society. This is injustice for if a man committed a felony in his late teens and is kept from voting from every election each time a new political figure come to power he will have to remember the mistake he made as a teen. He may be a reformed and upstanding member of society yet he will still be unable to vote. For these reason I support the affirmative of this resolution.

You Choose the Topic! Obviously we shouldn't jail people forever (unless they have committed a VERY serious crime) which is why we have the 8th amendment. However, stripping them of their right to vote is cruel and unnecessary punishment. Voting is not a privilege, voting is a right. If you were born in a country you have the right to vote in elections. Would you argue that the right to a fair and speedy trial is a privilege? Or that the 2nd amendment is a privilege? Or that the 1st amendment and all our freedoms are just privileges? Who are we to say that felons don't have good morals? Thomas Jefferson had slaves, he wasn't felon but I wouldn't argue those are good morals. Donald Trump grabs women by the p*ssy. He isn't a felon but I would't argue those are good morals either. People make mistakes, people also commit horrible crimes. But regardless, we can't dehumanize them. We can't say, "Oh you committed tax fraud? You are no longer an American citizen! Haha, go to jail and when you come out you don't get to vote because you don't count anymore." We don't get to decide who votes to benefit ourselves. We allow the democratic process to occur because we are a democracy. You serve your time in jail and then you are released. Your punishment should be over.

In a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote I affirm the resolution "in a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote" For the purposes of clarification I would like to define the following terms Democracy-government by the people Felon-any person who has committed a felony Retain-to keep All of these definitions came from the Webster's dictionary I would now like to offer the following value of Equality Equality is defined as the right of all people to have the same opportunity as everyone else in this case voting. Equality is essential because if you don't have equality in a democratic society then it isn't a true democracy because all people don't have the right to have a say in that society. To accompany my value is would like to offer the criterion of Mills Marketplace of Ideas This criterion pertains to the resolution because it states that the best or most accurate idea comes from when all people have a say in an idea. This is perfect for a democracy because it lets all people have a say in the democracy. And when the most people have a say then the best outcome happens and this is the best thing for society. Moving on to my first contention Felons wouldn't use their votes for election fraud. The argument that a felon would commit election fraud with his/her vote is an invalid argument for many reasons. First there aren't enough felons to significantly create a large scale fraud. Second they have no reason to. There is evidence to support this Harvard Law Review 1 says In their most straight forward incarnations, these two concerns have been expressed respectively, as a fear that ex-convicts might use their votes to alter the content or administration of the criminal law as a relief that the disqualification of former felons is necessary to guard against vote fraud and related election offenses. No evidence suggests that ex-felons would base their votes solely, or even partially, on candidate's positions on penal issues rather than other matters of policy and politics. Furthermore, even if ex-offenders were to base their votes on matters of criminal justice, it does not follow that their positions on these matters necessarily would be more permissive that those of the population as a whole., regardless of how they might vote on issues of crime and the administration of justice, ex-felons are unlikely to constitute more than a tiny percentage of the population, and thus are electorally insignificant. What this means is that supporters of disenfranchisement argue that, having shown a propensity to break the law felons are more likely to violate the particular prohibition against election fraud. Whether or not this characterization holds true, however a blanket exclusion of all ex-offenders and felons in order to protect society from those who would commit electoral offenses is clearly over inclusive. Other, less restrictive means of preventing vote fraud exist. This relates to my value because it states that since felons would not use their votes to alter the validity of the ballot box that they should have the same opportunity as everyone else. This brings me to my second contention Disenfranchisement works against rehabilitation. Disenfranchisement hurts felons because it takes away their right to have a say in their society. It also works against the prison systems attempts to rehabilitate the prisoners. This claim is validated by Harvard Law Review 2 which says Disenfranchisement of offenders simultaneously justifies and is justified by and idea that deviants are the source and embodiment of corruption, pollution, and moral turpitude: that they can and must be isolated, fenced out, and politically sterilized. As they are not we, their impurities are not ours. Self-congratulation of this sort may comfort, but does not heal. Disenfranchisement should be recognized and rejected as an atavistic, self-perpetuating reflex that serves no legitimate purpose. Disenfranchisement indisputably harms the stigmatized offender. Disenfranchisement also shows that people have little faith in the rehabilitation attempts of the prison systems. It shows the prisoners that society thinks that they cannot be trusted to make a decision about the way that they would want to live. There is evidence to support this Harvard Law Review 3 says The very premise of lifelong disenfranchisement, that a former offender must never again participate in the political life of the community, indicates that society has less faith in the rehabilitatative possibilities of the prison that its rhetoric might suggest. Regardless of whether the penal system can attain the goal of rehabilitation, pretending that we are doing something we are not does not advance the debate. Such pretence merely advances an illusion of enlightenment, which serves only to mask the brutal nature of the prison from those who incarcerate others. What this means is that by disenfranchising felons we are degrading them in a society and working against rehabilitation. It also shows that people have little faith in the governmental programs in the prisons as well. This relates to my value because if you begin to work against people then you begin to separate them from the equality of the society which leads me to my third contention Disenfranchisement helps support discrimination. When a felon has their right to vote revoked it leads to other discriminations against that felon. It is also shown that disenfranchisement is driven by racism so it is in fact discriminatory there is evidence to support this Harvard law review 4 says the notion that criminality springs solely from hopelessly different moral defectives blinds us to the social and political components of crime. As long as crime is conceived of as "their" problem rather than ours, amelioration of its causes will remain an impossible task. Legislators in states that disenfranchise offenders should consider carefully the meanings and effects of this exclusionary regulation. As a discriminatory practice based on irrational fears and destructive stereotypes, disenfranchisement has no place in an American community. Disenfranchisement is a symbol, and it is the wrong sort of symbol to legitimate in law. It is a symbol of rejection, not reconciliation; a symbol of difference, rather than commonality; a symbol of domination instead of equality. What this evidence proves is that Disenfranchisement separates felons from the rest of society by sending a symbol of domination over the felons. This relates to my value because when you have dominion in a society it can never fully reach its potential because someone's voice is always going to be left out but when you have equality then no one gets discriminated against and everyone becomes successful it is for all of these reasons that I urge an affirmative ballot thank you.

Released Felons Should Be Allowed To Vote. Also thank you for the link to the documentary, I watched it (parts one and two) and found it very insightful and although it did reinforce a few of the points you made I do find it disturbing that you are willing to form opinions off the basis of one documentary showing one situation. The people in that documentary are pre-trial, meaning that despite the fact that many have been there for years they have not yet served their debt to society. The purpose of being sentenced and serving time in prison is to over come these issues that they have dealing with normal members of society. Is it true that many of these felons will be released with the same immaturity shown here? Absolutely, but more than anything this points to a flaw in our justice system and our ability to rehabilitate our citizens. This is not grounds for denying them the right to vote. You also said that we do not let children vote. This is true and we do this for very good reasons. But we do let them vote when they no longer are classified as children. This is similar to having been released from prison. Upon serving your sentence it is assumed that you have taken the time in prison to think about your mistakes and learn from them, which is very similar to a child turning eighteen. After serving in prison you are supposed to be released and join society. Part of this means taking on the responsibility's that children face when turning into adults, including the responsibility of voting. Another point you made was that released inmates would 'manipulate our judicial and election system to their own corrupt means'. By saying this you are bringing up a point you had made earlier about felons having a 'pathological hatred for justice' which is simply not true. The majority of inmates do not 'hate' justice. When released many felons become one hundred percent normal citizens, with political opinions formed similar to the way that you and I form ours. And another point to be made about them 'manipulating' the justice system is that it would be virtually impossible. Released felons account for somewhere around two percent of the United States, so even if all of them had this hatred for justice that you mentioned (which they don't) it would simply not make a dent in our elections. My final point for this round is I think my most important. One of the ideals that this country was founded on was 'No taxation without representation'. Upon being released from prison, felons are supposed to incorporate themselves into society, find a job, and pay taxes. One of the reasons that slogan exists is so the citizens could have a say as to where their tax dollars were being directed. Taxing felons and denying them this right is unconstitutional and immoral. There are many people in the United States who did some regrettable act when they were young, served time and upon being released found a job, and for dozens of years have been respectable members of society including paying their taxes. Should we deny them their right to vote upon some stupid thing they did that long ago?

In a Democratic Society, Felons Ought to Retain the Right to Vote Because I support the VALUES set forth in the Preamble to the United States Constitution, the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, I affirm. The CRITERA I advocate for your ultimately deciding this debate are: (1) OBJECTIVITY: This debate should not be decided on the basis of preexisting personal opinions, bias, or prejudice. (2) LOGIC: This debate should not be decided on the basis undisciplined emotionalism. (3) TANGIBLE, EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE: This debate should be decided upon documented facts, not upon abstract, unverifiable, hypotheses. MY RESOLUTIONAL ANALYSIS AND FRAMEWORK: (A) The United States of America is a democratic society; indeed, it is the most prominent democratic society in the world today. (B) Of all the democratic societies in the world today (and I believe that there are 119 countries which identify themselves as such), the United States stands almost alone in automatically disenfanchising (revoking the right to vote of) felons. The consensus of experts in the fields of law, criminology, and political science is that - today - appromiately 2.5% of the American adult population (5-6 million people) in this country is denied the right to vote because of "felon" and/or "ex-felon" status. CONTENTION ONE: The American policy of revoking the right to vote felons (which I will now consistently refer to as "felon disenfranchisement") is illogical and haphazard. There are many reasons for this: A. Many of the people who commit felonies are never arrested, so they are never identified as "felons." Either the crimes go unreported, or the investigations fail to locate a suspect. (For example, remember the "anthrax killings" which occurred after 9/11.) B. Many of the people who are arrested for committing felonies are not prosecuted. The charges them are dropped - or reduced to misdemeanors - for a variety of reasons, most of which have nothing whatsoever to do with the suspect's guilt or innocence (i.e., prosecutorial discretion (including the prosecutor's political agenda), court-clog, and/or jail-prison overcrowding). C. Many of the people who are arrested for committing felonies, and who are prosecuted, "plea-bargain" down to a misdemeanor, and therefore retain the right to vote. D. Many of the people in this country who are convicted of felonies (the expert estimates range from .5% to 14%) are actually INNOCENT! E. Even if our criminal justice system were perfect (which it certainly isn't), there is no logical reason to believe that felons - as a group - would be "worse voters" than untreated alcoholics, untreated drug addicts, psychotics (treated or untreated), the homeless, illiterates, morons, grade-school dropouts, moral perverts, petty criminals (as noted before, unlike "felons," people who commit "misdemeanors" retain the right to vote), and/or lawyers... and yet only felons are the only adult citizens singled out under American law for disenfranchisement. Indeed, a good case can be made for theory that the only real justification for felon disenfranchisement in America is ulterior desire to perpetuate racism and/or material elitism. CONTENTION TWO: The American policy of felon disenfranchisement actually HARMS the American democratic society. I assert this for two independent reasons: A. Felony disenfranchisement increases crime. (If you prefer debatespeak and/or legalese, "felony disenfranchisement encourages criminal recidivism.") Disenfranchisement (which, by the way, has historically be referred to as "civil death"), by definition and design, alienates the felon from society, severely damages the felon's chances for rehabilitation, and gives the felon a greater incentive to commit even more crime when he or she is ultimately released from prison (assuming he or she is sent to prison in the first place - many felons are not - instead, they are placed on "probation"). Empirical studies - including some conducted right here in the good old USA - demonstrate that in those jurisdictions in which felons retain the right to vote, they are 50% less likely to commit another crime than in jurisdictions which deny felons the right to vote. B. Felony disenfranchisement laws backfire - they disenfranchise non-felons. (If you prefer debatespeak or legalese, "felon disenfranchisement is counterproductive.") In our democratic society, the right to vote is regulated, in large part, by State governments. Each of America's 50 states has it own laws concerning felony disenfranchisement. Two - Maine and Vermont - have no restrictions whatsoever on the voting rights of felons - the position supported by the resolution; Two other States - Kentucky and Virginia - have automatic lifetime felon disenfranchisement. The remaining 46 States - and the District of Columbia - have created a veritable Rubik's Cube of rules, regulations and requirements which almost no one - expect perhaps a full-time election law attorney - can decipher. As a result, the mere existence of felony disenfrachisement creates three inherent problems for non-felons who wish to exercise their right to vote. All of the following three problems have been empirically verified in the American elections that took place in 2004 and 2006, and the evidence also empirically demonstrates that they are occurring in 2008: A. VOTER CAGING: Lists of the names of convicted felons are cynically manipulated by partisans of one party or another to attack innocent voters - and literally hundreds of thousands of innocent voters are "purged" from voter registration lists, or are "challenged" at the polls on election day, or both. This is known as "voter caging," and it's anti-democratic to the max. (For example, my name is Michael Miller. I have never committed a felony, but they are -at least - hundreds of people named "Michael Miller" who have committed a felony. Because of this, I may be challenged at the polls any time I try to vote, and it is quite possible that someday I will be denied the right to vote.) B. INNOCENT MISTAKES: Even well-meaning election officials are confused by the American maze of felon disenfranchisement laws. As a result, they often make mistakes and refuse to allow bona fide citizens to register to vote. In some States (i.e., South Carolina), mistaken interpretation of voter eligibility laws - by completely honest election officials - runs as high as 61%! C. SELF-DISENFRANCHISEMENT: Most Americans are not constitutional lawyers, nor are they experts in the field of election law. Thousands of honest, law-abiding Americans mistakenly believe that because they were arrested at some point in their lives, they have lost the right to vote, even though the charges against them were dropped, or they were found not guilty at trial. Thousands of others - who have very minor "criminal histories" - mistakenly believe that convictions for minor infractions, juvenile offenses, and/or misdemeanors disqualify them from voting. CONCLUSION: Like the disaster known as "Prohibition" in the America of the 1920's and early 1930's, felon disenfrachisement is a classic example of an arguably-noble theory that just doesn't work in the "real world" of American democracy. In addition, in the "real world" of American politics and elections, the policy of felon disenfranchisement - no matter how scrupulously it is applied - causes much more harm than to our society than it prevents. I support felon enfranchisement - not because it's the right thing to do for felons - but because it's right thing to do for YOU - and all the rest of America's democratic society.

Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. When you go against society, and commit a felony, you lose this societies trust. We don't let children vote, or the mentally incompetent vote, because we cannot trust there decisions. The same comes with felons. We cannot trust them, because of their poor judgment to commit a felony, therefore they cannot vote. People who commit serious crimes have shown that they are not trustworthy. When they decided they were going to go against society, they also decided they are going to lose their right to vote. Value: Justice It is not fair to give an equal voice in society to someone who has been a law abiding citizen, and a felon who has gone against society all together. When someone commits a felony, they should lose there right to vote. If a person wants a say in a Democracy, and wants to be able to vote in a Democracy, they must not go against it and commit a felony. Now why would we, as citizens, as non-felon citizens, want felons helping to pick our representatives? If you're a convicted felon, convicted of a violent crime, you have bad judgment. Why would we want people with that judgment picking our representatives? Criterion: just deserts Just deserts is basically giving people what they deserve. It is doing wrong and taking action for your wrong doing. In this round, you will see that people don't deserve the right to vote after they have committed a felony. My first contention is that it in not fair or equal to give a felon who has gone against a democratic society and a law abiding citizen equal voting rights. My second contention is felons being used by candidates running for office. My third contention is the public opinion rejecting felon voting rights. Contention 1: By committing a very serious crime, ex-felons demonstrate disrespect for the law. Therefore, they should have no input in determining who writes these laws. Felons shouldn't have the same voting rights as regular, law abiding, hard working Americans. In 2000 the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's interpretation that our constitution does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote. This means it is the state legislature's power to decide who is qualified. If you are a citizen over 18 you are automatically qualified. If you are considered mentally incompetent, or commit a felony you are disqualified. This is about being disqualified from voting. The same comes with gun rights, if someone abuses guns; we take that right away from them. So if a felon abuses a society, the society takes away the felon's right to vote. The American citizens who make up the democratic society are the people who should be the ones deciding who there leader is going to be, not the felons that have become outcasts of this society by going against it. The felon made their choice when they decided to go against society. Contention 2: There are currently 5.3 million felons in the United States who have lost there right to vote. Say these 5.3 million felons could vote and one of the candidates was going to be extremely less harsh against criminals. These extra 5.3 million votes would almost surely give a candidate a victory. Do we, law abiding American citizens want our representatives to be decided on by felons? No. If you are a convicted felon, convicted of a violent crime, you obviously have bad judgment, so why should a society let you use your judgment to pick out the better candidate? The voting is not only voting for a presidential candidate, but also the local elections. In a city in California, called signal hill, the vote for mayor came down to one vote. In a school board election in Alaska, it was a dead even tie, bringing it to a coin flip. If there would have been one more person voting, a felon, they would have decided who was going to win. Do we really want felons deciding who a mayor or a school board member is? Contention 3: Much of the American public supports the disenfranchisement if felons. To be exact 81.7% of Americans believe that felons should lose their right to vote. Less than one-tenth of people surveyed believed that felons should keep there right to vote. These people believe that felons should lose their right to vote even after serving prison time because they still cannot be trusted. According to the Florida Department of Correction, over 40% of offenders commit another crime within 3 years of there release; and for those under 18 this number skyrockets to 73%. Furthermore a 2003 Department of Justice report found that more than 70 percent of arrestees tested positive for drugs. The American public has spoken, and the outcome was that most do not want felons to be able to have any part in voting. A democracy is a government made by a society's people. So if the American people think that felons should not be able to vote by this much of a margin, felons should not be allowed suffrage. In my first contention I proved that felons don't deserve equal rights because the have gone against the law, and in my second contention I showed that felons could get used by candidates, and I gave facts about them not being trustworthy. In my third contention I spoke about how the American public doesn't want felons voting, and they are the democracy. With the evidence I have brought up and the case I have given I would urge your ballot toward the negative side.

In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. "A passive and ignorant citizenry will never create a sustainable world." Because I agree with philosopher Andrew Gaines, I affirm the resolution, resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. Affirming achieves the value of equality, as defined by Merriam-Webster's Dictionary as "An ideal of uniformity in treatment or status by those in a position to affect either." The value equality is the only value for the round because equality was the foundation in creating democracy. The criterion that I will use to measure equality is fair representation. Voting is intended to represent all voters' voices. When we have fair representation among all classes, races, and sexes, we will achieve a greater amount of equality. I will offer the following definition from the Cambridge International Dictionary of English. Felon: a person who is guilty of a serious crime Contention 1: Communities suffer severely from felon disenfranchisement. Jeffrey Reiman, author of Liberal and Republican Arguments against the Disenfranchisement of Felons, "Research has shown that poor and/or non-white persons are more likely to be arrested, charged, convicted, and sentenced to prison than their wealthier, white, counterparts." This means that people of color are more likely to be arrested because they are of color than those who are white. Because of this, communities suffer greatly. According to Marc Mauer, who wrote Disenfranchising Felons Hurts Entire Communities "…The vast expansion of the prison apparatus over the last two decades is now hurting not only those incarcerated and their families, but their communities as well. Increasingly, the ability of these communities to gain political representation and influence – and therefore access to public resources is being thwarted by the American race to incarcerate. The structural racism in the system, an entrenched and often unconscious bias in law enforcement, has weakened the Black political power. This affects everything, from township supervisors to the president and all the policies that result." Project Vote, an organization dedicated to voter engagement and civic participation, reported, "When felons lose the right to vote, it weakens the political power of the entire neighborhood, including residents who have committed no crime." Communities do not have the voting power to make the changes needed in a community. On a larger scale, there is a huge discrepancy between the minorities and the wealthy white upper-class. "Political influence and access to resources are further hindered…urban areas suffer from the vicious cycle set in motion by the dramatically high rates of arrest and imprisonment of members and their communities," adds Mauer. In order to break this lewd cycle, felons, like any other group of people, must be granted the right to vote…not only for the felons, but also for the law-abiding citizens who have committed no crimes. Disenfranchisement does not value equality or justice in any manner when we are disenfranchising entire communities. Contention 2: To become a true democratic society all people have the right to vote. The key words of this resolution are "In a democratic society…" Aristotle, a renowned Greek philosopher, said, "If liberty and equality are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost." This means that we must grant all people the ability to vote. We must allow not only men and women but also all ethnicities and most importantly, those who follow the law and those who have broken the law. If we refuse the vote of any class, race, sex, or age the ability to vote, we are no longer a "democratic society" because we cease to represent every person. A democratic society is "for the people, by the people." Refusing to allow any person the right to vote undermines the principles that have laid the foundation of democracy. Philosopher Ayn Rand said, "A majority has no right to take away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities form oppression by majorities." To take away the voice of any community weakens democracy severely. However, giving everyone the ability to vote will help create a better democratic society. Contention 3: Disenfranchisement is counterproductive. It is the goal of every prison system in a democratic society to evolve their prisoners from delinquents to productive members of society. Disenfranchisement seeks to undermine the efforts that prisons put in place. Prisons have chaplains, libraries, job assistance networks, and work release programs to teach their inmates about being good members of society. Matthew Cardinale, a graduate student in sociology at the University of California, believes that disenfranchisement will only undermine the prison's objectives. Cardinale wrote a report about poor and homeless people with felony convictions and found that disenfranchisement caused felons to feel they were "…only a fraction of a citizen." Felons also felt the sense of separation left little motivation to change their criminal behavior. This means that the delinquents, who are no longer true members of society, have little motivation to change their lives. This leaves the potential for crime to increase instead of decrease. Granting felons suffrage yields a positive effect. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, "[R]estoring the right to vote helps reintegrate people with criminal records into society and, by increasing voter participation, strengthens democracy." Civic participation instills in the offender feeling of belonging in the community and a sense of responsibility toward others. This connection to others reduces the criminal tendencies and helps restore former felons to contributing members of society. Furthermore, Jeff Manza and Christopher Uggen who are Associate Professors at Northwestern University, said, "Denying voting rights to ex-felons, or felons living in their communities on probation and parole, undermines their capacity to connect with the political system and may thereby increase their risk of recidivism." In conclusion, a true democratic society grants all people the right to vote, communities suffer severely from felon disenfranchisement and disenfranchisement is counterproductive to the prison's rehabilitative system. The goal of any democratic society is to achieve equality. In order for any democratic society to function, we need to have all voices represented. Thank you.

Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections. First I will begin by responding to your refutation of my main points P1: Many felons return to prison within 3 years of the same or another crime Although I was not able to find data for the rate at which ex-felons return to prison after 3 years, I'm sure it is still a significant percentage, especially after being let off of parole or probation, where they are no longer monitored. The simple fact that many ex-felons are convicted of another crime should be proof enough that all ex-felons should not be allowed the right to vote. P2: It would not be fair to citizens who have never been convicted of a felony You are correct in your statement that " the whole point of letting a felon out of prison is to try and let them blend back into normal life, so to speak". However, by refusing ex-felons the right to vote, are we really hindering their ability to assimilate back into society? I don't think so because this right does not define who is a member of society and who is not, nor does it prevent an ex-felon from doing other things such as getting a job, or driving a car. So the daily interactions involved in "normal life" are not effected by an ex-felons inability to vote. P3: Felons should gain the right to vote by proving that their judgement is valid By serving a full sentence in jail, should an ex-felon really regain the right to vote? Who is to say that serving a full sentence in prison is only a part of the punishment committing a felony, and that an ex-felons inability to vote serves to remind him/her that a life of crime is not worth it, and that they will have to prove that they are productive members of society to regain this right. I think that once a felon gets off of probation or parole that he/she can choose to be evaluated by a psychologist to see whether or not his/her judgement is valid in order to regain the right to vote. However, this would be something that our lawmakers would decide upon so I'm sure a reasonable solution could be agreed on. Now I will move on to your arguments and refute them P1: Restricting felons from voting violates the Constitution. If a US citizen commits a felony, isn't that sufficient means to revoke the right to vote? Also, restricting a person from voting does not seem to be a cruel or unusual punishment, because it does not prevent them from performing daily functions of life. So as I mentioned earlier, the right to vote does not effect an ex-felons ability to function in society and in no way directly harms him/her (indirectly perhaps). As for the 15th amendment, I would interpret it to mean that a right should not be refused as a result of a previous condition of servitude, but would the right be refused as a result of the felony committed? P2: Felon disenfranchisement encourages racial discrimination. Well I would like to point out that African Americans and Hispanics already make up a minority in this country, and so your claim that felon disenfranchisement "creates an imbalance between races" would be true regardless. Its not as if white people vote for one thing and minorities vote for another, so I see it as one million people simply not voting, and do not assume that most of them would have voted for X person due to the color of their skin. That is almost like saying that if we let all prisoners vote, the minorities would have helped Obama win and therefore we are restricting their ability to vote in an attempt to sway election results. Simply not true, for all we know, half of them supported Obama and the other half Romney, so skin color does not determine how a person will most vote. You claim that "people who can't voice their opinion in the law might resort -- AGAIN -- to breaking it." Relating to my first point, if they would break the law a second time because their individual opinion was not heard, then they probably should not have the right to vote. That would be like if I smoked weed even though its illegal because I support its legalization (I don't smoke, but the war on drugs is expensive and ineffective). My individual opinion about the legality of weed was not heard, but does that mean that I can proceed to break the law? Absolutely not. I'd like to point out that although ex-felons cannot vote, they are still able to do a lot of other things such as organize a peaceful protest, or petition for change, etc. This would still allow them a chance to voice their opinion. P3: Felons deserve a right to vote I don't believe that they deserve this right until they can prove that they can handle the right responsibly (as I have pointed out in my third point). You are right, the next president will effect the lives of them as well. However, the president is meant to make decisions in the best interest of the majority, with the goal of producing a solution that satisfies both if possible. Assuming that felons could influence the outcome of an election, which is very unlikely, wouldn't it be detrimental to the majority? It just does not make much sense for people who have made a "BIG mistake in life", as you put it, to be able to influence the outcome of an election that will effect all of us. Thank you, I patiently await your response :)

Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections. My main points were: P1: Many felons return to prison within 3 years for the same or a different crime P2: It would not be fair to citizens who have never been convicted of a felony P3: Felons should gain the right to vote, by proving that their judgement is valid Statistically speaking, many ex-felons return to prison after they have been convicted of a felony. If many of them return to prison, even after they have been let off on parole, it can be said that these people have invalid judgements and are not capable of making informed and educated decisions. Therefore they indirectly effect citizens who are able to weigh the consequences of their decisions, and should not be afforded this right unless they can prove that their judgement is valid. Once a person commits a felony, it should not be assumed that he/she is of a stable mental state when he/she is released from prison, and as such the right to vote is no longer a right but a privilege. I have proven that revoking this right does not constitute an "excessive sanction" and does not in any way violate the constitution.

Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Since they have been in prison they have basically admitted that they are not capable of making rational decisions. We should not give them the opportunity to pick who will be the president or choose other prominent officials that will make decisions for everybody else. Yes all men are "created" equal, but they do not always end up like everybody else. Some choose to live an honest life and others don't. I would say that breaking the law is certainly not caring about it. If you cared about the rules and the law you would not break them in the first place. Felons don't understand the importance of the laws or else they would follow them. Yes all people have the right to vote but some need to understand that if you break the law things are going to be taken away from you. By felons being able to vote all that would do would be to create problems. Those opposed to this issue could backlash and maybe they will stop voting. Felons would only vote for who will give them what they want, not what is best for the country.

In a Democratic Society, Felons Ought to Retain the Right to Vote Because I support the VALUES set forth in the Preamble to the United States Constitution, the 14th Amendment to the United States Constiution, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, I affirm. The CRITERA I advocate for your ultimately deciding this debate are: (1) OBJECTIVITY: This debate should not be decided on the basis of preexisting personal opinions, bias, or prejudice. (2) LOGIC: This debate should not be decided on the basis undisciplined emotionalism. (3) TANGIBLE, EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE: This debate should be decided upon documented facts, not upon abstract, unverifiable, hypotheses. MY RESOLUTIONAL ANALYSIS AND FRAMEWORK: (A) The United States of America is a democratic society; indeed, it is the most prominent democratic society in the world today. (B) Of all the democratic societies in the world today (and I believe that there are 119 countries which identify themselves as such), the United States stands almost alone in automatically disenfanchising (revoking the right to vote of) felons. The consensus of experts in the fields of law, ciminology, and political science is that - today - appromiately 2.5% of the American adult population (5-6 million people) in this country is denied the right to vote because of "felon" and/or "ex-felon" status. CONTENTION ONE: The American policy of revoking the right to vote felons (which I will now consistently refer to as "felon disenfranchisement") is illogical and haphazard. There are many reasons for this: A. Many of the people who commit felonies are never arrested, so they are never identified as "felons." Either the crimes go unreported, or the investigations fail to locate a suspect. (For example, remember the "anthrax killings" which occurred after 9/11.) B. Many of the people who are arrested for committing felonies are not prosecuted. The charges them are dropped - or reduced to misdemeanors - for a variety of reasons, most of which have nothing whatsoever to do with the suspect's guilt or innocence (i.e., prosecutorial discretion (including the prosecutor's political agenda), court-clog, and/or jail-prison overcrowding). C. Many of the people who are arrested for committing felonies, and who are prosecuted, "plea-bargain" down to a misdemeanor, and therefore retain the right to vote. D. Many of the people in this country who are convicted of felonies (the expert estimates range from .5% to 14%) are actually INNOCENT! E. Even if our criminal justice system were perfect (which it certainly isn't), there is no logical reason to believe that felons - as a group - would be "worse voters" than untreated alcoholics, untreated drug addicts, psychotics (treated or untreated), the homeless, illiterates, morons, grade-school dropouts, moral perverts, petty criminals (as noted before, unlike "felons," people who commit "misdemeanors" retain the right to vote), and/or lawyers... and yet only felons are the only adult citizens singled out under American law for disenfranchisement. Indeed, a good case can be made for theory that the only real justification for felon disenfranchisement in America is ulterior desire to perpetuate racism and/or material eliteism. CONTENTION TWO: The American policy of felon disenfranchisement actually HARMS the American democratic society. I assert this for two independent reasons: A. Felony disenfranchisement increases crime. (If you prefer debatespeak and/or legalese, "felony disenfranchisement encourages criminal recidivism.") Disenfranchisement (which, by the way, has historically be referred to as "civil death"), by definition and design, alienates the felon from society, severely damages the felon's chances for rehabilitation, and gives the felon a greater incentive to commit even more crime when he or she is ultimately released from prison (assuming he or she is sent to prison in the first place - many felons are not - instead, they are placed on "probation"). Empirical studies - including some conducted right here in the good old USA - demonstate that in those jurisdictions in which felons retain the right to vote, they are 50% less likely to commit another crime than in jurisdictions which deny felons the right to vote. B. Felony disenfranchisement laws backfire - they disenfranchise non-felons. (If you prefer debatespeak or legalese, "felon disenfranchisement is counterproductive.") In our democratic society, the right to vote is regulated, in large part, by State governments. Each of America's 50 states has it own laws concerning felony disenfranchisement. Two - Maine and Vermont - have no restictions whatsoever on the voting rights of felons - the position supported by the resolution; Two other States - Kentucky and Viginia - have automatic lifetime felon disenfranchisement. The remaining 46 States - and the District of Columbia - have created a veritable Rubic's Cube of rules, regulations and requirements which almost no one - expect perhaps a full-time election law attorney - can decipher. As a result, the mere existence of felony disenfrachisement creates three inherent problems for non-felons who wish to exercise their right to vote. All of the following three problems have been empirically verified in the American elections that took place in 2004 and 2006, and the evidence also empiracally demonstrates that they are occurring in 2008: A. VOTER CAGING: Lists of the names of convicted felons are cynically manipulated by partisans of one party or another to attack innocent voters - and literally hundreds of thousands of inocent voters are "purged" from voter registration lists, or are "challenged" at the polls on election day, or both. This is known as "voter caging," and it's anti-democratic to the max. (For example, my name is Michael Miller. I have never committed a felony, but they are -at least - hundreds of people named "Michael Miller" who have committed a felony. Because of this, I may be challenged at the polls any time I try to vote, and it is quite possible that someday I will be denied the right to vote.) B. INNOCENT MISTAKES: Even well-meaning election officials are confused by the American maze of felon disenfranchisement laws. As a result, they often make mistakes and refuse to allow bona fide citizens to register to vote. In somes States (i.e., South Carolina), mistaken interpretation of voter eligibility laws - by completely honest election officials - runs as high as 61%! C. SELF-DISENFRANCHISEMENT: Most Americans are not constitutional lawyers, nor are they experts in the field of election law. Thousands of honest, law-abiding Americans mistakenly believe that because they were arrested at some point in their lives, they have lost the right to vote, even though the charges against them were dropped, or they were found not guilty at trial. Thousands of others - who have very minor "criminal histories" - mistakenly believe that convictions for minor infractions, juvenile offenses, and/or misdemeanors disqualify them from voting. CONCLUSION: Like the disaster known as "Prohibition" in the America of the 1920's and early 1930's, felon disenfrachisement is a classic example of an arguably-noble theory that just doesn't work in the "real world" of American democracy. In addition, in the "real world" of American politics and elections, the policy of felon disenfranchisement - no matter how scrupulously it is applied - causes much more harm than to our society than it prevents. I support felon enfranchisement - not because it's the right thing to do for felons - but because it's right thing to do for YOU - and all the rest of America's democratic society.

Resolved: In the United States, Felons should be allowed to vote upon release from prison. I will be debating against the topic, "Resolved: In the United States, Felons should not be allowed to vote upon release from prison. " Now, to jump right in. Sorry about that last round; I was a little bit busy, but I would like to provide constructives and rebuttals in this round. I would first like to point out one statistical discrepancy in the proposition"s case. He has stated that 5.9 million people, or 6% of our country"s population cannot vote, but this is clearly an incorrect statistic. According to the most recent statistics from 2014, our country"s population is 318.9 Million. 5.9 million people out of 318.9 Million is just under 2%, not 6%. This brings us to question all of proposition"s evidence and empiric. Now, to get on to constructive assertions. 1: Allowing these felons to vote is not a federal issue and cannot be decided by the U. S. Government or the Supreme Court to encompass the entire United States, as proposition is arguing. According to the Bill of Rights, this issue is decided by the states. Most prominently, the 14th Amendment makes felon voting a state prerogative, not a federal one. If voters choose to change state laws regarding felons and voting, it's their prerogative. Federalism allows for such state-level experimentation, and it's at the state level where the consequences of new felon-voting laws will best be judged. This assertion itself negates proposition"s whole case. Proposition is arguing that we should make a law encompassing the entire United States to allow these released felons to vote. This is not legal, according to the 14th Amendment of our Bill of Rights. 2: The reason we don"t let children vote in the United States is because they have not developed proper judgment and cannot decide which party to vote for. These felons are not allowed to vote for this same reason. If someone has gone to jail for over one year, then they have committed a fairly bad crime such as assault, they have shown that they are not trustworthy and their judgment is not good. I will now strengthen my case with rebuttals. As pointed out earlier, we come to doubt Pro"s evidence because of the discrepancy. Rebuttal to 1a: A change of an election outcome is not enough reason to base changing the law on. If children were allowed to vote, the result of elections would drastically change, but they are not allowed to vote. A change in outcome has nothing to do with the positive or negative values of Felon voting. Many things may cause a change in the outcome of elections. That doesn"t mean they are good. Rebuttal to 1b: In fact, punishment, more often than not, does not end after a prison sentence is over. Parole is a punishment that is given to the majority of felons coming out of prison, which means their punishment is being continued to make sure that they have learned their lesson. Rebuttal to 1c: Pro has provided no solid evidence for this point, just that it "seems to be excessive" to not let these felons vote. But we have these punishments for a reason. Rebuttal to 2a: This point is invalid to this debate, because this debate is about felons, and tampering with crab traps is not a felony, its only major punishment is a fine. A felon is someone who has been convicted to death or one or more years in prison for a crime. Rebuttal to 3: It is not racist that these felon voting laws are not allowing these felons to vote. The laws are the same for all races. If the laws specifically didn"t allow African Americans to vote, then they would be racist. But the fact that minorities can"t vote because of these laws doesn"t prove the laws to be racist, it just proves that these minorities commit more than the average amount of crimes. Rebuttal to 4: This argument about other countries having felon voting as a law is invalid because the fact that other countries have instated these laws doesn"t prove they are good. Pro has provided us with no statistics to show that with these laws, these other countries were benefited, and all he says is that America "would maybe gain more international respect. " First of all, America doesn"t need any more international respect. And second of all, it is not gain respect in the eyes of other countries if we go against our own constitution. I have refuted all of Pro"s points and added two points to this debate.

Convicted Felons should be allowed to vote in all U.S. elections Firstly, and fundamentally, we must recognize that these people have decided to not follow the rules and regulations of society. By breaking these rules they have shown they do not want to function in society. If this is the case, why should they be able to vote, an active part in our society? If they have broken the rules set by the people we have elected, they clearly don't show enough respect to be allowed to elect people. After a criminal has served the sentence given to them, they are now an active part of society, and should be allowed to take part in all areas of it, voting included. But while they are not an active member of our society, they don't deserve the right to take part in things such as voting, they have made their choice and that is the consequence. People that have broken the laws set don't get a say in the laws we make. Perhaps they want to vote someone in who will change the law that they have broken, because they don't agree with it? Fine, that is their choice, but only after they have been punished for the law they broke. The U.S. prison population is very excessive due to an unnecessary war on drugs (sorry for the digression), so the prison population is just such a large factor that allowing it to vote would not be beneficial at all to our society. Don't allow people that have broken our laws to make them.

In a Democratic Society, Felons Ought to Retain the Right to Vote Though my opponent's profile says he lives in India, this debate is about felons and the right to vote in a democratic society. I am unfamiliar with Indian laws and societal expectations, as well as their standards for democracy, and under the assumption that most debat.com members are from the US I will address this issue from an American standpoint, unless my opponent can show me a reason to do otherwise. Also, standards for felonies are no longer applied in other common law countries as they have been replaced with "summary offences" and "indictable offences". In modern democracies, a felon is someone convicted of a felony. Felonies under the US Criminal Code are generally offenses that mandate a prison term of one year or more. Anything less is generally a misdemeanor or civil offense. (http://www4.law.cornell.edu...) Because of the different gravity of different crimes which may be considered felonies, it is impossible to lay out a blanket ban on voting by convicted felons. Punishment for crimes in the US and other democracies is generally considered "correction" or rehabilitation, and the goal is to re-integrate rehabilitated criminals into society. The deprivation of life, liberty, and/or property is generally considered appropriate punishment for various felonies, and an assigned timeframe is allotted that is generally considered befitting the crime. The basic use of punishment and reward is the basis of all criminal theory. Ordinary crime is not a threat to the social order, and society needs criminal behavior and the legal responses to it to function properly. (http://www.criminology.fsu.edu...) Putting aside the fact that all 50 states allow felons to vote to some degree(http://www.ncsl.org...), I personally believe that to fully integrate a rehabilitated criminal into society he/she must first believe he/she will be allowed that opportunity. Indeed, living in a democratic society, the right to vote is an essential part of full integration into a democratic society. So unless felons are executed or jailed for life, the right to vote should be an incentive of completing rehabilitation when rehabilitation is an option. Now on to my opponent's contentions... My opponent's first contention is based on retribution to prevent chaos and despair. I point to the US where, again, all 50 states and DC allow felons to vote to some degree- some states only through a pardon, and the US has not devolved into chaos and despair. The US has stiff penalties for crimes such as murder, espionage, treason, and other felonies for which a criminal's voting rights may never be restored, and it has lesser penalties for, say, possession of more than one ounce of marijuana which is a felony in most states, and constitutes an average of 1 year in prison(www.norml.org). I assure you this crime is not grievous enough for society to devolve into chaos should it continue, and a person convicted of this crime is not necessarily too "untrustworthy" to be involved in electoral politics. My opponent's second contention, unfortunately, does not make much sense to me. I cannot imagine a democratic society NOT made up of people. In a democratic society of a few or millions of people, it would be up to those people to decide how felons should be treated. The former Assistant State Attorney General for the State Elections Division of Alabama says: "Under the longstanding system, a felon may apply to regain his right to vote after serving his sentence and paying all fines and restitution that may be due. This is a sound practice. It ensures that only those criminals who have met their obligations to their victims and who have enough civic pride to apply for renewed voting rights can play a role in selecting our community, state and national leaders." (http://www.al.com...). I don't contend that felons "should have the right to vote in every circumstance and situation", and it is both unreasonable and unrealistic to take an absolute position on an issue that will have varying degrees of circumstance, ie. a murderer vs. an old lady who assists inmates with legal issues without realizing she was breaking the law (http://www.ahrc.com...). My opponent's third contention only addresses murder. Even with murder there are several degrees. My opponent affirms that one right violation allows another rights violation to exist, but in the same paragraph he states that individuals in a society may not violate others' rights in a society. This is a contradiction, but I will nonetheless address the issue. The deprivation of rights for violation of rights is part of the criminal theory. It is necessary for the proper function of society, but the deprivation of rights should (in most cases) be employed as rehabilitation. Once all faults are corrected, fines paid, and punishment completed it should be recognized as such. The continued disenfranchisement of a convicted felon who has put effort into reintegration is unjust, and goes against the fundamentals of both the correctional system and democracy itself. My opponent's fourth contention is based on semantics, but he wrote the resolution, not me. In recognition of this clever trap, let's define "ought" in the context of the resolution and the debate: ought: —used to express obligation , advisability , natural expectation , or logical consequence All points can be argued for pro successfully, but please choose one so as not to turn this into a wasted debate about semantics. Should society be "obligated"? No. My personal opinion is that a society attempting to be just will at least to some degree allow felons to vote based on established law, which would imply obligation to do so. Because it is my personal opinion, I would use my vote to "advise" society to allow felons to vote to some degree. It is a "natural expectation" of many criminologists as cited in my previous sources. It is also the "logical consequence" of laws already in place in the US. Thank you.

Resolved: In the United States, Felons should be allowed to vote upon release from prison. Extend all arguments

Ex-Cons should not be denined the vote. My opponent is quite correct in his analysis of due process of law. Rights and privileges of citizenship can be TEMPORARILY suspended for an infraction against the law. However, to suspend rights PERMINENTLY with the only recourse being to petition the state for reinstatement of these rights is unconstitutional. "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. NO STATE SHALL MAKE OR ENFORCE ANY LAW WHICH SHALL ABRIDGE THE PRIVLAGES OR IMMUNITEIS OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; NOR DENY TO ANY PERSON WITHIN ITS JURISDICTION THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS." These laws do indeed deny the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States. Forcing a citizen to petition the government for the restoration of a basic right after punishment has been served does abridge a privilege of citizenship. Any person, not only citizens, enjoy equal protection of the laws in the United States. A former felon is hardly receiving the equal protection of the laws after the right to vote has been taken away. In a legal sense my objection to legislation denying the right to vote to former convicts is the lack of specified duration of punishment. Actions such as this start down the path of life-long punishment for a lesser crime than serious felonies or capital crimes, which carry a justifiable and constitutional punishment of specific length. The moral question I ask is can society dictate what rights a person enjoys? Only when the exercise of your rights impeded another's can society step in and punish you for that infraction. Every legal adult is in a contract with society as a whole. Abuse of another person's rights results in punishment. After this punishment has been completed what justification is there for a continuation of the punishment in the form of disenfranchisement? By continuing the punishment of these individual through disenfranchisement we are only encouraging them to remain on the fringes of society as second-class citizens. Criminals need to be punished, in my opinion often more severely than we do now, but indefinite punishment to be lifted at the discretion of the government is not only unconstitutional but poses the risk of creating a class of subjects, not citizens.

Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections. I will attempt to construct my arguments in a similar fashion in order to keep the format consistent Contentions: P1: Many felons return to prison within 3 years for the same or a different crime P2: It would not be fair to citizens who have never been convicted of a felony P3: Felons should gain the right to vote, by proving that their judgement is valid Definitions: Recidivism- Measured by criminal acts that resulted in the rearrest, reconviction, or return to prison with or without a new sentence during a three-year period following the prisoner's release. P1: With many felons returning to prison within three years, how are we to be able to have faith in their good judgement? These are obviously not simple crimes, and if so many return to a life of crime as soon as they get out, then why should they have the right to vote? The effectiveness of our criminal justice system is for another debate, but as it is now, its not actually correcting anybody, its simply detaining them. Here is some interesting data: "Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%), and those in prison for possessing, using, or selling illegal weapons (70.2%)." This would allow all of these felons, most of which return to prison within several years for the same crime, to vote in elections. There is more information on Recidivism rates here [1]. P2: Why should citizens who have been convicted of a felon have the same right as those who have never been convicted of one? Certainly they are not of equal value to society when one was thrown in prison for being a danger to society. If these felons are at risk of recidivism, of which many of them are, then I don't quite think their judgement is valid enough to allow them to vote in elections that could effect the rest of society. P3: Perhaps there should be a system in place for convicted felons to earn the right to vote. I feel that this would be a lot better than simply giving them the right to vote once they had served their time. This would ensure that we do not have voters with compromised judgements, and that they cannot vote before proving that they are able to be productive members of society. Otherwise, they may base their vote on a topic of interest, such as the legalization of a certain drug, etc. [1] http://www.bjs.gov...

In a democratic society felons ought to retain teh right to vote. I accept my opponent's value of Democracy. A key note of democracy is majority rule. Large groups get more representation and therefore have more power. Felons are not a large group in the United States and therefore should be subject to the will of the non-felons. Opponent's VC-Maximizing rights This better fits the con side. Felons represent 1.6% of the population. By not voting the 98.4% of the non-felon population of the United States has more rights and there for the maximization of rights occurs. 98.4% vs. 1.6% who should get the rights. My VC is rationality. If you stop, sit down, and think about what a felon is you will realize why they should not vote. Over half of felons are drug abusers. 49% of people in prison are there for a violent offence. They are generally less educated. These people are rapists, child molesters, drug lords, thieves, and murders. Do we really want these people to have a say about what goes on in this country. I will first go over my opponents arguments then precede to my own. C1. My opponent said, "If we allow this minority group (felons) to be disenfranchised, what is to stop us from doing it to others?" This is a simple question; the Constitution. Amendment XIV specifically says states have the right to stop criminals from voting. The other Amendments also make it impossible for other minority groups to be disenfranchised. Disenfranchisement is not an issue. C2. The felons don't have a right to vote in states that don't allow it, and in order for any other rights to be violated; the rights of others besides felons would have to be violated as well. In America we have constitutional safeguards against this. Everyone is guaranteed basic rights in the United States. A.Voting does not help felons re-enter society. 67.5% of all felons are sent back to prison within three years of their imprisonment (US Bureau of Justice Statistics). This rate is very consistent across all 50 states. There is no difference between states that let felons vote and states that don't. Voting has no impact on recidivism. B.States have the right to restrict voters based on their criminal records (amendment XIV, section II) Again they made the choice, they knew the consequences, and now they have their voting rights rebuked. It's part of their sentence. C3. If you go back to my criterion by stopping felons from voting we are not crippling it we are strengthening it. There are 5.3 million felons that cannot vote. This is 5.3 million uneducated, drug addicted, parasites on society that we don't have to worry about screwing this country up. In order to have a strong democracy you need educated, people that are going to make the best choice for their country. Felons don't meet this requirement. These are my random arguments against that don't rebuttal my opponent's contentions 1-Harm Principal/social contract It is acceptable to restrict ones liberty when they have infringed on the rights of others. Being a citizen of the United States binds you to this social contract. If you break the laws you must suffer the consequences. Losing voting rights is one of these consequences. 2-Maintain Order Because of their actions we know what criminals support. The question is do we want these morals reflected in our laws? By giving felons representation we are essentially giving them the power to make laws. This would result in a mess. What kind of laws are pedophiles going to try and push? What do you think drug addicts will want? This also can result with problems of political corruption. For these reasons I negate

Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections. I'll respond to my opponent's defenses of his main points. P1: Many felons return to prison within 3 years of the same or another crime. Does it make sense to take away the rights of a citizen just because of something they MIGHT do? Why not give all of them life sentences while you're at it? Obviously the answer is that they don't deserve a sentence for life. It's too big a punishment, However, isn't this what disenfranchisement is? It's inability to vote -- for LIFE -- just because of something they might or might not do. Is this fair? P2: It would not be fair to citizens who have never been convicted of a felony. Citizens are not on even ground with felons. For example any person with a criminal record (ex-felons fall under this category) will get heavier fines and punishment than a normal person if they were caught shoplifting or exceeded the speed limit. It's also harder for convicts to get a job, because (admit it) no one wants to hire a criminal no matter how changed they are. P3: Felons should gain the right to vote by proving that their judgement is valid. If disenfranchisement is a punishment, then the disenfranchised convict is not an ex-felon. Since we're debating ex-felons, the point about disenfranchisement being a punishment is invalid. My opponent also argues that a felon needs to prove that his/her judgement is valid, however, voting is very subjective and varies from person to person. There is no such thing as a "valid" vote in an election. No politician is going to go up there and say, "We should legalize all types of drugs and drop the smoking age completely." We all know that's completely crazy and the millions of non-felons in the US are going to vote against it. A felon's vote won't cause something really crazy to happen, but their vote will matter when it comes to something like the Affordable Care Act. Now I'll defend my main points. I will be splitting the defenses into A), B), C), etc. since my opponent made multiple refutations to each point. P1: Restricting felons from voting violates the Constitution. A) "If a US citizen commits a felony, isn't that sufficient means to revoke the right to vote?" Actually, I do agree that a convicted felon shouldn't be able to vote from prison, jail, or while on parole or probation. But after the sentence is over, the right should be returned along with the felon's liberty, freedom of speech, etc. However, since we're debating ex-felons here, my opponent's point is invalid. B) "Also, restricting a person from voting does not seem to be a cruel or unusual punishment..." I never said this. I said ex-felon disenfranchisement violated the part of the 8th amendment about excessive sanctions. C) "As for the 15th amendment, I would interpret it to mean that a right should not be refused as a result of a previous condition of servitude, but would the right be refused as a result of the felony committed?" Again, we're debating ex-felons, not convicted felons in general. Perhaps disenfranchisement could be a form of capital punishment, but once the felon is free and served all sentences, he/she can't have the right to vote taken away. P2: Felon disenfranchisement encourages racial discrimination. A) "...African Americans and Hispanics already make up a minority in this country, and so your claim that felon disenfranchisement "creates an imbalance between races" would be true regardless." The problem is that even though these races make up a minority of the country's total population, they occupy the majority of prison cells. If felon disenfranchisement didn't exist, the imbalance would be gone. B) "It's not as if white people vote for one thing and minorities vote for another, so I see it as one million people simply not voting, and do not assume that most of them would have voted for X person due to the color of their skin." It's not just race, it's class and socio-economic status. Race and class are inseparable because minorities make up much of the lower income class, more so than the majority race. Overwhelmingly, the people who commit crimes are from the lower income class, and these are also the people who tend to vote for Democrats. Wealthier people tend to vote for Republicans. Indirectly (please note this statement is not trying to discriminate) Caucasians tend to vote for one candidate while minorities vote for the other. C) "...If they would break the law a second time because their individual opinion was not heard, then they probably should not have the right to vote." Then how do you explain the countries that do not disenfranchise ex-felons? These countries have a way lower crime rate than the US and other ex-felon disenfranchisement countries. Obviously, a felon's right to voice his/her own opinion prevents him/her from breaking the law. D) "I'd like to point out that although ex-felons cannot vote, they are still able to do a lot of other things such as organize a peaceful protest, or petition for change, etc." Remember, the topic states ELECTIONS. Not laws or policies. Felons need to vote on who leads their country for the next 4 years of their lives. Felons can't petition for a new president. How do you suggest to replace the right to vote in elections? P3: Felons deserve a right to vote. A) "I don't believe that they deserve this right until they can prove that they can handle the right responsibly" My opponent seems to think that if felons are allowed to vote, they'll somehow vote to legalize marijuana or something, but again the topic states elections not issues. The most felons will base their vote on is ObamaCare and other extremely controversial issues because no candidate is going to come out and say they want to legalize marijuana. B) "Assuming that felons could influence the outcome of an election, which is very unlikely, wouldn't it be detrimental to the majority?" My opponent has asked me a direct question. My answer is that no, it will not be a detriment, because again I'm arguing for them to vote in elections, not on bills or policies or issues. They make up part of the population and their voices need to be heard. This is actually better for the majority as there are more opinions on the election rather than just one group. Thanks, I look forward to the next round.

Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Felons have demonstrated bad behavior in choosing to commit the crime they did. So I would think that they are then unfit to make the most important decision than can make, which is to pick the person who will run our country. If we give felons the right to vote, then we are basically saying that there is no difference between them and law abiding citizens. That just does not seem right to me. Yes the government needs to protect people, but not for their voting rights. If they did the crime they need to know that there will be consequences and not being able to vote anymore should be one of them. They should not have the privilege to pick who makes the laws if you are not going to follow them yourself. If felons cared about what the government did then they would not be going out breaking the law that the government has set into place. Yes people are born with equal rights, but when someone chooses to break the laws that have been set in place, and then they have given up the chance to be treated equally with everybody else.

Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. R: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U. S. Clarification/Context So as to be as clear as possible. I am arguing that so called Felons should retain the right to vote in spite of being felons. Below is some basic information on the current circumstance in regard to the debate topic. “The idea of taking away a criminal's right to vote has been around since ancient Greece and Rome. A condition called "civil death" in Europe involved the forfeiture of property, the loss of the right to appear in court, and a prohibition on entering into contracts, as well as the loss of voting rights. Civil death was brought to America by English colonists, but most aspects of it were eventually abolished, leaving only felon disenfranchisement intact in some parts of modern America. ”(1)“5.3 million Americans (1 in 40 adults) were unable to vote due to a felony conviction in the 2008 elections. This included 1.4 million African-American men, more than 676,000 women, and 2.1 million ex-offenders who have completed their sentences. “(1) “State approaches to felon disenfranchisement vary tremendously. In Maine and Vermont, felons never lose their right to vote, even while they are incarcerated. In Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia, felons and ex-felons permanently lose their right to vote, without a pardon from the governor. Virginia and Florida have supplementary programs which facilitate gubernatorial pardons. The remaining 45 states have 45 different approaches to the issue. In 38 states and the District of Columbia, most ex-felons automatically gain the right to vote upon the completion of their sentence. In some states, ex-felons must wait for a certain period of time after the completion of their sentence before rights can be restored. In some states, an ex-felon must apply to have voting rights restored. ”(1) Burden of proofAs I am proposing the change to the status quo, I accept the burden of proof. I must affirm the resolution. Debate Format4 rounds/6,000 characters/72 hrs.

Resolved: In a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote. Resolved: In a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote Value: democratic society Value Criterion: Maximizing political participation Contention 1: A democratic society can not be legitimate if the people in it are not voting. This is because the definition of democracy dictates that we let every competent adult vote. If we bar felons from voting then we are not truly a democracy. Contention 2: Furthermore if we continue to disenfranchise felons then not only are we undemocratic but we are also racist. This is because in America the majority of felons tend to be minorities. In fact according to the Department of Justice for every 15,000 felons sentenced to prison 450 were white 1,356 were Hispanic and 3,188 were black. Therefore as one can clearly see felon disenfranchisement excludes a whole class of people from the voting process. As stated in my previous statistic the two major minorities that make up the majorities of felons in America are blacks and Hispanics. Due to this the voices of these two groups of people is not generally heard. So if one were to vote neg. this could in effect lead to the genocide of minorities as their voice would be stifled in the government. This proves that supporting felon disenfranchisement supports racism. Contention 3: Not only does felon disenfranchisement supports racism but it can change the result of important elections. Blacks and Hispanics generally vote Democratic. As these minorities make up the majorities of felons felon disenfranchisement favors the white dominated Republican party and skews the results of elections. An example of this would be my state of Florida in the 2004 election. If felons had been allowed to vote there is no way that George Bush would have won the presidency. Though Gore had the popular vote Bush had more electoral votes which enabled him to win. However if felons had been allowed to vote Gore would have had not only the popular vote but the electoral votes necessary to win. Contention 4: Additionally felon disenfranchisement is not truly a punishment. Disallowing felons from voting does nothing correct their behavior or to prevent them from committing a crime again. If anything it further separates them from society. This is injustice for if a man committed a felony in his late teens and is kept from voting from every election each time a new political figure come to power he will have to remember the mistake he made as a teen. He may be a reformed and upstanding member of society yet he will still be unable to vote. For these reason I support the affirmative of this resolution.

In a democratic society, a felon ought to retain the right to vote. I will, likewise, begin by defining the terms that I am introducing. Social contract (as applied here): A society submits itself to the jurisdiction of a government in exchange for protection Modern democracy: a government system ruled, in some way, by all willing citizens Modern democracy is, of course, founded on equality. This does not, however, override the duty of government in the social contract. Felons have, according to the rule of the law, not complied with the expectations of the society in which they live (as written in law). They are not fit to function with the normal rights of a citizen. Often they are placed in prison, where their freedoms are diminished severely. While the measure is not necessarily permanent, among these loss of freedoms it is fitting to place the right to vote. We assume that a felony indicates danger to a society, requiring punishment. If the judgment of the felon is erroneous as defined by law, then their judgment is not appropriate for selecting the leaders of their government.

Released Felons Should Be Allowed To Vote. In ordor to better form a flowing argument, I will boldface quotations from previous arguments and leave a line "---" to clarify a natural pause. If readers can recommend a better way to quote previous arguments then please leave a comment explaining the technicalities or a guide that details this.---"Thank you for the link to the documentary, I watched it (parts one and two) and found it very insightful and although it did reinforce a few of the points you made I do find it disturbing that you are willing to form opinions off the basis of one documentary showing one situation."This video is the most recent, valid source I could find of people that showed a mentality that fundamentally opposed organized law. Whats more--A lot of these men were unconvinced, thus they still, technically, retained the right to vote. Citing this video was a way for me to express the prison culture of violence that is embedded into the minds of many ex-felons.Overall, There are many reasons for me formulating this opinion. This video does not encapsulate my entire morality foundations. Also, personal rational is not on debate. The legitamacy of stripping felons of their rights is the topic of this debate.---"The people in that documentary are pre-trial, meaning that despite the fact that many have been there for years they have not yet served their debt to society. The purpose of being sentenced and serving time in prison is to over come these issues that they have dealing with normal members of society. Is it true that many of these felons will be released with the same immaturity shown here? Absolutely, but more than anything this points to a flaw in our justice system and our ability to rehabilitate our citizens. This is not grounds for denying them the right to vote."I cited grounds for denying them voting rights in my previous argument:*Article 1, Sec. 4;*Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment, and*Section Two of the Fifteenth Amendment.These are cited example in our legal code which enable states to strip citizens of their voting rights. I would flip your argument on it's face.It is more immoral to strip states of their rights, which are documented on the books at the federal levelthen it is to strip citizens of their voting rights. I'm sure there are judges out there that calculate the stripping of these rights into their final judgment. (Example: A judge sentencing a felon to 35 years in prison, and later being stripped of their voting rights rather then a more sever length of sentence with retained voting rights.)If Felons object to a lose in voting rights in that state, then they should move to another state that allows them to vote. Nobody is demanding that they stay; As long as it doesn't break their probation.There is a historic president for this. After the Civil War, many confederates left the southern states for the Great American Southwest. There, these traitors could remake themselves, elect representatives and build a society they wanted.---"You also said that we do not let children vote. This is true and we do this for very good reasons. But we do let them vote when they no longer are classified as children. This is similar to having been released from prison. Upon serving your sentence it is assumed that you have taken the time in prison to think about your mistakes and learn from them, which is very similar to a child turning eighteen. After serving in prison you are supposed to be released and join society. Part of this means taking on the responsibility's that children face when turning into adults, including the responsibility of voting."You claim to care about children growing up and conducting themselves in a democracy. Wouldn't this contradict your account on the rights of citizens to retain full rights after they ‘serve' their time in jail?Rational: How do you feel about pedophiles rights? Is a judge saying, "We need you to stay away from children" outside his sentencing procedure? You can see the necessity in keeping pedophiles away from Middle Schools and Elementary Schools, right? But, in your legal system, a judge would not be allowed to do that. That sort of bias against pedophiles would be unconstitutional by your standards.And, as a reminder, it is constitutional to strip felons of their voting rights according to the article and two amendments I cited in my earlier argument:*Article 1, Sec. 4;*Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment, and*Section Two of the Fifteenth Amendment.---"Another point you made was that released inmates would 'manipulate our judicial and election system to their own corrupt means'. By saying this you are bringing up a point you had made earlier about felons having a 'pathological hatred for justice' which is simply not true. The majority of inmates do not 'hate' justice. When released many felons become one hundred percent normal citizens, with political opinions formed similar to the way that you and I form ours. And another point to be made about them 'manipulating' the justice system is that it would be virtually impossible. Released felons account for somewhere around two percent of the United States, so even if all of them had this hatred for justice that you mentioned (which they don't) it would simply not make a dent in our elections."The fact that felons, as you admitted, account for two percent of the United States population just means that the stripping of voting rights is good deterrent for people to not commit crime. You said that the majority of inmates do not "‘hate'" justice, but you have nothing to cite otherwise.---"My final point for this round is I think my most important. One of the ideals that this country was founded on was 'No taxation without representation'. Upon being released from prison, felons are supposed to incorporate themselves into society, find a job, and pay taxes. One of the reasons that slogan exists is so the citizens could have a say as to where their tax dollars were being directed. Taxing felons and denying them this right is unconstitutional and immoral."Why should the American tax payer pay for the incarceration of these felons, but then be on an even keel with them when they are released. I say that you are the one trying to strip people of their rights. You are the one advocating the stripping of states rights, as guaranteed by the constitution, but then asking them to catch the bill of these felons. That is the true definition of taxation without representation.---"There are many people in the United States who did some regrettable act when they were young, served time and upon being released found a job, and for dozens of years have been respectable members of society including paying their taxes. Should we deny them their right to vote upon some stupid thing they did that long ago?"Yes. We should deny them their vote.A vote in favor of felons voting rights is a vote against taxpayers and state rights as guaranteed by:*Article 1, Sec. 4;*Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment, and*Section Two of the Fifteenth Amendment.Vote Con.Thankyou, and Jesus bless America.

Released Felons Should Be Allowed To Vote. In ordor to better form a flowing argument, I will boldface quotations from previous arguments and leave a line "---" to clarify a natural pause. If readers can recommend a better way to quote previous arguments then please leave a comment explaining the technicalities or a guide that details this.---"Thank you for the link to the documentary, I watched it (parts one and two) and found it very insightful and although it did reinforce a few of the points you made I do find it disturbing that you are willing to form opinions off the basis of one documentary showing one situation."This video is the most recent, valid source I could find of people that showed a mentality that fundamentally opposed organized law. Whats more--A lot of these men were unconvinced, thus they still, technically, retained the right to vote. Citing this video was a way for me to express the prison culture of violence that is embedded into the minds of many ex-felons.Overall, There are many reasons for me formulating this opinion. This video does not encapsulate my entire morality foundations. Also, personal rational is not on debate. The legitamacy of stripping felons of their rights is the topic of this debate.---"The people in that documentary are pre-trial, meaning that despite the fact that many have been there for years they have not yet served their debt to society. The purpose of being sentenced and serving time in prison is to over come these issues that they have dealing with normal members of society. Is it true that many of these felons will be released with the same immaturity shown here? Absolutely, but more than anything this points to a flaw in our justice system and our ability to rehabilitate our citizens. This is not grounds for denying them the right to vote."I cited grounds for denying them voting rights in my previous argument:*Article 1, Sec. 4;*Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment, and*Section Two of the Fifteenth Amendment.These are cited example in our legal code which enable states to strip citizens of their voting rights. I would flip your argument on it's face.It is more immoral to strip states of their rights, which are documented on the books at the federal levelthen it is to strip citizens of their voting rights. I'm sure there are judges out there that calculate the stripping of these rights into their final judgment. (Example: A judge sentencing a felon to 35 years in prison, and later being stripped of their voting rights rather then a more sever length of sentence with retained voting rights.)If Felons object to a lose in voting rights in that state, then they should move to another state that allows them to vote. Nobody is demanding that they stay; As long as it doesn't break their probation.There is a historic president for this. After the Civil War, many confederates left the southern states for the Great American Southwest. There, these traitors could remake themselves, elect representatives and build a society they wanted.---"You also said that we do not let children vote. This is true and we do this for very good reasons. But we do let them vote when they no longer are classified as children. This is similar to having been released from prison. Upon serving your sentence it is assumed that you have taken the time in prison to think about your mistakes and learn from them, which is very similar to a child turning eighteen. After serving in prison you are supposed to be released and join society. Part of this means taking on the responsibility's that children face when turning into adults, including the responsibility of voting."You claim to care about children growing up and conducting themselves in a democracy. Wouldn't this contradict your account on the rights of citizens to retain full rights after they ‘serve' their time in jail?Rational: How do you feel about pedophiles rights? Is a judge saying, "We need you to stay away from children" outside his sentencing procedure? You can see the necessity in keeping pedophiles away from Middle Schools and Elementary Schools, right? But, in your legal system, a judge would not be allowed to do that. That sort of bias against pedophiles would be unconstitutional by your standards.And, as a reminder, it is constitutional to strip felons of their voting rights according to the article and two amendments I cited in my earlier argument:*Article 1, Sec. 4;*Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment, and*Section Two of the Fifteenth Amendment.---"Another point you made was that released inmates would 'manipulate our judicial and election system to their own corrupt means'. By saying this you are bringing up a point you had made earlier about felons having a 'pathological hatred for justice' which is simply not true. The majority of inmates do not 'hate' justice. When released many felons become one hundred percent normal citizens, with political opinions formed similar to the way that you and I form ours. And another point to be made about them 'manipulating' the justice system is that it would be virtually impossible. Released felons account for somewhere around two percent of the United States, so even if all of them had this hatred for justice that you mentioned (which they don't) it would simply not make a dent in our elections."The fact that felons, as you admitted, account for two percent of the United States population just means that the stripping of voting rights is good deterrent for people to not commit crime. You said that the majority of inmates do not "‘hate'" justice, but you have nothing to cite otherwise.---"My final point for this round is I think my most important. One of the ideals that this country was founded on was 'No taxation without representation'. Upon being released from prison, felons are supposed to incorporate themselves into society, find a job, and pay taxes. One of the reasons that slogan exists is so the citizens could have a say as to where their tax dollars were being directed. Taxing felons and denying them this right is unconstitutional and immoral."Why should the American tax payer pay for the incarceration of these felons, but then be on an even keel with them when they are released. I say that you are the one trying to strip people of their rights. You are the one advocating the stripping of states rights, as guaranteed by the constitution, but then asking them to catch the bill of these felons. That is the true definition of taxation without representation.---"There are many people in the United States who did some regrettable act when they were young, served time and upon being released found a job, and for dozens of years have been respectable members of society including paying their taxes. Should we deny them their right to vote upon some stupid thing they did that long ago?"Yes. We should deny them their vote.A vote in favor of felons voting rights is a vote against taxpayers and state rights as guaranteed by:*Article 1, Sec. 4;*Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment, and*Section Two of the Fifteenth Amendment.Vote Con.Thankyou, and Jesus bless America.

prisoners and should they be able to vote We live in a society that accepts 1: All people born equal with rights 2: Government’s function is to secure unalienable rights 3: Government receives power through the consent of the governed via votingSee Declaration of Independence Eric H. Holder, JD, US Attorney General, stated the following in his Feb. 11, 2014 speech. “In many states, felony disenfranchisement laws are still on the books. And the current scope of these policies is not only too significant to ignore – it is also too unjust to tolerate… Across this country today, an estimated 5.8 million Americans – 5. 8 million of our fellow citizens – are prohibited from voting because of current or previous felony convictions. That’s more than the individual populations of 31 U.S. states. And although well over a century has passed since post- Reconstruction states used these measures to strip African Americans of their most fundamental rights, the impact of felony disenfranchisement on modern communities of color remains both disproportionate and unacceptable… It is unwise, it is unjust, and it is not in keeping with our democratic values.” (1) It is unjust, it affects millions of Americans, it is contrary to societies values, and undermines the role of government. As Eric Holder concludes, “These laws deserve to be not only reconsidered, but repealed.” (1) Through repeal of laws that remove the right to vote we can eliminate all harms associated with them. 1: Government cannot receive legitimate power through consent of the governed if the governed cannot vote. 2: Without consent or power the government cannot secure unalienable rights If the right to vote is taken away, our entire system of government cannot live up to its primary purpose. In the interest of our government filling its purpose, or in other words, securing the unalienable rights afforded to all men, it is only reasonable to conclude that Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. (1) www. Justice.gov

Felon Disenfranchisement Resolved: in a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote. Obs1. Since the United States is the only one of 166 democratic nations in the world that bar felons from voting the resolution is implying the US is the above democratic society. *Democratic Society (democracy): government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power of the land is vested in the people and directly exercised by them *Disenfranchisement: the revocation of the right to vote or suffrage to any individual or group of people, or rendering a vote less effective, or ineffective *Felon: a person who has been convicted of a felony, which is sufficiently serious to be punishable by death or a term in state or federal prison, as distinguished from a misdemeanor V: Human Rights- Human rights refers to the "basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled." Examples of rights and freedoms which are often thought of as human rights include civil and political rights, such as the right to life and liberty, freedom of expression, and equality before the law; and social, cultural and economic rights, including the right to participate in culture, the right to food, the right to work, and the right to education. VC: Equality- rights, treatment, quantity, or value equal to all others in a specific group- full equality under the law ::Contention1::Society uses disenfranchisement to protect the contestation of existing values. Throughout history the United States has used disenfranchisement as a means to oppress different demographic groups. Women, African Americans, and the poor have had their political rights denied in order to maintain the status quo. The poor were first to gain the right to vote under President Jackson. Shortly thereafter a broad range of economic and political reforms were instituted. The same has happened after with women and African American won enfranchisement. When these groups won their right to vote, there were major political, social, and economic shifts throughout the country. Because women were allowed to vote prohibition was passed. Society is scarred of the changes allowing felons to vote will bring to the nation. The same was true when African Americans gained the right to vote. Allowing felons to vote will not result in a massive wave of unjust laws, nor will the government be filled with felon politicians. The Democratic nature of our country will not let a minority of felons completely change the countries moral foundation. The democratic nature of our country also forbids the silencing of minority groups. In order to be a true democratic society we need to let all minorities participate in elections. If we don't we are taking away the basic human rights everyone deserves. ::Contention2:: Disenfranchised groups are seen as sub-citizens, and enfranchisement helps gain status as equals. African Americans and Women were long seen as sub-human in United States history. They were treated as property not as people. This is true with felons also. Notice in the resolution it does not refer to felons as people that made some mistakes, the resolution refers to them as felons. Felons are not treated as people. They have a hard time finding jobs. They don't make as much money. Felons have long term restrictions on their basic rights even after they have served their time and have payed their debt to society. Their right to privacy is often violated depending on state laws. They lose the rights to welfare, they lose housing rights, and they can lose parental rights. This is dehumanizing and further isolates felons from society. By giving felons the right to vote we give them a way to reintegrate into society. We give them a way to win their rights back. ::Contention3:: Limiting the right to vote introduces racial as well as economic and political inequalities. Racial/political--"Of the approximately 100,000 parolees and probationers subject to the New Jersey's felon-disfranchisement law, more than 60 percent are African American or Latino, which the ACLU and Rutgers say is in large measure a consequence of racial profiling in the criminal justice system. As a result, the political power of the African American and Latino communities in New Jersey is diluted because they are disproportionately excluded from voting. Disenfranchisement laws have been used to keep minorities out of power before. Literacy tests and poll taxes have been used to remove power disenfranchise minorities before and felon disfranchisement is another tool to keep the minorities out of power. Economic—according to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics most felons belong to the bottom quintile annual income. Disenfranchisement takes away felons right to vote on issues regarding felons. Felons lose their right to welfare. Most felons depend on this welfare to survive. Taking away the welfare further encourages felons to commit illegal acts to make ends meet. Giving felons the right to vote gives them a means to secure other rights and help they need to stay out of prison. ::Conclusion:: Because felon disenfranchisement creates inequality by restricting voting and making felons inferior to regular citizens, human rights are minimized. In order for human rights to be satisfied equality must be established. Felons must have the same opportunity to vote and have an equal chance to gain human rights.

Resolved: In the United States, Felons should be allowed to vote upon release from prison. Thank you for this challenge, henryzietlow. I accept the challenge and will debate you on the topic that, "In the United States, Felons should be allowed to vote upon release from prison. I would like to define felons as a person who has committed a crime punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year. This is the way the United States Government defines the term, according to the U. S. Department of Justice.

Post-retributive felonial disenfranchisement in the United States should be abolished. First and foremost, the rights given to the citizens of the United States are not explicitly "natural rights". That is, the constitution does not respect natural rights above law. This is evidenced by the fact that there are limitations to the practice of our freedom, most of which are sacrifices made willingly in order to protect society. While we as the citizenry may speak of natural rights since our country was founded on related philosophies, my opponent cannot simply assume that this philosophy can overrule American law. If my opponent wishes to argue that the disenfranchisement of ex-felons violates natural human rights, my opponent must first explain as an introductory note, why the philosophy of natural rights should supercede that of American Law, which includes modifiers to the "natural right" philosophy intended to offer security in exchange for some freedom. While it is convenient to speak of natural rights as what should be the ultimate good, my opponent has not set forth any argument saying that this philosophy of "natural rights" holds any weight. He simply assumes that this arbitrary moral code should be the basis for what is deemed right and wrong. However, let us assume that my opponent's notion of "natural rights" as the basis for morality is accepted, just for the purposes of this introductory round. My opponent argues that all citizens, ex-felons included, have the natural right to vote. Do they not also have the right to escape incarceration? What natural law, carved upon a large rock or tree, states that men have the right to vote, but not the right to deny people the ability to throw him in a jail cell for his actions? Where is the basis for these assumptions? And even if my opponent can reconcile these two points, there is another issue that must be resolved. My opponent's main argument is the notion that after a prisoner is released, he has served his punishment and thus, deserves all the rights he lost while incarcerated. Sex offenders, by law, are required to live a very restricted life once they are convicted. See Megan's Law: . http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...'s+Law Under my opponent's argument, convicted sex offenders, once released from prison, should be able to freely move to a different neighborhood and practice as a babysitter, daycare operator, dance instructor, masseuse, etc. without ever telling his new neighbors what had happened before. Should this be allowed? Should we tear down the registry of sex offenders just because it violates my opponent's description of natural rights? The answer is no, because the laws that withhold the rights of felons after their release, much like Megan's Law, are essentially part of the penalty for their crime. There is nothing in law limiting the types of punishment issued by the court solely to incarceration. Release of a convict from jail indicates nothing about the crime being wiped away, only that the incarceration part of the punishment is over. As such, this is absolutely not a violation of natural rights unless my opponent is willing to argue that every form of punishment is a violation of natural rights. Thank you, I await my opponent's response.

Post-retributive felonial disenfranchisement in the United States should be abolished. My thanks to my opponent for a rousing debate. The first issue which must be addressed before we can progress to our final analysis of the topic concerns the studies referenced in earlier rounds. My opponent attempts to discredit the studies in question; however, not only are the "flaws" he pointed out invalid, but the i no way relate to the issue at hand in today's debate. First we will address the issues that my opponent has with the Uggen/Manza study. A link to the study can be found below for those who wish to analyze my opponent's refutative shortcomings firsthand. http://www.soc.umn.edu... My opponent first attempts to discredit the chart found on page six, saying that it misleadingly attempts "to show a spike in felon voting, when the increase is merely ONE PERCENT IN TWENTY FIVE YEARS". However, when looking at the table in question, it is clear that the table actually concerns "Felon Disenfranchisement as a Percentage of the U.S. Voting-Age Population, 1974 to 2000". It shows that, as a proportion of the US voting-age population, felons have risen from about 1% to about 2.3%. Further, not only is the Negative's attempt at refutation misleading, but it has nothing to do with the issue of whether or not ex-felons should be allowed to vote. My opponent proceeds to critique the method used to calculate the table on page 17 demonstrating the potential impact felon voting could hold. To summarize this table briefly: in 2000, released felons in the state of Florida could not vote. The survey determined that felons supposedly vote in favor of the Democratic Party and thus would have likely changed the decision in the 2000 presidential election, potentially resulting in Kerry's election instead of Bush. My opponent states that the sample size used in this calculation is too small to determine how felons across Florida would have voted. My response: So what? My opponent fails again to link his criticism to the issue of disenfranchisement. The actual issue for which I cited this essay, which was to prove that felon disenfranchisement does not deter crime, stands completely uncontested. Whether felons vote Republican or Democrat is of no weight in this debate. We then move on to the paper by Mr. Gabriel Chin. Again, for those following along, the link is provided below. http://papers.ssrn.com... The actual reason for which this paper was cited was to underline the fact that ex-felons exercising their democratic rights have dramatically lower recidivism rates. Chin cites the previous Uggen/Manza study for statistics but was cited due to his concise and simple analysis of these statistics. "For those with criminal records and without, voting reduced future criminal involvement. Of those who voted in 1996, 5.2 per one thousand were arrested, and 4.7 per thousand were incarcerated in 1997-2000; of those who did not vote, the arrest rate was 15.6 per thousand and the incarceration rate 12.4 per thousand. Separating these statistics into those with and without prior criminal records showed the same effect. Of those with prior arrest records, 26.6 per thousand of non-voters were rearrested, while only 12.1 per thousand of voters were rearrested. Of those with no arrest history, 10.1 per thousand of non-voters were arrested, while only 3.5 per thousand of voters were arrested. The correlation between voting and law-abiding behavior held when using self-reports of criminal behavior: Those who voted were much less likely to admit having committed a property or violent crime for which they were not arrested than those who failed to perform their civic duty." This evidence clearly highlights a direct relation between voting rights and low crime rates. Again the Negative ignores the sections of my citations that are actually relevant to the arguments for which they were cited. With the issue of evidence clarified, we move on to our analysis of the topic. For a law to gain legitimacy, it must be just (through adhering to the standard of natural rights) and it must be effective (by achieving some worthwhile goal). Laws that are not just should be eliminated because they are oppressive, and ineffective laws should be eliminated because they serve no purpose, or, in the case of disenfranchisement, actually work in opposition to the principles of justice. The opposition has agreed that a just government only violates a citizen's natural rights in protection of those of another. He has remained silent on exactly how a person's natural rights are violated through felon voting. Felons are presently allowed to vote in many states, and yet there are no instances of people being unable to function as human beings for this reason. I later made the point that persons convicted of felonies as teenagers had no way of realizing the rights which they forfeited when committing their crime. Pro made no response. The negative also states that a precedent is set for restricting felon's natural rights after prison through Megan's Law. When I pointed out that such laws do not violate the natural rights of the offender, he ignored the issue. The opposition attempts to claim that disenfranchisement is set to protect democracy from "harmful" persons. He fails to elaborate on how felons "harm" democracy. In fact, this point would seem to be countered by the previous evidence considering disenfranchisement and recidivism, and by my opponent himself, who claimed that "only those felons who are actually stable enough not to violate the law again actually care enough to vote." Persons with mental handicaps are not prohibited from voting, even though some would believe that limited decision making capabilities would "harm" democracy. In Civil War-era America blacks were denied the right to vote when many people held the opinion that blacks held lower metal capacities than white males. Voting rights for marginalized minority groups, such as blacks (previously) as well as the mentally handicapped and ex-felons (presently), are often contested on these grounds. Ultimately, however, the issue lies in the boundaries of natural rights. This standard has not been contested by my opponent. The opposition has provided no reason to believe that felons would harm democracy, but even if they did, disenfranchisement is still negated because man's rights as a political animal are defended for ex-felons just as they are for the mentally handicapped or for any other eligible citizen who is capable of exercising their natural rights. In further support of the resolution, disenfranchisement is negated on pragmatic grounds. The possible goals of disenfranchisement that have been discussed are: as a protection of democracy, as a deterrent of crime, and as a method of controlling recidivism rates. As already covered, there is no reason to believe that felons endanger democracy, especially because allowing felons to vote can only expand the scope of democracy. This reason is also opposed by the principle standard of natural rights. The latter two issues have been extensively covered by research and evidence. When addressing this evidence, the opposition provides reasoning that is both inaccurate and irrelevant. This debate is not about whether or not a felon would have voted for Bush or Kerry: this debate concerns whether or not felons should have been allowed to vote in the first place. The opposition misleads the reader and fails to address the portions of evidence that actually pertain to the issue of disenfranchisement. Ultimately, then, we come to the conclusion that the status quo fails on the front of the protection of natural rights ad on the front of effectiveness at pursuing a worthwhile goal. Addressing the former, Con fails to demonstrate how felon voting harms natural rights, and with the latter he fails to address the issue entirely. The resolution stands. Vote Affirmative.

Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections. Second round is constructive only (no rebuttals). Third round is constructive and rebuttals. Fourth round is rebuttals only (no new arguments). Fifth round is summary and impact weighing. Please keep content organized, appropriate, and respectful. Use correct grammar and spelling. Ad hominem will not be tolerated. A forfeit means a win for the other side. I will define in the second round and set up framework. Thanks, and good luck! -Lulu P. S. Feel free to leave constructive criticism in the comments. Voters, give reasons for your decision.

Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. I accept my opponents value of Democracy. A key note of democracy is majority rule. Large groups get more representation and therefore have more power. Felons are not a large group in the United States and therefore should be subject to the will of the non-felons. value and criteria -Maximizing rights Felons represent 1.6% of the population. By not voting the 98.4% of the non-felon population of the United States has more rights and there for the maximization of rights occurs. 98.4% vs. 1.6% who should get the rights. (US Bureau of Justice Statistics). My value and criteria is rationality. If you stop, sit down, and think about what a felon is you will realize why they should not vote. Over half of felons are drug abusers. 49% of people in prison are there for a violent offence. They are generally less educated. These people are rapists, child molesters, drug lords, thieves, and murders. Do we really want these people to have a say about what goes on in this country. Contention one: Most say "If we allow this minority group (felons) to be disenfranchised, what is to stop us from doing it to others?" This is a simple question; the Constitution. Amendment XIV specifically says states have the right to stop criminals from voting. The other Amendments also make it impossible for other minority groups to be disenfranchised. Disenfranchisement is not an issue. Contention two: The felons don't have a right to vote in states that don't allow it, and in order for any other rights to be violated; the rights of others besides felons would have to be violated as well. In America we have constitutional safeguards against this. Everyone is guaranteed basic rights in the United States. A.Voting does not help felons re-enter society. 67.5% of all felons are sent back to prison within three years of their imprisonment (US Bureau of Justice Statistics). This rate is very consistent across all 50 states. There is no difference between states that let felons vote and states that don't. Voting has no impact on recidivism. B.States have the right to restrict voters based on their criminal records (amendment XIV, section II) Again they made the choice, they knew the consequences, and now they have their voting rights rebuked. It's part of their sentence. Contention three: If you go back to my criterion by stopping felons from voting we are not crippling it we are strengthening it. There are 5.3 million felons that cannot vote. This is 5.3 million uneducated, drug addicted, parasites on society that we don't have to worry about screwing this country up. In order to have a strong democracy you need educated, people that are going to make the best choice for their country. Felons don't meet this requirement. 1-Harm Principal/social contract It is acceptable to restrict ones liberty when they have infringed on the rights of others. Being a citizen of the United States binds you to this social contract. If you break the laws you must suffer the consequences. Losing voting rights is one of these consequences. 2-Maintain Order Because of their actions we know what criminals support. The question is do we want these morals reflected in our laws? By giving felons representation we are essentially giving them the power to make laws. This would result in a mess. What kind of laws are pedophiles going to try and push? What do you think drug addicts will want? This also can result with problems of political corruption. I am one who believes in responsibility. Everyone on this earth has responsibility and can use it. But by granting them a right they don't deserve, they are taking us for granted and we are letting them. Now prisons take such good care of their occupants, that some would prefer living in a prison because they can get pampered and taken care of. It's been said that there has even been said that some felons have purposely committed a crime just to be in prison where they feel is a better place to live. So I rest my case by saying things because I believe my ethics are correct, and that justice need be taken place if so deserved. For all these reasons I negate.

Convicted Felons should be allowed to vote in all U.S. elections I accept.

Post-retributive felonial disenfranchisement in the United States should be abolished. The Affirmative advocates that citizens convicted of felonies under the legal system who have subsequently fulfilled all allotted punishment requirements, including jail time, parole, probation, etc. should regain their right to participate in the American democratic process. Throughout this discussion, felons who meet the above criteria shall be referred to in shorthand as "ex-felons". "Felon(y) disenfranchisement" will also be used to refer to the resolutional topic. Under the status quo, Kentucky and Virginia impose lifelong disenfranchisement punishments against persons convicted of felonies. Other states deny felons the right to vote for various lengths of time after their punishments have been fulfilled. The Affirmative argues that the continued withholding of democratic rights is an arbitrary obstruction to the operation of the democratic process. Natural rights are characterized by man's inherent nature as a political animal, a social animal, a property-owning animal, and a maker of things. Any necessity directly arising from these characteristics, or from a necessity to life and self-preservation, thus falls under the category of natural rights. Theories of retributive justice concern what action should be taken if one's natural rights are violated by a third party and to what extent the rights of the third party can be violated in the cause of justice. The United States operates as a representative democracy, and as a result, citizens must maintain the right to participate in the democratic process in order to operate as political animals within the current system. When a person commits a felony, the criminal relinquishes certain rights in the name of communal protection. That is, the system of justice takes appropriate measures in order to assure that the criminal does not harm society or violate the rights of members of society. The system of justice determines the level of punishment required according to the severity of the crime; if it does not fulfill this task then it cannot claim to uphold justice. Once the criminal has fulfilled their punishments, they are released back into society. The justice system gives implicit consent that the criminal is ready to function within society: if they still posed threat to society, they would obviously remain incarcerated. However, felon disenfranchisement continues to restrict citizens from participating in society. Because the right to vote within a democracy is a direct extension of man's rights as a political animal, the continued disenfranchisement of ex-felons stands as an unjust and unneeded barrier that impedes the direct appropriation of justice and obstructs the reintegration of the criminal back into the social fabric. Regardless of whether the job of the criminal justice system is primarily a retributive or protective one, felon disenfranchisement only constitutes an arbitrary obstacle to democracy and obstruction of natural rights. This shall stand as the primary thesis for my position, although additional points will certainly arise from this central argument. I await my opponent's response. Referenced: http://jim.com...

In a Democratic Society Felons ought to Retain the Right to Vote Thank you for posting this debate. Since this resolution is an LD topic, I will outline what Lincoln Douglas Debate is for anyone who votes. If my opponent disagrees with how I explain LD, we can argue in the comment section. However, this is a basic outline of how to judge LD debate. The value is each debater's goal for the round. Values must be topical. The value criterion (sometimes called standard, criterion, VC) is a weighing mechanism used to determine if and to what degree the value is met. If an argument is never attacked, it is called a "dropped" argument. Once dropped, the opponent can not refute it in later rounds. Furthermore, an argument must always be extended (carried on in the next round) to have any impact. Neither side can ignore one of their own arguments and then bring it up in the last speech. Also, no new arguments can be brought up in round 3. They should be ignored if they are. And lastly, the affirmative side always has the burden of proof, and the negative side has the burden of refutation. When voting, you should first decide what value is the "paramount value" for the round. Next, you decide which VC best measures to what degree the resolution achieves the value. And finally, you look at the contentions (arguments) and determine which ones weigh the most on the VC. Whomever has the arguments that best achieve the value through the VC wins. It is possible to lose ones value and VC, but still win. Now my case... ************************************************************************************** Aristotle once said, "If liberty and equality are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost." Because I believe this statement, I stand in firm affirmation of resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. Before continuing, I offer the following definitions: Democratic society: is government by the people in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. Abraham Lincoln summarized this best in the words "of the people, by the people, and for the people." Felons: as defined by Black's Law Dictionary as one who has committed a felony. Ought: Should, or in the best interests of the actor Since these definitions will set the grounds for today's debate, a few observations are required – Observation 1: A democracy has three key elements that are essential to its existence: a)A political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections. b)The active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life. c)A rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens. It is with utmost importance that we all recognize the necessity of all three of these elements. By violating one, the democracy ceases to be a democracy. Therefore, both sides of this debate have the burden to prove that there position will not ignore any one of the three. Observation 2: A felon is not only a person currently in jail, but anyone who ever committed a felon, now, or decades in the past. In other words, a man who was convicted of a felon in 1960 is still considered a felon in 2008. Therefore, neither my opponent nor I can overlook this group in our argumentation. With both these observation in mind, we can look to my paramount value for today's round of maximizing equality. There are multiple reasons why maximizing equality is the paramount value: 1.Equality is the foundation for a democracy. All three elements of a democracy involve equality. If equality is not achieved, then the democracy falls. Therefore, equality has necessity 2.Equality can clearly be defined. When two individuals have the same possibility to act in the political process, equality is established. Other values, such as morality or justice can not clearly be defined, for they are subjective. To achieve equality, my value criterion is philosopher Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative. The Categorical Imperative is simply a cost-benefit analysis for an action. If the net gain outweighs the net loss, according to Kant, then the action should be done. The Categorical Imperative is the best standard for maximizing equality because: 1.The Categorical Imperative is a clear weighing mechanism and has a clear bright line. In other words, we know when an action meets the categorical imperative. 2.The Categorical Imperative is topical. With the word ought, the resolution implies an agent must determine if he or she will have a net benefit from the action. 3.The Categorical Imperative is needed for equality. A democracies primary goal is it's survival. If it falls, it can no longer achieve any of it's other goals. Equality is how a democracy is maintained. So in the context of this debate, an action that preserves a democracy, one that leads to equality, will always be the ultimate benefit from the Categorical Imperative. Therefore any action, according to my criterion that should be done, will lead to equality. Contention 1: Felon suffrage has no harms Subpoint A: Felon suffrage for those currently in jail has no harms I would like to reference my definition of ought, which describes an action that is beneficial to the actor. Therefore, my opponent will try to argue that suffrage to felons is harmful to society. This is simply not true. Since a democracy follows majority rule, a minority can only enact change when a section of the majority switches sides. Because of this, felons can not change public policy in a manner that will benefit them and harm the majority on a greater scale than any individual voter. Let's analyze a hypothetical scenario. A bill to abolish the death penalty is being voted on. If the death penalty is proven to help society, then the majority of society will vote to maintain it. So even if every single felon votes to abolish the death penalty, it will remain in place. Since no harm can come from allowing felons the right to vote, how can we say they don't deserve the same opportunity as everyone else. Subpoint B: Felon suffrage for those out of jail has no harms. It is understood that criminals deserve a punishment, but do they deserve a punishment beyond that decided on by a judiciary? Absolutely not. After serving their sentence, be in a fine or time in jail, a felon should be treated like the rest of society. By abolishing the felon's right to vote, we unjustly increase their punishment. Therefore, a felon, who has served their time, deserves the right to vote. Contention 2: Felon suffrage has benefits. Subpoint A: Felon suffrage preserves equality The expansion of suffrage is needed for equality to exist. If voting rights are distributed on different levels for different people, equality is obviously not met. Equality can not be achieved with anything else but suffrage. If two individuals are treated completely equal by a government, except with the ability to vote, then the individual with suffrage has an unfair and unequal advantage in changing public policy for his betterment. Subpoint B: Felon suffrage helps society progress Sometimes the majority is only a slight majority when the issue is highly debated or has no clear answer to it's net gains. In this instance, felons can add another perspective to the equation. For example, most individuals do not know the quality of their prison system. Felons do. In the case of a bill that wants to give millions of dollars to fund prison reform, the opinion of voters will split. Many will consider it a waste of precious money, while others may see the benefits of a better prison system. The majority may be those against the funding, but they aren't necessarily right. If felons have the right to vote, they can add numbers to the minority and possibly make it the majority.

In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote Intro: Abraham Lincoln once defined America's democracy as a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." The "people" in this quote refers to American Citizens. In this quote, it says that the citizens control the government. Since the way that the citizens control the government is by voting, I urge you to affirm the resolution: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. For clarity I would like to give the following definitions: Felon: a person who has committed a felony, which is a grave offense against society, such as murder or burglary, and commonly punished by imprisonment of more than a year, or death. Democratic Society: an organized group that is characterized by the principle of political or social equality Disenfranchisement: To deny the right to vote of a person. Vote: To express or signify will or choice in a matter Retain: To keep hold of Value: My value in this round will be a democracy. A democracy is a form of government in which the supreme power is held completely by the people under a free electoral system. This means that the people have all the power. My value criterion is maintaining equality. Equality is the idea that all people should be treated the same, with the same rights. Equality can achieve democracy because in an ideal democracy, the people hold the power, which is evenly distributed throughout the people. Thus, equality is the way to democracy. Body: 1)Since all citizens should vote, and all felons are citizens, therefore all felons should retain the right to vote. The 26th amendment of the Constitution states that all citizens over 18 years old have the right to vote. Also, the resolution says that "felons ought to retain the right to vote. This implies that voting is a right, because in order to retain something, it has to be already there. All felons are citizens. Just because they have committed a felony doesn't mean that they immediately lose citizenship. Disallowing the felon's right to vote would not be possible because denying the citizenship of a person just because he committed something as simple as burglary is completely insensible. This relates to my VC because it talks about voting. Equality means that everyone has equal rights, and since voting is a right, everyone should have equal rights to vote. 2)My second contention is that disallowing a felon to vote is showing prejudice towards the person. The 15th amendment of the US Constitution states, "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." Since statistics show that some types of people are more affected than others by felon disenfranchisement, which is prohibiting felons to vote, my contention relates to the resolution. a)Felon disenfranchisement is prejudiced on social classes. In a book review by Jason DeParle, which was published on the New York Times, he stated that, "everyone is affected, but not equally…Whites with only a high school education get locked up twenty times as often as those with college degrees." Since the wealth of a family will often determine whether their children go to college, and which college they will go to, felon disenfranchisement clearly discriminates against poorer families. b)Also, denying felons the right to vote makes them second class citizens. Since all US citizens should be equal, as shown in the Declaration of Independence "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" No one can claim superiority over their own siblings. In the same way, no one can claim superiority in rights over any other person, because scientists have proven that all humans came from the same peoples. Since all humans are equal, there should not be second-class citizens, so felons should not be denied the right to vote. c)This supports equality, because prejudice is an example of inequality. By allowing felons to vote, we can maintain equality of the people, and thereby achieve democracy. 3)My third contention is that felony is an opinion. it is not always the same. Since the resolution does not state that the democracy has determined the person to be a felon, it is possible that a person who creates a democratic society can be a felon from a dictatorship that had happened before the democracy. a)This can be shown in the country of Maldives, in Southeast Asia, which is currently a democratic society. This democracy is currently headed by a man who was placed in house arrest for speaking out against a brutal government. This shows that although he was considered a felon to the previous government, he is now still part of a democratic society. b)Since the act of felony is an opinion, it will differ by people, and therefore, we have no right to disallow a felon to vote, when his act of felony might be anything from drug abuse to burglary to serial murder. Therefore, felon disenfranchisement is wrong because it restricts the rights of citizens. 4)My fourth contention is that voting can be for anything. It could be a vote for a preferred lunch, or a vote for the name of an adopted pet's name. Thus, felons should have the right to express their own feelings about a certain thing through voting. Conclusion: Disallowing felons to vote will lead to a downfall of a democracy. In the book, Democracy in America, by Alexis de Tocqueville, it states "Once a people begin to interfere with the voting qualification, one can be sure that sooner or later it will abolish it altogether. That is one of the most invariable rules of social behavior." This means that disallowing some types of people to vote can be continued to completely abolishing the concept of voting. Since a democracy needs voting to occur, disallowing felons to vote will eventually destroy the democracy. I would also like to remind you that all citizens have the right to vote, as determined in the Constitution, which is the basis of American government. Therefore, I urge to affirm the resolution: In a democratic society, felons should be allowed to vote. Thank You!

In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote Intro: Abraham Lincoln once defined America's democracy as a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." The "people" in this quote refers to American Citizens. In this quote, it says that the citizens control the government. Since the way that the citizens control the government is by voting, I urge you to affirm the resolution: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. For clarity I would like to give the following definitions: Felon: a person who has committed a felony, which is a grave offense against society, such as murder or burglary, and commonly punished by imprisonment of more than a year, or death. Democratic Society: an organized group that is characterized by the principle of political or social equality Disenfranchisement: To deny the right to vote of a person. Vote: To express or signify will or choice in a matter Retain: To keep hold of Value: My value in this round will be a democracy. A democracy is a form of government in which the supreme power is held completely by the people under a free electoral system. This means that the people have all the power. My value criterion is maintaining equality. Equality is the idea that all people should be treated the same, with the same rights. Equality can achieve democracy because in an ideal democracy, the people hold the power, which is evenly distributed throughout the people. Thus, equality is the way to democracy. Body: 1)Since all citizens should vote, and all felons are citizens, therefore all felons should retain the right to vote. The 26th amendment of the Constitution states that all citizens over 18 years old have the right to vote. Also, the resolution says that "felons ought to retain the right to vote. This implies that voting is a right, because in order to retain something, it has to be already there. All felons are citizens. Just because they have committed a felony doesn't mean that they immediately lose citizenship. Disallowing the felon's right to vote would not be possible because denying the citizenship of a person just because he committed something as simple as burglary is completely insensible. This relates to my VC because it talks about voting. Equality means that everyone has equal rights, and since voting is a right, everyone should have equal rights to vote. 2)My second contention is that disallowing a felon to vote is showing prejudice towards the person. The 15th amendment of the US Constitution states, "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." Since statistics show that some types of people are more affected than others by felon disenfranchisement, which is prohibiting felons to vote, my contention relates to the resolution. a)Felon disenfranchisement is prejudiced on social classes. In a book review by Jason DeParle, which was published on the New York Times, he stated that, "everyone is affected, but not equally…Whites with only a high school education get locked up twenty times as often as those with college degrees." Since the wealth of a family will often determine whether their children go to college, and which college they will go to, felon disenfranchisement clearly discriminates against poorer families. b)Also, denying felons the right to vote makes them second class citizens. Since all US citizens should be equal, as shown in the Declaration of Independence "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" No one can claim superiority over their own siblings. In the same way, no one can claim superiority in rights over any other person, because scientists have proven that all humans came from the same peoples. Since all humans are equal, there should not be second-class citizens, so felons should not be denied the right to vote. c)This supports equality, because prejudice is an example of inequality. By allowing felons to vote, we can maintain equality of the people, and thereby achieve democracy. 3)My third contention is that felony is an opinion. it is not always the same. Since the resolution does not state that the democracy has determined the person to be a felon, it is possible that a person who creates a democratic society can be a felon from a dictatorship that had happened before the democracy. a)This can be shown in the country of Maldives, in Southeast Asia, which is currently a democratic society. This democracy is currently headed by a man who was placed in house arrest for speaking out against a brutal government. This shows that although he was considered a felon to the previous government, he is now still part of a democratic society. b)Since the act of felony is an opinion, it will differ by people, and therefore, we have no right to disallow a felon to vote, when his act of felony might be anything from drug abuse to burglary to serial murder. Therefore, felon disenfranchisement is wrong because it restricts the rights of citizens. 4)My fourth contention is that voting can be for anything. It could be a vote for a preferred lunch, or a vote for the name of an adopted pet's name. Thus, felons should have the right to express their own feelings about a certain thing through voting. Conclusion: Disallowing felons to vote will lead to a downfall of a democracy. In the book, Democracy in America, by Alexis de Tocqueville, it states "Once a people begin to interfere with the voting qualification, one can be sure that sooner or later it will abolish it altogether. That is one of the most invariable rules of social behavior." This means that disallowing some types of people to vote can be continued to completely abolishing the concept of voting. Since a democracy needs voting to occur, disallowing felons to vote will eventually destroy the democracy. I would also like to remind you that all citizens have the right to vote, as determined in the Constitution, which is the basis of American government. Therefore, I urge to affirm the resolution: In a democratic society, felons should be allowed to vote. Thank You!

In a democratic society, a felon ought to retain the right to vote. My opponent stated, "Modern democracy is, of course, founded on equality." He agrees with my value. A right is not the same as a privilege. A right is something that cannot be taking away. My opponent is saying why a right, something that is garanteed, should be stripped away for the felon's entire life. Modern Democracy is based on voting. The only thing that is important in a democracy is voting, it does not matter whether or not they did something bad or not. By excluding citizens from voting, you are going against a democracy. A felon may go against the law, and may endanger society, but why should he be punished twice? Jail is supposed to help the prisoner go back into society as smoothly as possible. But if the right to vote were to be taken away, he could not interact with the rest of the democratic society, and would not be able to vote on things that he wants. It would make him more likely to lash out again against society. This is not at all like a democratic society. A democratic society has equal rights for all, because in a democracy, no one is excluded.

R: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. We live in a society that accepts the notion of unalienable rights. As a society we accept that the main duty of a government is to secure such rights. Such a government receives their power from the consent of the governed. In our society this is done through voting. Ground work: Unalienable Rights “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” (Declaration of Independence) Unalienable: “impossible to take away or give up” (1) We live in a society that accepts the concept that some rights are unalienable. The Duty of Government “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men” (Declaration of Independence) “Locke believed that natural rights were inalienable, and that the rule of God therefore superseded government authority;” (2) We live in a society that requires of its government the protection and security of such rights. The Power of the People “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”(Declaration of Independence) “Rousseau believed that democracy (self-rule) was the best way of ensuring the general welfare while maintaining individual freedom under the rule of law.”(2) We live in a society that dictates that the power of government come from the consent of the governed Via voting. "A man without a vote is a man without protection." Lyndon B. Johnson 36th U.S. President (3) "Voting is the most precious right of every citizen" Hillary Clinton (4) The whole picture We live in a society that accepts… 1: All people born equal with rights 2: Government’s function is to secure unalienable rights 3: Government receives power through the consent of the governed via voting Contention: Harm and Solvency. As shown in round 1 the status quo removes the right to vote from many felons. Eric H. Holder, JD, US Attorney General, stated the following in his Feb. 11, 2014 speech. “In many states, felony disenfranchisement laws are still on the books. And the current scope of these policies is not only too significant to ignore – it is also too unjust to tolerate… Across this country today, an estimated 5.8 million Americans – 5. 8 million of our fellow citizens – are prohibited from voting because of current or previous felony convictions. That’s more than the individual populations of 31 U.S. states. And although well over a century has passed since post- Reconstruction states used these measures to strip African Americans of their most fundamental rights, the impact of felony disenfranchisement on modern communities of color remains both disproportionate and unacceptable… … It is unwise, it is unjust, and it is not in keeping with our democratic values.” (5) The harm of the status quo is clear. It is unjust, it affects millions of Americans, it is contrary to societies values, and undermines the role of government. As Eric Holder concludes, “These laws deserve to be not only reconsidered, but repealed.” (5) Through repeal of laws that remove the right to vote we can eliminate all harms associated with them. Conclusion: 1: Government cannot receive legitimate power through consent of the governed if the governed cannot vote. 2: Without consent or power the government cannot secure unalienable rights “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”( Declaration of Independence) If the right to vote is taken away, our entire system of government cannot live up to its primary purpose. In the interest of our government filling its purpose, or in other words, securing the unalienable rights afforded to all men, it is only reasonable to conclude that Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Sources: (1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...... (2) https://en.wikipedia.org...... (3) http://www.brainyquote.com... (4) http://www.brainyquote.com... (5) www. Justice.gov

Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections. I'll begin by responding to refutals P1: Many felons return to prison within 3 years of the same or another crime. You asked "Does it make sense to take away the rights of a citizen just because of something they MIGHT do?". To that question, I respond by saying that this right would be taken away because of something an ex-felon has done in the past and is LIKELY to do again (according to statistics, I know that not every ex-felon is going to be convicted again, but a majority are). I believe that the punishment of disenfranchisement lasts for life simply because its meant to prevent citizens from committing a felony, and thus give them an incentive not to become a felon. P2: It would not be fair to citizens who have never been convicted of a felony. I think that it is perfectly justified to implement bigger consequences for those who have broken the law in the past, in an attempt to prevent them from doing so again. However, if a criminal is determined to start a new life as a law abiding citizen (who would not be shoplifting or anything of the sort anyways), then who is to say that they are not able to find work? Sure, it may be more difficult, but not impossible, and that is just one of the social consequences of breaking the law the first time. If you wanted to become the next CEO of a major corporation, you probably should not have committed a felony. So obviously ex-felons are barred from high ranking positions, and that's because of society, but there are plenty of jobs out there if one is looking for them and is determined to work hard. P3: Felons should gain the right to vote by proving that their judgement is valid. The life long consequences of breaking the law do not mean that a felon cannot become an ex-felon, that's absurd. Once a felon is released from prison, he/she can pursue anything he/she wants, and the inability to vote will not directly effect that freedom (once again, perhaps indirectly). Clearly somebody who has committed a felony has at one time had an invalid judgement, and so, should we really be required to allow them to vote if they are still in a similar state of mind? Would we want a mentally ill person voting? Not an irrelevant comparison, as both may have distorted views of what is right and wrong. Thus the implementation of some sort of psychological evaluation would be enough to confirm a certain level of mental stability and reasoning that is acceptable. Clearly somebody with a reasoning that its ok to kill or steal should not be allowed to vote in elections that influence all of us as a whole. Their judgements and by extension opinions are invalid. Now on to refuting your points P1: Restricting felons from voting violates the Constitution. A) I meant that if a US citizen commits a felony, it is justifiable to revoke their right to vote for life (I'll explain why later) B) Although revoking the right to vote lasts forever, I do not believe it to be an excessive sanction either. Once again, individually, the right to vote does not effect normal life in society, and you can function perfectly fine without it. C) Here I was saying that an ex-felon's right to vote was revoked simply because they broke the law, not because of the previous condition of servitude itself. The mere fact that they were in prison does not effect the right to vote, its the felony that was committed. P2: Felon disenfranchisement encourages racial discrimination. A) Your statement that minorities " occupy the majority of prison cells" is correct. However, even if they could vote, the imbalance would still very much be there. Also, just because many prisoners are minorities does not make it acceptable to give them the right to vote, based merely on that fact. They did something wrong, and the color of their skin has nothing to do with that (although it may be linked to socio-economic background). This is implemented across the board, so even though many ex-felons are minorities, white ex-felons do not have the ability to vote either, and so the law does not discriminate against race. B) You said "Overwhelmingly, the people who commit crimes are from the lower income class, and these are also the people who tend to vote for Democrats". While this may be true, we cannot assume that they would vote for any one candidate, and so revoking an ex-felons ability to vote cannot be seen as an attempt to suppress Democratic voters. That would be openly admitting that most ex-felons are Democrats due to the fact that they are minorities. C) You asked "Then how do you explain the countries that do not disenfranchise ex-felons?" Well I have found no data that would suggest that crime rates and disenfranchisement have any correlation at all. If I had to guess, I would say these countries have a lower crime rate because of their social safety nets and superior public education systems, but I honestly do not know. D) I did not suggest that ex-felons replace the right to vote, I was simply implying that there are other ways to express an opinion other than voting. According to your argument, ex-felons resort to breaking the law if their opinions are not heard, but expressing your opinion can be done through many other ways, and not just through voting. P3: Felons deserve a right to vote. A) How are we supposed to gauge whether or not an ex-felon is capable of using this right responsibly? He/she may vote for a candidate with many flaws because he/she does not have the judgement necessary to see or even weigh these things against possible benefits that the candidate may provide to him/her specifically. B) By voting for the next president, ex-felons indirectly decide which policies and bills are implemented or signed into law. Although they do provide a larger group that is voting, are every single one of their opinions valid enough to be able to effect us all? This is why some kind of evaluation should first be done to ensure that ex-felons are able to reason, and subsequently weigh pro's and con's of candidates in elections. Those were some very strong arguments you put up, I look forward to the final round :)

ex felons should be able to vote i think ex felons should vote because we need more people voting and why should something they did a long time ago be agianst them now but i understand that ex felons most of did something very bad but they are still us citizens and all us citizen deserve to vote for their country.

in a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote When you kill a man, you steal a life. When you tell a lie, you steal someone's right to the truth. When you cheat, you steal the right to fairness. There is no act more wretched than stealing. Where when dealing with a democratic society which strives for justice by means of considering its consequences one must negate the following resolution resolved: In a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote. Ones sole value is that of punishment supported through a value criterion of retributive justice. The following definitions need be offered to earn weight in the round: steal, retributive justice, and punishment. Where steal is defined as the deprivation of something, in this case steal refers to the taking or depriving of others rights. And retributive justice is defined as a matter of giving those who violate human rights law and commit crimes against humanity their "just deserts." Punishment is thought to reinforce the rules of international law and to deny those who have violated those rules any unfair advantages. Together with restorative justice, retribution is concerned with restoring victims and offenders to their rightful position Punishment in its most simplified form is constituted by imposing some burden or by some form of deprivation or by withholding some benefit. Specifying the deprivation as a deprivation of rights is a helpful reminder that a crime is (among other things) a violation of the victim's rights, and the harm thus done is akin to the kind of harm a punishment does. Deprivation has no covert or subjective reference; punishment is an objectively judged loss or burden imposed on a convicted offender. Which is why we must look to retribution to justify the act of stealing or depriving of the right to vote. Its merely a more sophisticated version of an eye for an eye mentality. Brief overview The purpose of imprisoning felons is to remove them from society because they've been deemed a harmful influence. Allowing them to vote (the sole purpose of which is to influence government and therefore society) would be counterproductive to imprisonment. This is why for the following reasons you must oppose the resolution Con 1 Felons are considered less trustworthy. Full rights are often not completely restored following conviction. society considers convicts, even those who have completed their prison terms, to be less trustworthy than non-convicted citizens. For example, federal law prohibits the possession of a firearm for anyone indicted for or convicted of a felony punishable by at least one year in prison. Also under federal law, anyone who has a "charge pending" or has been convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for one year or more cannot serve on a jury. So if someone who has a "charge pending" against him is deemed incapable of sitting in judgment of the fate of a single litigant, it hardly seems unreasonable to say that someone convicted of a felony cannot help shape the fate of a city, a state, or the entire nation. Even outside the realm of civic rights and privileges, society recognizes that an exconvict may be less reliable than others. For example, employers routinely ask prospective employees whether they have been arrested (let alone convicted of a felony) because they suspect that the mere fact of an arrest may be an indication of untrustworthiness. Where in a democratic society untrustworthiness is not a value to be upheld. Con2 Felon disenfranchisement is justified by "distribution." according to the theory of Universalizability: "whatever is right (or wrong) in one situation is right (or wrong) in any relevantly similar situation" (Harris et al., p. 37). Universalizability as described above is a basic logical feature of all moral discourse. That is, in making a distinctively moral judgment, you commit yourself to its universalizability. If in making a judgment you refuse to recognize its universalizability, then you are actually refusing to make a moral judgment. Essentially it's a principle of consistency. Where sense it is consistent and applied to all cases its in turn just. Under the affirmative they have to say felons who have committed voters fraud should be able to vote. Con 3 Requirements We don't let everyone vote; children, noncitizens and the mentally incompetent don't. Voting requires certain minimum, objective standards of trustworthiness, loyalty and responsibility, and those who have committed serious crimes against their fellow citizens don't meet those standards. If you refer to the meaning of mentally incompetent you can see that incompetent means one who cant weigh morally right or wrong, thus is deprived of the right to vote. Whereas if you apply that understanding to a felon you can clearly see they were not able to weigh the difference between morally right and wrong, which deems them as mentally incompetent which limits them to the right to vote. Because to participate in self-government, you must be willing to accept the rule of law and even more so understand it.

In a democratic society felons ought to be denied the right to vote. Thank you Roylatham for being the first person to debate me on debate.org. "The liberty of the individual is a necessary postulate of human progress." It is because I agree with this quote by Ernest Renar; that I am in favor of a negation on the resolution: "In a democratic society felons ought to be denied the right to vote." for this round my value will be democracy. And upholding my value of democracy will be my criterion of equality. For clarity I would like to define the following terms from my case: Vote: a formal expression of choice. Felon: one who has committed a felony. Equality: evenly balanced. Democracy: a government by the people as so governed. because my opponent didn't offer any definitions my definitions will be the ones that stand for this debate. Before I go on I would like to explain the thesis of my case: it's that if you take out votes in an election it would be undemocratic, and contradicting of a democracy. This was once stated by Paul Ricoeur "the law is one aspect of a much more concrete and encompassing relation, then the relation between commanding and obeying." Where Ricoeur says law I would like to place the law of democracy. So basically even though felons have committed felonies, we must uphold a democracy with equality, by letting the whole democratic society vote. Ricoeurs quote links to my first contention: the practice of disenfranchising would erode the foundational principle of our democratic society. Clearly there exists no standing relationship between disenfranchising and a criminal act. Like I stated in my definition of democracy it's a "a government by the people as so governed." Meaning for the democracy to effetely work every person must have a voice in the vote. In the resolution it clearly states "democratic society". The "democratic society" is looked upon as a whole; one can't take out individuals from the vote and still think they have the whole "democratic society." My impact for this contention is only with the whole "democratic society" could we get the fair decision in an election. my oppenet argues that "age limitation demonstrates that voting rights may be restricted when there is reason to doubt the potential voter's good judgment." this is true but the fact of the matter is we are speaking on felons, he goes on to say "convicted felons are likely to be contrary to the interests of citizens as a whole who want to be protected from criminals." I agree that it is contrary to citizens interests, but only in the "whole" that in presented in my case "democratic society". It is contrary like he said on interests because we are not respecting the "democratic society" that the resolution is talking about. my opened trays to bring in the U.S. Constitution by saying it "does not grant individual citizens the right to vote for president." the thing is the resolution states democratic society. it does not state one certain democratic society such as the U.S. so this argument can be dropped. William Shakespeare once said: "if you prick felons, do they not bleed? If you tickle them, do they not laugh? If you poison them, do they not die?" When felons leave prison there released back into the society, and thus still affected by it. All people of the "democratic society" are all still citizens. There still affected by whatever congress or the government passes, so denying them the right to vote wouldn't't be equal. If it said all men were created equal then why are felons disenfranchised? Once again felons are affected by the society because 1: they pay taxes and 2: they can buy government owned property like everyone else. he also argues that non-citizens are also excluded from voting, this is true but it is a non topical argument because it doesn't pertain to the resolution stating "felons." he says "The convicted felon ought to have the obligation of establishing that his interests have become aligned with those of ordinary citizens and contrary to those with a criminal lifestyle." but what is the difference between felons and citizens, aren't the both citizens? now my opponent brings up the fact that felons commit felonies again. but does committing a crime and taking the right to vote away connect? by this I mean: why should we take away the right to vote if the committing of a crime doesn't affect voting? my oppenet brings up the U.S a lot in his case but as already pointed out the resolution doest acclaim say the "U.S democratic society" by saying only two U.S states let felons vote (Vermont and Maine). my oppent states that "Convicted felons are an identifiable target for politicians", this argument cant be upheld or proven true, because there is no evidence to prove this claim. he also says "Criminal rights advocates claims that in the 2000 election in Florida, that felons would likely have swayed the presidential election to John Kerry and away from George Bush. They claim that preventing that was undemocratic." there was no reason to put that in his case because it only hurts the PRO. by proving that taking out votes is undemocratic. as we can clearly see if we vote for the PRO. we will be punishing criminals twice by taking away the right to vote and by making them serve a sentence. he states that letting felons vote will hurt our economy and justice system. this is not true because there are such felonies that are minor such as J-walking and repeated speeding. in contrary it doesn't hurt the justice system, it stegthens it for the chance to let the system work and take a shot at prosecuting it., I do agree with this sentence in his case "A completely separate reason for imprisoning criminals is to keep them from doing further harm." but even though they have committed felonies and there in prison they should have the right to vote in the "democratic society".

In a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote Thanks to my opponent for picking up this debate and yes lets make this fun So to begin this round i would first like to rebuild my own case and move on to attack my opponent First i will agree with his counter definitions My opponent didnt attack my value or standard so you can extend both these and for that reason there is no doubt about voting aff because it means he agrees with my value of equality which says that felons should have equal rights as all citizens so this alone proves that he agrees that felons should have the same rights as felons. Extend my standard of Mills Marketplace of ideas which also basically states that when you have the most ammount of people contibuting to an idea then the best answer arrises. Both of these reasons prove you should vote aff He attacked my contention 1 by saying that if a vote came down to 1 vote and that deciding voter was a felon that he wouldnt want the felon to decide. Harvard Law review 1 clearly stated that "...even if ex-offenders were to base their votes on matters of criminal justice, it does not follow that their positions on these matters necessarily would be more permissive than those of he population as a whole..." What this proves is that although felons may have made a wrong choice that they may not have an opinion that is different than the general population. He attacks my second contention by saying disenfranchisement has nothing to do with rehabilitation. I would like to offer evidence against this, Harvard Law Review (counter 1) Fifteen American states disenfranchise ex-felons for life. This practice, although constitutionally permissible , is an anomaly in two respects. First, it defies the trend over the past 150 years tward expansion of the franchise exempified by courts' adn legislatures' abandonment of voting restrictions based on property, race, sex, and age. Seccond, it runs counter to the modern notion, still widely expressed if not always believed, that ex-convicts can and should be reintegrated into the communityas full members of society. What this proves is that disenfranchisement works against progression in this instance rehabilitation. He doesnt attack my third contention Disenfranchisement helps support discrimination and this is key because it shows that he agrees to this and this totally destroys the basis of disenfranchisement because it works against society by discriminating against members of the society. It is for all of these reasons i urge an affirmative ballot Now to attack my opponents case He offers the value of justice and says that it is defined as "giving someone what he or she is due" I pose the question "Who determines what deserved punishment is?" clearly whatever answer is given is still going to be contoversial to someone in a society so my value of equality fits the situation much better. I attack his Criterion by saying that he is harming the wefare of soceity by taking away voices in a society. When you do this then not all people have a say in the democracy and so this undermines the whole purpose of the democracy. My criterion is much better because it allows all people to have a say in society. Contention 1. He implys that since a felon has made one bad decision that this is a constant trend with felons. I have to say otherwise because that is a politically incorrect extreme. He also doesnt offer why or how this relates to his value or criterion. I would like to offer counter evidince aginst his claim Harvard Law review (counter 2) Disen. is not driven by pragmatic realities or theoretical principles but rather by an atavistic and dee-rooted social need to define the boundaries of the community by stigmatizing some persons as outsiders. As a symbolic act tat perpetuates and reflects a perception of criminality as an evil, alien force, disen. manifests a misguided desire to label as "others" those who commit crimes, in order that those who are not so chracterized may gain an increased sense of their own esteem as "good" Members of the community and deny responsibility for the creation or elimination of criminal behavior. Contention 2 He basically offers Lockes social contract to define punishment and crimes Harvard Law review (C3) It is hardly likely that free and informed individuals would enter into a contract in which a single failure to execute payment by one party would constitute a forfeiture of all goods previously obtained under the contract. Liberal theorists posit an individual who exists prior to and seprabel from the attachments and aspirations that she chooses. In the liveral frame work, justice consists of respecting the individual's dignity and capacity to reason, regardless of his/her choices or ends. Thus, real justice, "must permit inequalities that can be traced to the choices people have made about what kind of work to do, what kinds of risks to take, and what kind of life to lead. It is for all these reasons that i must urge an affirmative ballot and now turn it over to my opponent Thanks again to my opponent for picking up this debate and thanks to all the people who vote on this. Good luck and i hope this makes us both better

In a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote Felons are as culpable for their actions as they are as culpable for their mistreatment" Value: I accept the value for this debate as Justice Value Criterion: Retribution will be my value criterion for this debate. In order for justice to be maintained, some form of retribution must be applied for society to fall into order. Whenever an individual acts in an unlawful way, actions must be taken to balance out the spectrum in order to maintain justice. Contentions: 1. Maintaining order In order to maintain order, some action must be done to balance out the unlawful actions that have taken place. Without some form of retribution, society would be essentially condoning felony. Our nation would devolve into chaos and despair, something as a society we are morally obliged to avoid. 2. Social Contract The social contract, stated by John Locke, states that the people forfeit some rights to government in order to secure more rights. It also states that when an individual violates the rights of others within this government, it is the peoples and government's responsibility to act against said individual. One right violation (that of life, which is needed to utilize all other rights) allows another right violation (disenfranchisement) to exist. This retribution is needed in order to sustain order. Now I will rebut my opponent's case. Value: I have accepted his value Criterion: The preservation of Democracy does not maintain proper justice. Some action needs to be taken in order to insure that the actions of the felon are not condoned by society. 1st Contention: Racism does not exist in government. Racism does not exist, because the term in itself is a contradiction to reality and itself. The term is a contradiction to itself because by calling another person racist, you are in a sense racist yourself, unless you abide by the double standard that is held upon whites in America, in which every race beside Caucasian is allowed to utilize the "race card". The term also is a contradiction to reality because humans, by nature, are designed and tend to form into groups. This forces generalizations to be applied, so calling someone a racist for applying generalizations is against humanity. The reason that most felons are black is the same reason that most criminals are black. This does not in any way make the act of disenfranchisement immoral or unjust. 2nd Contention: The United Nations does not hold any ruling or reign over America. We are a sovereign nation and should focus on how this affects America domestically, because other nations are in a completely different status quo. The act of disenfranchisement does not restrict the democratic process because the lack of a felon vote is negligible on society, and they also still do not deserve a vote. 3rd Contention: Again, this issue has no pertinence to other countries because, for one, this resolution is based on purely a democratic society, and two, their status quo differs from ours. Conclusion: Because re-enfranchising criminals would be unjust and would not fair well for a society as a whole, felons should stripped of the right to vote.

ex felons should be able to vote Extend my arguments

Felons Ought to Retain the Right to Vote in a Democratic Society I affirm: Felons ought to retain the right to vote in a democratic society. Definitions: Democratic society: society where the government is decided by the people, either directly or through representatives Felon: one who has committed a felony Retain: to keep in use. Observations: 1) The resolution states felon. All ex-felons are essentially felons as they have been convicted of a felony and therefore the negative must prove that all felons should lose the right to vote. 2) The definition of "felon" states one who "has" committed a felony. This indicates past events and thus it is the burden of the affirmative to prove that felons in society should retain the right to vote. My value for this debate is A Democratic Society, which is the inherent value indicated by the resolution. The resolution specifically states a democratic society, thus is should be the highest value. The value of a democratic society is upheld by the value criterion of protection of rights Since in a democratic society the government exists solely for the people, then therefore it is only logical that a democratic society's government ought to protect its citizens' rights. Contention 1) Right of self-determination. This is the right to shape the conditions of one's own existence and pursue one's own happiness. Underneath the classic inalienable rights, a democratic government ought to ensure people have this right, otherwise the government would not be just. Without the right to vote one has no say in government and control of the state that they are forced to live under and abide by the laws of. Therefore, they cannot possibly control their own life when they have no say in the government that controls their life. Additionally, granting felons the right to vote infringes neither on anyone's right to vote or right of self-determination. Contention2) The negative is punishing the person's crime already through incarceration, yet at the same time taking away their right to vote. In terms of felon disenfranchisement, the government is punishing twice; once in jail, and once out of jail. This is known as double jeopardy, or punishing a crime twice. The 5th Amendment states "nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." Also, we do not give people a lifelong ban on marriage or freedom of speech, so why would we give them a lifelong ban on voting? It is excessive punishment to incarcerate someone and at the same time take away all their political influence and right of self-determination. ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((REFUTE))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) --Value: Social Contract- This is not specifically stated by the resolution, however mine is and thus should be looked at above his. ---VC- Societal Welfare Link this back to my VC. It is not possible to uphold societal welfare unless you protect of the citizens' rights and thus if you are even to look at his VC you must look at my VC first. Additionally he provides no link between this and his Value and C1. --Contention 1: "By breaking the social contract, citizens have forfeited their right to vote. By granting any felon the right to vote would contradict the purpose of the social contract." However, a) When a felon commits a crime, yes they break the social contract, which is why they are incarcerated. However as I show in my second contention it is unjust to punish them additionally by taking their right to vote away. b) Also, it is feudal to continually deny felons a place in the social contract. Once a felon exits prison, although still a felon they should then re-enter the social contract. Should we not allow them a chance to become one of society once more?

Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. Abraham Lincoln once defined America's democracy as a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people. " The context of this quote refers to American citizens. My value for this round will be equality, and my criterion will be democracy. This means that whoever allows for the most amount of democracy by way of equality, will win this round. This is a fair value and criterion because the resolution is talking about what is best for a democratic society, ergo my criterion; and equality is essential to a democracy, ergo my value. Definitions: Democracy (root of democratic) - is a government elected by the people. The people elect their representatives who sit in the legislature to make laws Society - a grouping of individuals which is characterized by common interests and may have distinctive culture and institutions. Felons - A person convicted of a serious criminal offense punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year. With that, I will uphold this resolution with three main contentions. The first will be what democracy is. The second contention will be what is happening in America and it's democracy. And my third contention will be why it is wrong to disallow felons the right to vote. I would also like to point out that the resolution refers to America seeing as in America (a democratic society) felons do not have the right to vote. Contention 1: A democracy, specifically the American democracy, has it's basis on the people voting. In order for a democracy to work, the people must vote. Recently though, there has been a trend especially in young people of not voting. This is why MTV and other major companies have worked on reaching young people and persuading them to vote. Also in America, felons are not allowed to vote. This is contrary to what a democracy is. A democracy relies on it's citizens voting. So this trend of not voting is desperately hurting America, as is not allowing felons the right to vote. But I will discuss this further in my contention three. Contention 2: Felons are being denied the right to vote. This is common knowledge and should not be argued. According to the Human Rights Watch, there are currently over 3.9 million U. S. citizens that do not have the right to vote. That is one percent of all the population in America. Contention 3. This is wrong. Alexis de Tocqueville, in his book Democracy In America, said "Once a people begins to interfere with the voting qualification, one can be sure that sooner or later it will abolish it altogether. That is one of the most invariable rules of social behavior. " This argument is most commonly called the slippery slope argument. Once something has been done, it invariably leads to something bigger or in this case worse happening. The constitution goes into great detail regarding the right to vote. In it's fifteenth amendment, it says "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. " In it's nineteenth amendment, it says "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. " In it's twenty-fourth amendment, it says "The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election . . . shall not be denied or abridged . . . by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax. " In it's twenty-sixth amendment, it says "The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of age. " All of these are pointing to the conclusion that no person be denied the right to vote. No matter what their looks, age, or previous history has been. This should include felons. Felons live in America. They are affected by the same laws that you and I are affected by. If our legislators or president are going to do something that isn't fair in their eyes, they should have a say in that. Democratic principle says that all peoples should be able to vote. There are no limitations.

in a democratic society, felons should retain the right to vote Well if they lost them for commiting a crime they should not be able to get them back.The way you put it they shouldn't be taken away to begin with so after they commite a crime they should be able to go back to there life without any changes so there rights haven't changed at all and it's like they didn't commited the crime at all.

Resolved: In a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote. "The main purposes of punishment are incapacitation and rehabilitation. Taking away the right to vote doesn't seem to accomplish either of these. It could even be detrimental, as ex-felons could see themselves as outcasts in society, causing feelings of resentment"~ Bill Clinton """I will argue that by default, felons should not have voting rights, except in some cases where they have proven themselves reformed.""" Woah woah woah.... If you assume this position then I will assume the position that felons should retain their voting rights, except in extreme cases. It's either you say they can't ever and I say they always can, or you say they can't unless extreme circumstances and I say they can unless extreme circumstances. There is no mixing of the two in an attempt to skew the debate towards your side. If you don't mind, I'd like you to choose which one you'd like to debate, either is ok with me. Now Lets move onto the contentions that you've made. I've broken them down into numbers for later clarification 1) Voting is/is not inalienable 2) Disenfranchisement is/is not suitable punishment 3) Felon disenfranchisement is essential for the preservation of integrity. For the opening of my first point, I'd like to directly quote you. """First, I will mention that voting is NOT an inalienable right. In a solitary state, a human does not possess any quality that entails the right to vote. Rights to life, liberty etc. might be inalienable and follow from human nature, but the right to vote is alienable and is contingent upon society. Remember Locke's Social Contract theory?""" 1) Voting may very well not be inalienable in most societies such as monarchies and dictatorships, but in a democratic society, yes, it is inalienable. A way you can look at this is, take away what you're arguing is inalienable or not and see if the sugject being argued upon, is the same. What is a democratic society without voting? Or Better yet, is a democratic society a democratic society without the right to vote? Of course not, in seeing this, you see that it is essential top have the right to vote if you're going to have an actual democratic society. Lets open the second voting issue with a quote from you as well. """A serious crime deserves a serious punishment. Being stripped of voting rights is a fitting punishment because it emphasizes that voting, which is the basis of a democratic society, is a right that is contingent on keeping the Social Contract.""" 2) A serious punishment for a serious crime is the serious sentance that follows. Voting disenfranchisement generally has NOTHING to do with the crime felons commit. It is an extra unwarranted infringement upon a felon's rights. Laws are measured by how well they protect the public and how well they deter crime. How well disenfranchisement protects the public will be addressed in my next voting issue, so lets take a look at the second criteria for effective laws. How well it deters crime. While committing a crime, criminals aren't thinking in the back of their head "Oh man, I hope they don't take away my voting rights." It isn't in their minds AT ALL! People aren't afraid of losing voting rights, they're afraid of being away from loved ones for long periods of time. It basically, IS JUST THERE. Now, just being there isn't bad, if it's not doing anything. However, it is taking away million's of people's right to vote! Taking away voting rights is an infringement and cannot be justified! Committing a felony and voting are pretty much separate entities. It seems, for lack of a better description, kind of random for a society to say, "You robbed a house, so... now you can't vote." Like before, here are your words to spark yet another problem with your stance. """The integrity of voting: Ask yourself: would you want your policemen, your judges or your politicians to be elected by those who have committed atrocities such as rape? In many cases, these felons' ideal of society differs from the commoner's ideal, and we must accept this. Given their inappropriate ideals and motivations, felons should lack the right to vote.""" 3) Now this points out 2 majors problems. So I will attack them differently. A- This problem being that you don't want felons voting because of the fact that they are felons and B- The fact that you have a problem with anyone voting who has ideals that differ from that of the "societal norm" First off, with A. A- You stating " Ask yourself: would you want your policemen, your judges or your politicians to be elected by those who have committed atrocities such as rape?" Is a pointless statement. There are too many assumptions in this sentance. First off, you're assuming taht the convicted rapist is not sorry and is still malicious. Secondly, you're under the misconceived notion that someone who has a history of rape, can vote for someone who will rape america. A killer, thief, or rapist can't vote for someone who will pass a law that will kill, steal from, or rape the american or democratic people. You've stated that voting requires that you have to reach a certain minimum which felons don't reach, but you fail to realize that laws have to reach the certain minimum. There is no harm that can come from a rapist, murderer, or thief voting because they can only vote on something that's productive for the society. After all, we let ex-convicts marry, reproduce, buy beer, own property and drive. They don't lose their freedom of religion, their right against self-incrimination or their right not to have soldiers quartered in their homes in time of war. But in many places, the assumption is that they can't be trusted to help choose our leaders [...] If we thought criminals could never be reformed, we wouldn't let them out of prison in the first place. Some basic principles of a democracy are that every citizen is given a say in society. But felons are citizens, are they not? And since they are thus forced to live and operate under a governments jurisdiction, shouldn't they have a say in decisions affecting them? Plus, Even non-felons are capable of bad judgment. If we are disenfranchising felons simply because of a bad decision and/or bad decision-making skills, there are plenty of other people who shouldn't be allowed to vote. But who can set that standard of good decision versus bad decision in any absolute form regarding elections? B- The fact that you don't want people with different opinions to vote, is outragious! The whole purpose of voting is to weigh all opinions! A true democracy is the expression of EVERY opinion and the weighing of each one in comparison to one's own until the best possible opinion is formulated. Only then can an opinion be validated and used in action. Voting applies directly, particularly for felons who it can be assumed will have deviant opinions, because if votes are the ultimate mode of expression and change in a democratic society, ALL opinions of anyone governed by the law created in the society is valued highly, because of the previously listed impacts. It can even work on a societal level in the sense that, the vote will be weighed and the best opinion will be chosen - the majority opinion. The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. I go so far as to say, that not allowing felons to vote is harming a democratic society, because the society is not weighing all opinions, and because people will not have the opportunity to consider their opinions openly. I am anxious for my oponents arguments

in a democratic society a felon ought to retain the right to vote. uuhhh i'm just trying out my cases. this is my first online debate. I affirm. Resolved:In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. "Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man"- Thomas Jefferson Value:relevant impacts In this crazy world we have crazy impacts. A murderer will be silenced forever like the poor guy who had to steal $150 to support his family. Would a same impact make sense?-no Value Criteria: Patriotic Duty The point of voting is to serve/fulfill patriotic duty. We already limit felons so much, that by taking away this duty we are literally just having them age in the corner and not try to make things square with society. Definitions: Democratic-pertaining to or characterized by the principle of political or social equality for all Society-a body of individuals living as members of a community Observation 1: The resolution just says democratic society, meaning that this resolution does not just pertain to one country. Contention 1: What's a felony? A)Felonies actually differentiate country from country and even state from state, so basically the argument that if a criminal commits a crime, that criminal deserves an equal punishment does not exist. Seeing the fact that countries and even states within countries have different ideas on what a felon is, there is no black and white way to label someone as a felon or someone who deserves to get their rights taken away. This also means that one person can be seen as the scum of the world in one country, and then the other can be seen as a person who made an honest mistake and just receives a misdemeanor. B) In Maryland, for instance, criminals cannot vote for the rest of their lives if they are twice convicted of a felony (or what the state calls "infamous crimes"). Yet, many of the 149 offenses so categorized--such as inserting slugs into a slot machine or using a false identification card are regarded in other states as misdemeanors. Another example would be that any resident of Florida who stops payment on a check of more than $150 with intent to defraud commits a felony; so does the teenager who is caught with an ounce of crack cocaine, but the recreational user who is nabbed for cocaine (in powder form) possession is guilty of a misdemeanor. Even in some states just stealing over $150 dollars is considered a felony, do they deserve a punishment? Yes. Do they deserve to be silenced forever by not being allowed to express their free opinion through voting? No. There aren't many felons that would be considered felons if they were caught in a different state, when it even comes to more serious issues like murder and rape, much, much less than 10% are even categorized under this. C) Not letting felons vote have three impacts The first one is that since the word felon can not be used universally for some crimes and can be used the same for other crimes in every state, then there can not be a universal impact for every felony. Does a person that stole $150 dollars deserve to be silenced for life like a mass-serial murderer? By voting Negation on the resolution and not letting felons vote we would be making completely unfair decisions that silence people who aren't even considered felons in other parts of the world or even country. Therefore there is no "concrete" social contract, there are always loop holes in it, some will get a slap on the hand through misdemeanors and little fines, and others will be silenced forever. The second one would be the dehumanization of human voices. Voting represents thoughts, and your own voice. If you can't vote, you can't speak, is there a point to think if you can't speak? Felons already have their lives limited after they get out of prison, they can't have any government employed jobs, and even privately owned jobs are hard to find. They already are living a life with actions cut short, but stopping the voting process would completely stop thinking. By not letting felons vote, we will support dehumanization of an ordinary person. The world can't even define him as a felon in every country, none the less in every state. The third is the whole point of prison itself. Prison is meant to rehabilitate and reintegrate prisoners through a process of punishment until they are able to walk back into society. By cutting out something as important as voting, we are putting them in their own world rather than society's world, not being able to vote is the fuse to repeating crimes. They can't get a city job, private establishments frown upon hiring such people, and now they can't even vote to change things, they can't use their own voices to let people hear their struggle because we smother them. Their dawn to midnight life in the fast food business leaves them hundreds of dollars short to pay rent, and no one wants to hear their problems. They rob and steal to make ends meet. If society spits on you, won't you spit back? Contention 2: What started it? What feeds the fire today? A)Many disenfranchisement laws were enacted as far back as the Civil War period. Many historians have clarified on the fact that the reason this all started was because of White supremacy. The whole idea of disenfranchising was made on racist roots. Now disenfranchising is used as a way of shaping the voting pool. By not letting certain people vote, an outcome of a state's election will be different. B) Now the funny thing is, if disenfranchising was such an obvious moral choice to make why did it almost take a century for it to be triggered? Many of them were triggered right around the time African Americans were allowed to vote. The purpose? To stop African Americans from voting. Back then and even now, many felons are of this race. Laws disempowering blacks were pivotal, historian Morgan Kousser explains, because they provided southern states with "insurance if courts struck down the more blatantly unconstitutional clauses." Now it's not so much of racist terms that make politicians keep this law up, but the issue of curving the voting pool. For example Even in the present era, according to Florida State Sen. Daryl Jones, "The state legislature attempts to classify more and more crimes as felonies so it can eliminate more people from the voter rolls." In 2000, Jones reports. the Republican legislature proposed a bill that would have increased from 365 to 366 days the jail sentence for anyone who cashes two welfare checks after gaining employment. What is the purpose of adding one more day? The offense then becomes a felony, and "You take one more person off the voter rolls. It's a fact that over one-third of felons are African Americans. It's another fact that only 14% of African Americans in total vote republican. By having more crimes become felonies, more African Americans can't vote. C) This has a few impacts By keeping this disenfranchisement around we are having something started out of unjust means stick around, meaning that our own society doesn't care that we have a law that was purely based on racist means and that civil rights mean nothing. The second one is that we are silencing minorities. The worst thing is that we are silencing them off of unjust means, those means are that politicians just want to silence them because of voting rates. The third is that we don't care how we stop them, we just want to stop them, meaning that we don't care how ridiculous we make laws, as long as we stop certain people from voting. Meaning that none of the movement for disenfranchising is even out of just motives, but just motives of wanting to win elections.

Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. I stand in affirmation, "Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote." I offer the following definitions for clarification of the affirmed resolution: ï¿½Democracy- Government by the governed. Within this I must state that felons are part of "the governed". ï¿½Felon- Someone who commits a felony; A Felony is a level of crime that is higher in comparison than a forfeiture or a misdemeanor. Repeated crimes can rise to the level of felony offenses, such as repeated DUI's ï¿½Ought- Used to indicate advisability or prudence. ï¿½Retain- To keep or hold in a particular place, condition, or position. ï¿½The right to vote- a formal expression of preference for a candidate for office or for a proposed resolution of an issue. This right is inextricable in a democratic society to retain full citizenship. ï¿½The value of this round must be equality of opportunity which refers to the fact that all citizens MUST be equal citizens under the eyes of the law. Thus you can construe that my definition of equality is referring to equality of citizenship within a society. In this resolutional standpoint opportunity must be pertaining to the right to vote. The optimal criterion for achieving equality for this round is consistency which is Correspondence among related aspects; compatibility. Thus meaning that for equality to be reached, all citizens must be treated consistently as citizens in the eyes of the law - no one can become "more of a citizen" or "less of a citizen". By negating the resolution certain citizens are not treated consistently thus you are not treating all citizens as equals. The affirmative sole burden is to prove that the consistent treatment of the right to vote functions under equality of opportunity. Thus, upholding democracy in the resolution. While the negative's sole burden is to show consistency in equality of opportunity because it's a prerequisite to democracy, and if he or she cannot than his or her case is non-topical because it cannot uphold democracy and cannot be looked to. Observation 1: Democracy is government by the governed. Certainly convicted felons are part of the governed. When felons are not treated equally and consistently, this contradicts the concept of democracy because the governed are disallowed participation within a democratic societyï¿½ Observation 2: Some may argue that no true democracy exist. This should carry no weight in a round for two reasons. A) In the resolution itself their clames to be a democracy so If there were no true democracy than we could not be debating this topic at all. B) This is a great thought or opinion but take this example: If the president of the United States has a bill on his desk that has the exact wording of the resolution he cannot just throw that bill away because there is no democracy, in fact, by taking any action at all he would be acknowledging the fact that there is a democracy because he made a decision. Observation 3: Some may say that a negative position is that the negative can give the right to vote back to felons once they have been released from prison, yet this is entirely untrue. No where in the resolution does it say "felons released" or "felons imprisoned". Thus, any negative argument that this can win for the negative should be disregarded or turned for the affirmative because it is still winning for the affirmative. Contention 1: Disenfranchisement destroys a felon's status as an equal citizen. SubPoint A: The right to vote is a fundamental right, and as such it is central to the meaning of citizenship. Furthermore, the fundamental importance of the right to vote is not determined by its actual exercise, but merely by its possession. Possessing the right to vote is of paramount importance as it is a tool by which an individual engages in active participation - S. David Mitchell furthers "the right to vote serves as the embodiment of political empowerment, and it is essential to the full privilege of effective citizenship." The right to vote, therefore, can be construed not only as a means for an individual to exercise political power, but also as a necessary requirement in being a full citizen. Therefore, since the right to vote has been taken away from felons, they are no longer treated consistently and therefore are not equals. The possession of the right to vote, or more aptly the opportunity to participate in the political process, serves as an indicator of a person's legal status as a member of the polity, but nothing more. Conversely, the loss or infringement of that right would indicate both a repudiation of membership in the polity and a lack of full citizenship. The right to vote is a political right that allows an individual to be an active participant in the government and is exercised cyclically; it is not the determining factor of citizenship. Citizenship in fact embodies a full range of rights including, but not limited to, the possession or exercise of the right to vote. The right to vote is consistent for all citizens which helps them become equal in their society. When a felon is disenfranchised, they become non-citizens, and even when a society's laws are broken, one may forfeit liberty but must not become non-entities. To disenfranchise any group, even those that have violated the laws a democracy has established, is to render them powerless, and any hope of rehabilitation becomes revenge. When a democracy turns on its own citizens and seeks revenge, it clearly is no longer legitimate, and is a democracy in name only. ï¿½Contention 2: Disenfranchisement creates negative consequences for felons in social and economic ways. The deprivations that ex-felons encounter extend beyond the scope of the political sphere. The right to vote is integral to a citizen's sense of belonging and undeniably holds a place of critical importance in the United States for both its symbolic and practical value; it serves as a marker of inclusion for formerly excluded groups, i.e., African-Americans, women, and those under the age of eighteen. For ex-felons the right to vote is merely one of many rights denied to them in but one of several spheres of their lives. Convicted felons are denied a host of rights that govern the social and legal spheres of their life; many of these rights have more pressing importance than the opportunity to cast a ballot. To examine how felon exclusion laws infringe upon the full citizenship of both the individual ex-felon and the community, to which the ex-felon belongs, a multi-part conceptualization of citizenship will be used. The leading contemporary scholar to consider such a multi-part conceptualization of citizenship is T.H. Marshall, a British sociologist; and, it is Marshall's formulation of citizenship that frames this argument. Marshall posited that citizenship is comprised of three distinct, yet interdependent, elements: the civil, meaning individual freedom; the political, referring to the franchise; and the social, addressing an individual's economic life. The political element, according to Marshall, consists of the "right to participate in the exercise of political power." This element is comprised not only of the right to vote, but also includes the right to pursue public office; political power is manifested in the voice of the people and through the machinations of those chosen to serve as proxies of the people. The rights most commonly associated with the civil element are those rights that are "necessary for individual freedom," and in the context of the United States are embodied in the Bill of Rights. So since I show you that the disenfranchisement of felons is inconsistent with the rest of the members of society because it makes them unequal which is unlawful because in the eyes of the law all citizens are equally citizens, I strongly urge you to vote affirmative.

In a democratic society, felons out to retain the right to vote. I accept all definitions but with a question against "Social Contract". Social Contract is a theory set forward by multiple people and there are different takes on it. Which Social Contract is my opponent using? (Locke, Hobbes, etc. ) Observations: Although my opponent can prove that the government has the power to strip a felon of the right to vote, he still has the burden of proving why the Government SHOULD take away the right to vote. (What negative effect is there of letting felons vote? ) Values: First of all, I'd like to bring up Social Contract again. My opponent's framework is based on this idea, and without specifying which social contract he is using in this debate, I have no idea what he values. Affirmative Defense: 1C: My opponent says that referencing the Founding Fathers is invalid because the resolution does not refer specifically to the U. S. However, as I stated before the United States IS still a democratic society (making it a valid example for this resolution) and I have also proved that a democratic republic is the best form of democracy with a large population. My opponent does not state why a democratic republic is not a valid form of democracy - something he needs to do in order to make my example invalid. Against the question that my opponent asks: The reason that we allow them the same rights is to help them merge with society once again (elaborated on in my later contentions). A Democracy aims to give the supreme power to the people - once we start limiting who gets to have this power, we stray away from a democracy. My opponent has yet to prove that voting is not a right. 2C: My opponent has yet to prove why letting felons vote would negatively affect our government. His statement of ". .. poorly influencing the processes of the government" falls without a warrant for why there would be a poor influence. (I will address this on my attack) 3C: As my opponent seems to imply, I wasn't arguing that felons would become normal civilians. I was arguing that felons are entitled to the right to be rehabilitated and an attempt must be made to merge them with society once again. By letting felons retain the right to vote, we encourage the rehabilitation process. The names of certain prison facilities clearly show the goal of the facility - to rehabilitate. 4C: My fourth contention was an argument against any argument that felons would be counterproductive to society. Negative Case: 1C: My opponent assumes that felons would make a bad decision in voting for president. However, we must understand a democracy values the majority. Felons do not make up the majority in any society. Also, if a felon were to vote for someone that a normal civilian were voting for, do we consider them both as "negatively influencing" our government? We cannot assume that a felon would vote for someone against society. This is proven in my fourth contention - because felonies aren't agreed upon universally, we cannot assume that all felons are against society. 2C: My opponent makes an argument that felons ought to be stripped of their rights because they have committed a felony. However, the only right stripped when incarcerating a felon is their right to liberty. Because they are felons, do we strip them of the right to free speech? religion? Stating that felons should have their rights stripped just because of a felony is absurd because my opponent bases this argument on the idea that only the right to vote should be stripped. SA: Although people may not stay equal based on the actions they choose, voting is an inalienable right. My opponent again bases his argument on the idea that rights can be stripped if people commit felonies. My opponent does not state why voting is the specific right that can be stripped, but why the right to life/speech/religion is not or cannot. SB: My opponents subpoint B is exclusive only to murderers. Also, my opponent bases this argument on a "eye for an eye" type of principle. Because the murderer took away the right to vote by killing, they cannot have the right to vote. First of all, I'd like to point out that using this type of logic, the murderer would have to be killed anyway. Second, this principle implies that we should rape rapists. Or for someone who killed two people, kill them twice. It is impossible to run a justice system on the principle of eye for an eye. I'd like to point out that my opponent doesn't point out any sort of negative effect on society (except for the implication in contention 1 that I already addressed) from letting felons retain the right to vote.

Ex-felons who commited minor crimes or crimes at a early age should be allowed to vote My opponent brings up some new argument at first about how he is trying to focus on a new generation and show kids/younger people the harmful effects of alcohol and committing crimes. However there is already a program that trys to decrease the demand of drugs which is called DARE and so far it hasn't been that successful. I am not saying it's not a good program to have I am just saying that as long as Americans continue to demand illegal drugs, drug cartels and other organizations will keep sending them here. Also my opponent must realize that most felons who commit crimes like theft, which is the most common one, do a lot of these crimes due to what they are exposed to, or because they are poor and need food. So you can't just tell them "drugs are bad" and expect them to listen. You have to improve there economic conditions and give them a replacement for drugs, something more appealing that isn't dangerous. This logic is the same reason why the war on drugs doesn't work, you can't just remove all the drugs and except them to stop, the reason why fights increase after the drugs are removed is because they still have a desire for the drugs, and therefore will do whatever it takes to get them. My opponent try's to attack my contention saying taxation without representation, but he mentions the argument and goes completely over it. The argument is just saying that since they pay certain taxes to the government and for some of the people who work in the government they should be able to vote for people in the government. It's just a logical argument that has no holes in it. He skips over the argument he trys to make and again says that 5.83 million people don't matter. He is dismissing American citizens. That is like me saying "oh forget about the unemployed they only make 5% of the American population lets focus on most Americans who at least have a job and can actually benefit the economy." He claims that my ex felons contention helps him but it doesn't actually, it shows that 90% of ex-felons who get jobs don't go back to jail so why punish those and not allow them to vote if they are proper citizens? The contention is pointing out that not all ex-felons go back to jail. Main argument against my opponent: is how he is basically saying that we should leave ex-felons alone and let them go with punishments some that last forever just to show people what happens when they don't listen? First of all it is common sense that when you commit crimes you can end up in jail, and a lot of people realize that a year sentence or so results in a Felony, they don't need extra things to know this. The main argument against this idea is that ex-felons can be primary sources with or without voting. What I mean by this is that ex-felons can share their stories so society will still learn the consequences of actions from ex-felons themselves. Giving them the right to vote will still leave the other punishments they have and still make felony a popular sentence well known among Americans. Conclusion: The reason why I win is because my opponent never really goes by the resolution, he try's to broaden the debate and he hasn't shown why ex-felons shouldn't be allowed to vote. He also how voting can't provide any of the benefits he mentions that would help society. Also my case structure overall was better then his as well. In conclusion vote for me because I followed the resolution, and proved that there is no reason not to allow ex-felons to vote.

in a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote I will first address the affirmation and then lead into extensions and clarification on the neg. As it pertains my opponents observation, it is flawed for the following reason My opponent claims that every citizen has inalienable right, yet what you need consider is that voting does not apply. clearly every citizen doesn't have the right to vote or else four year olds and people of a mental iq 0f 20 could. Resulting in extremely inaccurate and pointless results. Sense there is such a requirement one must look to voting as a privilege rather then a right. Now onto the con1 of oppression you need to understand again that voting is a privilege not a right. Con2 redemption you need to see that felons don't need voting as a form of redemption just the mere fact that they have been released from prison gives them a chance to redeem themselves. defeating the entirety of con two now briefly to go over my case you need to extend my v and vc as being paramount for we need consider the victims rights in the situation. Equality as presented by the affirmative cant even be achieved with out looking to the opposition as well as the fact that natural rights as a vc doesn't apply as well. My def were not attacked therefore they still stand and will be used throughout the round which essentially in doing so agrees to the negative position in regards to the resolution interpretation. My con still stand as well for rehabilitation hardly has a great enough effect to make a difference, through examples such as background checks, not being able to bare arms, and not serve on jury. (all points opponent fails to address). As well as my con 2 as well as 3 for although its not mandated in the resolution its implicate why would you want kids to vote no society would ever allow people that are not even capable of spelling there name the PRIVELEGE to vote thank you

Resolved: in a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote My sincere condolences are extended to opponent, as surely only a crisis of major propositions would have prevented him from typing the word "Continued" some time within the three day response period. Proponents for felons retaining the right to vote often suppose that withholding the right must be either punishment or retribution. Such is not the case. We imprison serial killers not only on grounds of punishment or retribution, we imprison them to prevent them from committing similar bad acts. Depriving a felon of the right to vote is unlikely to be a significant punishment to discourage criminal behavior. Even as retribution it would be trivial. However, removing the right to vote prohibits the felon from committing the bad act of voting for a candidate because the candidate is likely to weaken the justice system. As an example, consider the famous Willie Horton case http://forerunner.com... that came up during the 1988 presidential campaign. Michael Dukakis opposed George H.W.Bush. Willie Horton was a convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. However, as governor of Massachusetts Dukakis permitted Horton to be let out of prison on a furlough program that Dukakis thought would aid rehabilitation. During a furlough, Horton murdered another person. As governor, Dukakis commuted so many sentences for first-degree murder that the time actually served for life without parole was 19 years. (op. cit.) I have no doubt that Governor Dukakis was sincere in his belief that leniency leads to rehabilitation. However, felons will certainly want leniency regardless of whether rehabilitation occurs or not. The recidivism rate proves that most often it does not occur. We may therefore suppose that allowing felons to vote would sway close elections to the side of leniency, particularly when issues other than the justice system dominate the campaign. Felons should not have the right to vote in the interests of pursuing a life of crime. Suppose that there are no criminal justice issues evident in a campaign. We know that many convicted felons are characteristically averse to working for a living. They are therefore likely to vote for whichever candidate promises the largest amount of unqualified government benefits. This is also contrary to the interests of ordinary voters, who are likely to be willing to help the poor, but unlikely to want to support criminals. For these reasons, the resolution should be rejected.

Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. I realize that you are to be debating Cooperman88. But if you look on facebook, you will see that Cooperman88 is in fact Jacob Cooper. I am one and the same. So I will debate you on "In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. Abraham Lincoln once defined America's democracy as a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people. " The context of this quote refers to american citizens. My value for this round will be equality, and my criterion will be democracy. This means that whoever allows for the most amount of democracy by way of equality, will win this round. This is a fair value and criterion because the resolution is talking about what is best for a democratic society, ergo my criterion; and equality is essential to a democracy, ergo my value. Definitions: Democracy (root of democratic) - is a government elected by the people. The people elect their representatives who sit in the legislature to make laws Society - a grouping of individuals which is characterized by common interests and may have distinctive culture and institutions. Felons - A person convicted of a serious criminal offense punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year. With that, I will uphold this resolution with three main contentions. The first will be what democracy is. The second contention will be what is happening in america and it's democracy. And my third contention will be why it is wrong to disallow felons the right to vote. I would also like to point out that the resolution refers to America seeing as in America (a democratic society) felons do not have the right to vote. Contention 1: A democracy, specifically the American democracy, has it's basis on the people voting. In order for a democracy to work, the people must vote. Recently though, there has been a trend especially in young people of not voting. This is why MTV and other major companies have worked on reaching young people and persuading them to vote. Also in america, felons are not allowed to vote. This is contrary to what a democracy is. A democracy relies on it's citizens voting. So this trend of not voting is desperately hurting america, as is not allowing felons the right to vote. But I will discuss this further in my contention three. Contention 2: Felons are being denied the right to vote. This is common knowledge and should not be argued. According to the Human Rights Watch, there are currently over 3.9 million U. S. citizens that do not have the right to vote. That is one percent of all the population in America. Contention 3. This is wrong. Alexis de Tocqueville, in his book Democracy In America, said "Once a people begins to interfere with the voting qualification, one can be sure that sooner or later it will abolish it altogether. That is one of the most invariable rules of social behavior. " This argument is most commonly called the slippery slope argument. Once something has been done, it invariably leads to something bigger or in this case worse happening. The constitution goes into great detail regarding the right to vote. In it's fifteenth amendment, it says "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. " In it's nineteenth amendment, it says "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. " In it's twenty-fourth amendment, it says "The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election . . . shall not be denied or abridged . . . by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax. " In it's twenty-sixth amendment, it says "The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of age. " All of these are pointing to the conclusion that no person be denied the right to vote. No matter what their looks, age, or previous history has been. This should include felons. Felons live in america. They are affected by the same laws that you and I are affected by. If our legislators or president are going to do something that isn't fair in their eyes, they should have a say in that. Democratic principle says that all peoples should be able to vote. There are no limitations.

Felons Ought to Retain the Right to Vote in a Democratic Society Extend all my arguments and refutations.

Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Overview of my case: We live in a society that accepts… 1: All people born equal with rights 2: Government’s function is to secure unalienable rights 3: Government receives power through the consent of the governed via voting Con has claimed voting to not be a right. This misses the mark, as while I do argue that voting is a right my main argument is that the governments function is to protect and ensure rights and that the government can only do so legitimately through the consent of the governed. Voting is how that consent is given. Thus the impact of taking the vote away from felons is 1: Government cannot receive legitimate power through consent of the governed if the governed cannot vote. 2: Without consent or power the government cannot secure unalienable rights Con asks what I intended by my Power of the People segment stating “ Are you trying to say that if the government takes away a right, the people will rebel? ” This is not at all what that portion of my argument is stating. Rather, I am stating that our society accepts that the people give power to the government through consent. Without consent people cannot give the government consent. Overview of Con’s case: Con has argued against the resolution essentially as follows…. 1: Felons fit into a category with the mentally underdeveloped, handicapped, or non-citizens and thus should not have voting rights. 2: Felons under the status quo do not have the right to vote and thus should not have the right to vote. 3: To have voting rights you must meet the specific criteria she lists. Number one is entirely untrue and dismissed. Number two is just a statement of the status quo not support for it. Number 3 is arbitrary and thus not strong support to negate. Conclusion: It becomes clear that If the right to vote is taken away, our entire system of government cannot live up to its primary purpose. In the interest of our government filling its purpose, or in other words, securing the unalienable rights afforded to all men, it is only reasonable to conclude that Felons should have voting rights in the modern U. S. Thanks for reading, vote Pro!

In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote Forfeit I have no arguments, and I have too much work to continue this. Thanks for debating anyway.

Resolved: in a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote I took the core value assumed by Pro to be achieving justice. Pro claimed, "The creation of justice, by preserving the democratic society, is the pathway towards the achievement of the perfect democracy." Now Pro seems to claim that justice should be defined as whatever democracy produces, no matter how unjust. The vote of cannibals provides a simple example of the fact that democracy does always achieve justice. Moreover, the fact that democracy does not achieve justice is reflected in the U.S. Constitution by its establishing a republic, by using a system of electors chosen by state legislators "by any means," and by having a Bill of Rights that protects individuals from unfettered democracy. Moreover, the exclusion of minors and the exclusion of non-citizens is done to foster justice at the expense of unfettered democracy. Pro made no argument that justice would be achieved by expanding democracy. In his opening statement Pro asserted "If all of these Voters were re-enfranchised and 1726 more of those voters cast ballots in favor of Al Gore Rather than George Bush the presidential election would have turned another way." then in rebuttal he contradicts himself by asserting "Also felons are only 2% of the population not enough to win an election." Pro was correct in his first assertion, and the numbers Pro recited prove that 2% more than enough to swing an election. Pro asserts that recidivism rates are "mere speculation." It is not speculation that convicted felons still have a substantial interest in preserving a criminal lifestyle. When about 60% are rearrested and more are not caught, that is solid proof that they maintain that interest. It would be a fine idea to exclude felons who have never been caught from voting, but the lack of a practical way of doing that does not mean we should honor the judgment of those we know to have interests in weakening the justice system. Pro asserts that the only purposes of imprisonment are punishment and rehabilitation. I refuted that at the outset. An additional purpose is to prevent the offender from committing additional bad acts upon the public. Denying the vote to a convicted felon prevents the felon from committing the bad act of fostering criminal interests through the voting process. That can, fortunately, be prevented without imprisonment. Note that the proposition restores the vote to felon who are in jail or on parole, yet Pro seems to insist that the issue is solely about those who have completed their sentences. The fundamental error in the Pro position is the assumption that greater democracy always means greater justice. Clearly it does not. I therefore urge a vote against the proposition.

R: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Clarification/Context So as to be as clear as possible. I am arguing that so called Felons should retain the right to vote in spite of being felons. Below is some basic information on the current circumstance in regard to the debate topic. “The idea of taking away a criminal's right to vote has been around since ancient Greece and Rome. A condition called "civil death" in Europe involved the forfeiture of property, the loss of the right to appear in court, and a prohibition on entering into contracts, as well as the loss of voting rights. Civil death was brought to America by English colonists, but most aspects of it were eventually abolished, leaving only felon disenfranchisement intact in some parts of modern America.”(1)“5.3 million Americans (1 in 40 adults) were unable to vote due to a felony conviction in the 2008 elections. This included 1.4 million African-American men, more than 676,000 women, and 2.1 million ex-offenders who have completed their sentences. “(1) “State approaches to felon disenfranchisement vary tremendously. In Maine and Vermont, felons never lose their right to vote, even while they are incarcerated. In Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia, felons and ex-felons permanently lose their right to vote, without a pardon from the governor. Virginia and Florida have supplementary programs which facilitate gubernatorial pardons. The remaining 45 states have 45 different approaches to the issue. In 38 states and the District of Columbia, most ex-felons automatically gain the right to vote upon the completion of their sentence. In some states, ex-felons must wait for a certain period of time after the completion of their sentence before rights can be restored. In some states, an ex-felon must apply to have voting rights restored.”(1) Burden of proofAs I am proposing the change to the status quo, I accept the burden of proof. I must affirm the resolution. Debate Format4 rounds/5,000 characters/72 hrs. 1st round: acceptance 2nd and 3rd rounds: Arguments and rebuttals 4th round: Final rebuttal and closing statements (No new arguments) Sourceshttp://www.ncsl.org... Comment if interested.

Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Rebuttal: Con says “I can hardly believe anyone would make the argument that they would want violent psychopaths and organized crime members to be casting votes from inside of the penitentiary.” It is not that I want or desire that psychopaths to vote, that would be irrelevant. The fact is that they should retain that right, otherwise they are victims of tyranny. Such would be a violation of the founding principles of this nation. Con says “I can accept what you and your peers want. I can not accept you meddling in my community and forcing us to bend to your totalitarian will. Mind your own business. Not every community will have the same wants as yours.” Again, this is not about what I want, rather about what is right. Taking away someone’s ability to have a say in how they are governed is the totalitarian path. You may not want to have felons vote, I accept that is your view but, as you said it…. perhaps you should mind your own business and not force others to bend to your totalitarian will. Con says “The Declaration of Independence is not a carefully thought out law but a cry for freedom from an oppressive centralized government.” While I agree that the Declaration of Independence is not a law, it was very well thought out. It was a cry for freedom from an oppressive government. Much of the grievance was a lack of representation in that oppressive government. Is this not a synonymous example for those who have their right to vote tyrannically taken from them. Con says “The Declaration of Independence is not a carefully thought out law but a cry for freedom from an oppressive centralized government. Your proposal here is to have a centralized government make a law to force states to act against our own will. Laws are violent things.” My opponent seems intent at straw manning my position. Rather, my position is that such a law that retained felon’s right to vote would curtail rule of the mob, or tyranny of the majority. Thus preserving freedom is on the side of voting rights, and totalitarian side is restricting such a vote. Con says “We designate an act a crime because it is injurious to public welfare. If you look at all such crimes you will find that someone is a victim and that victim has been deprived of their Human Rights. Their right to pursue life liberty and happiness. I see no problem in denying these offensive criminal their rights.” Again, my opponent’s arguments miss the mark. I certainly believe that when a crime is committed that action should be taken to preserve the liberty of others, often resulting in imprisonment and other actions. My issue is not in punishing crime, it rests solely on the right to vote. Con says “We deny inside traders access to the markets. Child molesters are denied privacy. Computer criminals are denied the use of the Internet. All are denied the use of weapons for self-defense. These decisions, as clearly prescribed in The Constitution of the United States of America, are left to the states.” Each are great example of how freedom is preserved by the action taken. How does taking a Felon’s right to vote protect other’s freedom. In the U.S. there are 5.58 Million Felons who are limited in voting rights. (1) There are 207.5 Million eligible voters. Giving felons the right to vote would hardly create a problem as it is would amount to 2% of the voter pool. Add that fact to con's view that we have "Zero Representation because cause a ratio of representative to constituent is a million to one. That ridiculous ratio does not make a "Representative Democracy".” As Con seems to think voting abilities negligible due to numbers, as well as numbers show the minority that is felons in this nation, it is reasonable to conclude that there is no danger or freedom to be lost by allowing felons to vote. The only loss of freedom would result in taking away the right to vote from the felons themselves. Extended arguments: If the right to vote is taken away, our entire system of government cannot live up to its primary purpose. In the interest of our government filling its purpose, or in other words, securing the unalienable rights afforded to all men, it is only reasonable to conclude that Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. I noticed on con’s profile that he has the following quote… "I may not agree with what you have to say but i will fight to the death for your right to say it" This nicely demonstrates the underlying principle. Regardless of our personal feelings of felon’s views, there is no loss in freedom or danger in allowing them to vote. Therefore it is their right that they should vote, and such a right should be protected from the tyranny of the majority. (1)http://sentencingproject.org...

Ex-felons who commited minor crimes or crimes at a early age should be allowed to vote Fair points that my opponent had to say about my case. But now I will have to do the job of proving them wrong. 1. Broadness of a felon My opponent gives the usual things an ex-felon could do. Though he makes the case that after they have done there time in jail they learn there mistake. I agree with that statement, but my case is to help young kids not get into crime. What is more important the 5.83 million ex-felons, or the 74.8 million minors learning that doing drugs, and alcohol is cool. 5.83 million people need to be an example to the 74.8 million minors living in America. It is about the new generation. Focus on the right now, instead of the past. We can get them financially secure, but they have to serve as an example to our minors. 2. Taxation without representation My opponent tries to make the claim that there debt to society has been served in jail, and it should be a right for them to vote. I respect that my opponent is trying to protect the 2% of America, but I am trying to protect the 74.8 million minors that can get in trouble with the law. Lets try to decrease the 5.83 million Americans to 1 million. We should have these ex-felons as examples to the larger demographic. We need to protect the 74.8 million minors. We need to focus on the right now. We need to focus on the greater benefit of the 74.8 million than the 5.83 million Americans. 3. Ex-Felons go back to jail His argument in a way helps my case, because he is saying that this is a way felons can actually help themselves. We should give them jobs, but we shouldn't give them voting rights because they could be put up as an example. 4. Benefits of ex-felons voting My opponent said that countries do well if they let ex-felons voice there opinions. Ex-felons can voice their opinions anytime in America. Maintaining our status as a free country has nothing to do with the resolution, therefore it is invalid. My opponent also said the returning there vote can integrate the criminal system. I said earlier in this argument that they still have the power to voice there opinions. They can create awareness about how tough it is in prisons. But they should also serve as an example to the 74.8 million minors who might commit a crime. It is truly the greater benefit for our society. 5. Racial felon disenfranchisement laws/ racist voting My opponent tries to make the case that there is discrimination against minorities. I totally agree that there is discrimination against minorities when it comes to the prison system. That is why I have been trying to stress through out this whole case that the ex-felons should serve as an example to our new generation. I think, and my opponent can correct me if I am wrong, but I think he is trying to say that giving these rights back to them will fight discrimination. He also stated that these ex-felons come from poor neighborhoods. That is exactly why we should have ex-felons as an example to the poorer neighborhoods. We should teach these neighborhoods the consequences of their actions. It will serve as a greater benefit for American society.

In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote To attack my opponent's case: The Negative uses Justice as a value for the resolution, stating that "…the resolution is about punishment. Punishment must be just. Thus, the resolution implies a value of justice" However, there is no place in the resolution where it says the word "punishment". Disallowing a felon to vote would only the protection for the people, according to the negative, because felons can and will make laws that harm the people. Also, Justice is not mentioned anywhere in the Resolution, so Democracy still outweighs justice as a value when it comes to a democratic society, which has the root word demos, which means people. Thus, both democratic society and democracy are closely intertwined. My opponent also uses the value criterion of Contractarianism, which is basically the Social Contract. The social contract is also his contention, so I will attack both at once. Contention 1: Social Contract Theorem. Since there is more than one Social Contract, his Contention is vague. I do not know whose Social Contract exactly he is using. Is it Hobbs's, Rousseau's or Locke's? These three Social Contracts were made on totally different theories. Hobbs believed that all men were evil. Rousseau believed that some men were good, and some were evil. Locke believed that all men were good. There is no general theory that can encompass all three of these largely opposite theories. Therefore, I must press for the Neg. to choose which Social Contract Theory he actually uses. If he does not choose, then I will be able to sink his whole contention if I prove that one of the Social Contracts is either fallacious, or supports the Aff. To attack his sub points, however: C1A: My opponent uses the idea of reciprocated responsibility. Felons, in this idea, make the laws, and thus they have to obey them --- However, felons do not make the law; they only elect the people who make the law. Also, in the Constitution, it says that the people have the right and duty to revolt against the government if it becomes tyrannical. Thus, if a law is passed that tyrannizes a certain race in the country, that race has the right to revolt. However, according to my opponent, they made that law, but they do not have to obey the law. This is not democratic, because the idea would allow the government to make oppressive laws and the people would still not be allowed to stand up for their rights. C1B: The Neg. uses General Will in his second contention. The general will is a concept in political philosophy referring to the desire or interest of a people as a whole. However, the flaw with General Will is that it would submit a minority, no matter how little the difference is, to the decisions of the majority. Ex: There is a democratic country with two rival factions who hate each other and want to exterminate each other. One faction currently has 100,000 supporters. The other faction has 99,999 supporters. However, in a vote for a law, the majority that has only 1 more vote than the other faction can pass a law to kill all supporters of the rival faction. After all, this is General Will. How is this fair, that a teeny, tiny majority of 1 person can decide the deaths of 99,999 people? Thus, the General Will theory is flawed. C1C: In summary, my opponent pretty much states that, since they committed a crime against humanity, they have to lose their rights. However, the problem with this idea is: First, felons should not have to lose their rights in addition to the jail term. There is a law in the United States called double Jeopardy, in which it states that a convicted criminal cannot be punished multiple times for the same crime. So, if the jailing of the felon is already punishment, then the felon should not be disenfranchised because he already has been punished. Second, even if he does have to lose his or her rights, why does it have to be the right to vote? There are many other rights that people have, why can't they lose the right to mobility, or to bear arms, or to free speech, or freedom of the press? Why is it that they only lose the right to vote? There is no reason why the right to vote is more special or less special than the other rights. To defend my case: Actually, the value of Democracy should pretty much stand throughout and is obvious in the resolution based on the root words, as I said before. Both Democracy and a Democratic Society both have the root word demos in them. Thus, both mean, for the people. Also, since democracy is an idea, and a democratic society utilizes the idea of democracy, thus democracy is needed for a democratic society to take place. My value criterion, equality, also connects to a Democracy because it is implied by the definition of democracy. The definition of democracy is that the supreme power is held completely by the people under a free electoral system. Now, in a democracy, the concept of voting is that the power of the government is equally distributed through the people, so equality does connect strongly to the value of democracy. Contention Overview: The United States is only being used as an example of a democracy, and by democracy, I did not mean an ideal democracy. Therefore, since my opponent has said that the United States is a democratic republic, it implies that the United States uses democracy, which would enable it to relate to the value. Since my opponent dropped my point about "once a felon, always a felon", I am allowed to use it in my defense. C1: As I wrote before, the 26th amendment of the Constitution states that "all citizens over 18 years old have the right to vote." This quote makes no mention of whether those citizens are felons or not. Thus, the only way for a person in the United States to not have the right to vote would be if they are not a citizen, or if they are under 18 years old. Since a felon does not lose his citizenship when he is convicted, then he retains the right to vote for his jail term, and the rest of his life. It is also irrational to deny a person the right to vote for the rest of his life for something as simple as drug abuse, which is a felony, when his felony has harmed no one. C2: "By voting off his logic the affirmative world would have no punishments because they would all be justified." This line does not make sense, so I do not need to defend my contention unless the Neg. clarifies this line. C3: My definition of "felon" does not contradict the fact that a felon does not have to be from the current democracy. My definition of felon is "Felon: a person who has committed a felony, which is a grave offense against society, such as murder or burglary, and commonly punished by imprisonment of more than a year, or death." In nowhere of the definition does it say anything about the system of government. Thus, the Neg's attack against this contention fails, and the contention still stands. C4: My opponent dropped it, so it stands Thanks!

In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote NEGATIVE I negate: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote For the sake of clarity, I would like to define some key terms: (1) Democracy: a government by the people in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by their elected officials (2) Felon: a person convicted of a serious criminal offense punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year I offer the following observations of the resolution: (1) Because America is a democracy, a society, and should not allow felons the privilege of voting, the United States complies with all restrictions in the resolution, thus implied by the resolution (2) The resolution clearly states "felons" versus "ex-felons". The United Nations defines an ex-felon as somebody who has completed their sentence, and a felon, as stated in the resolution, as somebody currently serving their sentence. Therefore, my opponent must prove how letting felons vote in prison is upholding a just democracy Value: Justice Value Criterion: Maximization of Fairness The Negative values justice. Justice is implied by the resolution because it deals with the punishment of felons. In order for a society to be democratic, all punishment must be fair and just. If punishment is not fair and just, a democracy cannot prosper. In this debate, I will show why this punishment is perfectly just. I will show my value of justice through the maximization of fairness. Democracy is a majority rule. Currently, the United States is comprised of over 98% of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens, versus the less than 2% of society that are murders and rapists. 98 to 2, who should get the rights? To prove my point, I make the following arguments (1) Retribution. Retribution is giving punishment that is deserved, or punishment that fits the crime. When somebody commits a felony, say rape, they treat their victim as a moral non-entity. An entity is a human being, so treating somebody as a non-entity is treating somebody less than human. So, the government has an obligation to punish this criminal. Does the government then in turn rape the felon? Of course not. This would be treating the felon as a moral non-entity, just as he did to his victim. This is cruel and unusual punishment that would make the government no better than the felon. But, the government still has to punish the felon. What is the government to do? The government must treat the felon as a political non-entity, in order to punish the criminal, yet not be cruel and unusual. Treating a felon as a political non-entity includes revoking the privilege of voting. 2) Legal Consistency. When felons are incarcerated, they are essentially removed from society – both for the punishment of the criminal and for the safety of the rest of society. In their removal from society, they lose certain rights that they would normally possess; they lose their social rights and the freedom of activity, occupational rights and the freedom to engage in the workforce, parental rights and the freedom to raise children, etc. Why, then, should criminals be allowed to maintain their political rights and the freedom to vote? There are many rights which are more basic taken away from the individual during his imprisonment; if we are to uphold some level of legal consistence and be uniform and fair in the level of punishment afforded to prisoners, then there is no reason why we should afford felons the privilege of voting and every reason not to. 3) Double Standard. By affirming the resolution, you are essentially condoning violent acts, which, as a democratic society, we are morally obliged not to do. By affirming the resolution, you are giving felons superior rights. You are not only treating felons as equal, but you are giving them rights that make them superior to normal, tax-paying, law-abiding citizens. You make the law-breakers into the law-makers. By affirming the resolution, you are saying that people who brake the law in the most brazen way, by committing a felony, would be better than a law-abiding citizen because they broke the law and still have the same amount of rights. As you can see, this is simply wrong. Thank you, and it is for those reasons that I negate the resolution

Ex-Cons should not be denined the vote. In this second round, my opponent has presented the following: 1. That permanent disenfranchisement is unconstitutional, 2. The question of whether society can "dictate the rights a person enjoys," and 3. The notion that continued disenfranchisement encourages ex-convicts to "remain on the fringes of society as second-class citizens," followed again by the assertion that "indefinite punishment" of this nature is unconstitutional. First, we should note that whether or not my opponent realizes it, the question of permanent or "indefinite" disenfranchisement is a red herring. Only three states currently have "permanent" disenfranchisement of convicted felons, and again even in those cases the ex-con retains the ability to recover the right to vote through petitioning the court, if they so choose. In all other states, the right to vote is returned to the ex-convict, typically automatically after a certain period of time has elapsed since completion of the sentence. However, even if the disenfranchisement were permanent in all states, it would definitely not be unconstitutional. As was noted in round 1, the Fourteenth Amendment clearly recognizes the rights of the states to deny convicted criminals the right to vote, implictly in the first section and explicitly in the second. Section 2 of this amendment was, in fact, the basis for the 1974 Supreme Court ruling in the case Richardson v. Ramirez, which dealt with precisely this issue. (The full text of the ruling may be found at http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu... The Fourteenth Amendment is widely recognized as affirming the constitutionality of state disenfranchisement laws by legal scholars across the nation; for example, the following comments from an article by Edward B. Foley, the Director of Election Law @ Moritz, and Douglas Dumolt, Class of 2006, Moritz School of Law at the Ohio State University: "This understanding also dovetailed with the U.S. Constitution's explicit recognition, in section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, that states are permitted to disenfranchise felons if they wish." So it seems very clear - from opinions from the legal community, from simply reading the text of the 14th Amendment, and most importantly a Supreme Court ruling on this very question - that disenfranchisement laws ARE definitely constitutional. And note that there is no distinction in these opinions and rulings between those laws which "automatically" return the vote to the ex-convict, and those which my opponent would label as "permanent." So we now come to the "moral" question - can society "morally" deny any individual certain rights? We should recognize first that, in any practical sense, "rights" under the law derive solely from the so-called "contract with society" that each of us, as the members of that society, implicitly agree to. It certainly makes for good political rhetoric to speak of "inherent" and "inalienable" rights, but in practice we enjoy only those rights which society as a whole has agreed to defend on behalf of the individual. If you disagree, may I suggest that you visit any of a number of the other societies on Earth where certain of the rights we enjoy here are not so well-defended, and attempt to exercise them. In what sense of the word would, say, an individual living in Stalin's Soviet Union enjoy an "inalienable" right to free speech? So rights DO derive, in any practical sense, from the "contract with society." And here is a case where we are discussing the "rights" of individuals who have already, of their own free will, broken that contract by committing acts against other members of the society or the society as a whole. Rather than being concerned about the "morality" of denying certain rights to these individuals, should we not first discuss the morality of continuing to let them participate in the running of that society, given that they have already demonstrated their unwillingness to behave in that society's best interests? Society clearly has both the legal and the moral right - and in fact, the obligation - to disenfranchise convicted criminals, both as part of the punishment for their crimes and to protect itself from the potential consequences of permitting them to participate in the voting process. At the very least, this must be done until these individuals have demonstrated their willingness and ability to now "play by the rules" - and as was already noted, they have a path to recover their voting rights in each and every state of the union. Since the disenfranchisement is rarely "permanent" - and when it is, it is generally through the individual's inability to demonstrate that they ARE ready to again participate as full members of society - the question of this practice pushing these people to the "fringes of society" or making them "second-class citizens" is moot. If they are remaining on the "fringes," it is by their own choice - just as it was their choice to commit the crime which resulted in their disenfranchisment in the first place. Rights do not exist apart from responsibilities, and we are most definitely not talking about a case of the "big bad government" unfairly or unconstitutionally restricting the rights of some poor, innocent citizens. If you cannot live up to the responsibilities of citizenship, and you demonstrate this by committing criminal acts, then you shouldn't be surprised if certain of your "rights" are restricted or lost. This is in part to punish the criminal for their acts, but equally importantly it is to protect society from those who have clearly demonstrated inability or unwillingness to respect the rest of the society's members.

in a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote I will begin by addressing my case and then my opponents. Many great philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes and Thomas Paine have all believed that every individual has inalienable or in other words natural rights. There are 2 types of rights humans are indebted to. The first type of rights is legal rights which are rights created by a society and natural rights which are rights that are consistent in any society. Legal rights can be changed, however inalienable rights are consistent in all situations. By preserving inalienable rights, I will affirm the resolution that in a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. I would like to clarify the following definitions from the Merriam-Webster's dictionary. Grant- to bestow or transfer formally Ought- used to express obligation; Retain- to keep. My value for this case is equality. My value criterion is preserving Natural rights. I have 1 observation in this case. The resolution must be consistent with both felons who are currently serving their punishment and felons who have finished their punishment. I have 1 observation in this case which is the way of determining who is eligible to vote in any democratic society. My first contention is by not allowing the felons to be granted voting rights, we are oppressing them. According to the widely accepted Doctrine of Inalienable rights, Article II states that Humans are granted liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression. If we do not believe that every human has inalienable rights, then we cannot have: 1)A democratic society because democracy depends on every member of society to have a way of voting for what they want. However, if some people who contribute to society do not get these rights, then it is contradictory democratic ideals because the felons are not being granted equal representation. 2) Equality among humans because the lack of inalienable rights would give some humans a greater intrinsic value than other humans. Without equality among humans, that it would be okay for slavery to exist. It would also be okay to disrespect a felon because they are less in value. Clearly, by not owing the felons the right to vote, we oppressing them from having a say on what direction they would want a certain government to run. Is it fair that you as an individual be deprived of these rights? Would that allow you to disrespect felons? Felons are no less than you if you cannot treat them with proper respect. My second contention is that by not giving the felons a right to vote, then we are not allowing them to have a second chance at redemption. Currently, we are in a world in which it is natural to make mistakes and faults, however we must be able to learn from those very mistakes and prosper as humans. By taking away their rights to vote after they have served their term you are not allowing redemption in that democratic society. Even convicted felons can still contribute to society. Gandhi and Malcolm X had been considered felons for they served time in jail, however they revolutionized his nation. So such figures like them cannot be treated right just because they are felons? My third contention is that by not giving felons the right to vote, we are encouraging the felons to commit another felony in the future. For example, say a person commits embezzlement and is on probation as a punishment. Now, say the person, who contributes to society, is denied from this society which does not welcome the person back. However the person is expected to follow all of the rules again however, loses his/her rights. Should the person continue to be less than all of the individuals in the society? NO! By taking away the felon's rights you are saying its okay to disrespect the individual. Empirical studies supporting my reasoning have been conducted which show that in those societies in which felons retain the right to vote, they are 50% less likely to commit another crime than in places which deny felons the right to vote. With natural rights in mind, we cannot allow felons to be valued as less of humans than others. Felons are people just like me and you. In William Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice, this quote holds true to this situation "If you prick felons, do they not bleed? If you tickle them, do they not laugh? If you poison them, do they not die? From the contentions above it can safely be stated that in a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. Now i will address my opponent's case. My opponent's value and criterion are both controdictory because punishment's purpose is redemption. When you give felons punishment, the goal is for them to rehabilitate. So if they are rehabilitated, they should be welcomed back with open arms. My opponents first contention is that Felons are considered less trustworthy. Full rights are often not completely restored following conviction. however, it is not true because felons are rehabilitated after they serve punishment. Remeber felons are people too. So this contention does not stand My opponents seconds contentions is that Under the affirmative they have to say felons who have committed voters fraud should be able to vote. However, i have proven why they should within my case so this contention is not pertainant. My opponent's third contention is that voting needs requirements. However, the resolution suggests a purely democratic society in which everyone can vote; it does not specify whether kids can vote or not. With this inconsistency this contention does not stand. I have proven how every part of my opponent's case does not stand while my case is the best resolution.

Felon Disenfranchisement Because the interests of felons does not truly represent the interests of the wider population I urge a negative ballot. My value is the preservation of a democratic society because that is the foundation for what democratic societies ought to do. Retain: to keep in possession The resolution asks us what we ought to do. But it does not ask us what we ought to do in a vacuum, rather it says what we ought to do in a democratic society. Thus my criterion is upholding a democracy that best serves the interests of the people. This is necessary for preserving a democratic society because the purpose of having a democracy is to take the people's consideration into account while making policy decisions. I offer 2 contentions for this criterion. Contention 1: It is in the people's best interest to uphold the social contract, and the social contract suggests that felons ought to be disenfranchised. Social contract describes is a set of agreements by which people form nations and maintain a social order. Such social contract implies that the people give up some rights to a government and other authority in order to receive or jointly preserve social order. This literally functions as a contract, if one side doesn't hold his own, the other side doesn't have to either. There are several reasons why the people want to maintain the social contract: First, without the social contract there would be no consequences for breaking the rules. It would be impossible to preserve a democracy when it allows its residents to do whatever they please. Second: the social contract serves as a check for the government as well. If a government follows the social contract, it will avoid corruption or excessive power. Third, the social contract makes citizens feel safe and allows them to live normal, unselfish lives. If people knew that there were no consequences for crime, they would always be protecting themselves and not others because they are very likely to be robbed or hurt. Disenfranchising felons is clearly consistent with the social contract: The felons didn't listen to the government, so the government doesn't have to listen to them. By committing such a serious crime, the felons gave up their right to make rules. At the very least, this true for felons and committers of electoral fraud. Richard L. Lippke writes, Certain crimes, by their very natures, constitute direct assaults on democratic forms of political organization. Such crimes consist either of attempts to overthrow or undermine democratic governments, as in cases of treason or sedition, or efforts to manipulate or thwart the outcomes of democratic elections, as in cases of ballot tampering or other types of electoral fraud. Not only do democratic governments seem warranted in prohibiting conduct that threatens their effective and appropriate functioning, a plausible case can be made that those guilty of such crimes are prime candidates for disenfranchisement. Their offenses, are different from other kinds of criminal offenses, since they exhibit obvious contempt for democratic political processes. As a matter of fairness it is only fitting that those who act in ways inimical to the operation of democratic governments should be denied the opportunity to participate in determining who will occupy official roles in such governments or the policies enacted and enforced. Those prepared to act in ways that deprive others of realization of the interests served by democratic political participation cannot consistently demand that the state continue to secure such interests for them by not interfering with their exercise of the franchise. Contention 2: Allowing felons to vote does not best represent the interests of the broader electorate. Government is supposed to determine laws that will best benefit society. By their conduct, felons have demonstrated that they don't think it is necessary to follow these laws, therefore giving up their right to make the rules. Society has chosen laws that they think will best protect them and people around them, yet the felons completely disregarded these rules proving that they are either incapable or unwilling to abide by the rules that are necessary to benefit society. Because of this these should be the last people who we allow to make the laws for society. Now I offer this following under view: We cannot embrace static conclusions about what we ought do in a democracy. Amy Gutman and Dennis Thompson explain: Keeping the decision-making process open --recognizing that its results are provisional--is important for two reasons. First, in politics as in much of practical life, decision-making processes and the human understanding upon which they depend are imperfect. We therefore cannot be sure that the decisions we make today will be correct tomorrow, and even the decisions that appear most sound at the time may appear less justifiable in light of later evidence. Second, in politics most decisions are not consensual. Those citizens and representatives who disagreed with the original decision are more likely to accept it if they believe they have a chance to reverse or modify it in the future Even if you are convinced every argument in my opponent's case is true, we should never foreclose discussion in a democracy. Foreclosing discussion is dangerous because we might enshrine an ideal that is later proven irrelevant. So even if my opponent's case is entirely true, we still wouldn't affirm because that would end democratic discussion by establishing a normative rule. Moreover, even if the affirmative doesn't end democratic discussion, what ought be done in a democracy is to follow the agreed upon rules of that democracy. Thus, we cannot establish the resolution as something that democracies universally ought to do. NOW THE AFFIRMATIVE CASE: Ok so first my opponents criterion: human rights is not a good value for this debate because voting is not a human right, it is a political right. Human rights are the set of rights that humans are entitled to no matter what society they live in, voting can only be a right if one lives in a democratic society, thus it is not a human right. So you can reject my opponents entire case because his value is not relevant to this debate. Now his criterion: Equality definitely is important in a democracy, but there has to be limits. We should treat people equally UNLESS they have proven to us that they do not deserve some rights. For example, we don't allow felons to carry fire arms. Likewise, we shouldn't allow felons to vote because they have proven to us that they do not care about the welfare of society. His first contention: First, my opponent talks about how black people and women couldn't vote in history, but that's different because there was no good reason for disenfranchisement there. There is clearly a reason to disenfranchise felons. Second, my opponent talks about how it is undemocratic to not let certain minorities vote. But is that really true? Children are minorities, but why don't we let them vote? I think many "children" under 18 are much more mature and have better judgment than felons. Second, the purpose of a democracy is to benefit the citizens. The citizens have chosen laws that they believe will best benefit themselves and others, but the felons blantantly disregarded these laws showing that they don't care about the general welfare. His second contention: Let me make this clear- I DO NOT HAVE TO PROVE THAT THEY SHOULD BE DISENFRANCHISED FOREVER (sorry for caps just wanted to make it stand out lol). I only have to prove that felons ought to lose the right in prison, based on my definition of retain. Allowing felons to vote will not help them reintegrate into society, get jobs, or get an education, especially if they only lose it in prison. It just does not make sense, and even if it did reintegrate them, it is so little that it is not worth disregarding social contract. Cont. 3: LET FELONS VOT

Prisoners should be allowed to vote Background Now, I will point out that it has been declared constitutional for states to disenfranchise felons in the supreme court case Richardson v. Ramirez[1] so here I will not be presenting any legal reasons why felons should be allowed to vote, as the legal reasons show that they can't. Instead, I will focus on explaining why this ruling is wrong. Not every felon has committed a terrible crime. In many states, it is considered a felony to possess a certain amount of marijuana[2]. Thus, also in these states, your voting rights can be taken away just because you have marijuana. I think that since many states are now legalizing marijuana, and a majority(53%) support marijuana legalization [3] with that number rising every year, it is safe to say that people are beginning to realize that marijuana use or possession is not a crime. Since marijuana possession, I consider, a lesser crime than say murder or theft, why should all felons have their voting rights taken away? Some didn't do anything that really harms others. I imagine there are other "felonies" that most people would agree are not actually that major of a crime, yet they are felonies and they would prevent you from being able to vote in basically every state. In addition, some estimate that at least 10% of convicts are innocent of their crime and wrongly placed in prison.[5] Why should these people be denied their right to vote just because the other 90% of prisoners did commit a terrible crime? I consider it a worse problem to deny 10 innocent people the right to vote, than to allow 90 felons the right to vote. While it seems like it's proper to deny a murderer or another felon the right to vote, I'll explain in my next point why this is flawed as well. Laws are based off of what seems moral and immoral Since laws are based off of what seems moral and immoral, and there is tons of evidence to suggest that morals are subjective[4], why should criminals have their voting rights stripped away over something that is subjectively wrong? Even murder is subjectively wrong, as many cultures consider murder okay in some circumstances that America or other nations would consider immoral[4]. Since I believe laws are supposed to reflect what society deems what is moral, shouldn't criminals still have a say over such laws? Prisoners are still part of society, albeit they are put somewhere they can no longer harm others, but they still are part of society, they are just separate from most people in society. Just imagine one day that society deems it morally justifiable to murder someone in a specific circumstance, however the law is lagging a little behind society. Then what begins to happen is a massive influx of prisoners will occur as more and more people are murdering under those circumstances, and more and more people are being denied a right to vote. This makes it impossible to change the law, even if majority of people want to make it legal to murder in that instance, and it’s considered moral to do so, but the law can never be changed because people are constantly being thrown in prison. Now, perhaps my opponent will say there is good reason to have murder under all circumstances to be illegal, so it should never change, but if majority of society agrees it is moral, why should there be a law against it? In addition, it is merely my opponent’s subjective opinion that murder would be wrong in that instance, so what makes their subjective opinion better than others’? This is all hypothetical of course, I don’t know if my opponent would have brought this point up, but I rebutted it in case they would. Since murder is universally agreed upon in our society to be wrong, perhaps we can go back to the the marijuana usage argument to get my point across better, if it seemed my murder example was weak. Most people believe marijuana usage is morally okay, now imagine if a majority of people who believe marijuana usage should be legal are thrown in prison because they, themselves, use marijuana. The law can thus never change, even though marijuana usage is seen as moral by society, because people are getting their voting rights taken away. This can apply to any action that changes to be moral by society's view. I will leave my argument at this for now. Sources: [1]https://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://www.drugtreatment.com... [3]http://www.pewresearch.org... [4]http://www.debate.org... [5]http://www.tandfonline.com...

Prisoner voting would demean the entire electoral system. The electoral system is based on a society's collective sense of respect for the law, citizenship, and democratic processes. These are precisely the values that felons have flaunted. In this way, offering them a right to vote demeans the entire spirit of the electoral system.