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

Title: Resolved: In the United States, Felons should be allowed to vote upon release from prison. Content: 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.

Title: Convicted Felons should be allowed to vote in all U.S. elections Content: 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.

Title: Resolved: In the United States, Felons should be allowed to vote upon release from prison. Content: I extend all my arguments to the fourth round. I also have effectively refuted all of Pro's points, and by forfeiting, he is conceding this. He has also not refuted either of my assertions, so those are still standing. As I have proved, I come out on top with the two arguments that felon voting isn't a federal issue and that these felons have bad judgment, I win this debate. Thank you, henryzietlow, for this challenge, and I urge a vote for the Opposition, or Con, side of this debate.

Title: Convicted Felons should be allowed to vote in all U.S. elections Content: 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.

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

Title: Released Felons Should Be Allowed To Vote. Content: 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?

Title: R: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: 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.

Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: Rebuttals: Con states that “First off, Felons already have voting rights when they get out of prison.” I noted this in round one. There are some cases where voting rights are restored after the sentence is served, but not always. This is also off-point as I am arguing that felons should not have to regain their right, I am asserting they should retain/ never have lost the right to vote. Contention 1; Dishonesty and Poor Character. Con states "We don't let children vote, for instance, or noncitizens, or the mentally incompetent. Why? Because we don't trust them and their judgment... “ We don’t let children vote, it’s true. I disagree that it is due to us not trusting their judgement. Rather it is their inability to reason. This is due to the Pre-frontal cortex of the brain not being fully developed. (1)(2) Non-citizens don’t vote it is true, not because we don’t trust them, but rather because voting is part of the social contract of which non-citizens are not a part of. Con than asks “do criminals belong in that category?” I am assuming the category being children, noncitizens, or mentally incompetent. Clearly felons should not. Felons are not children, are citizens, and if mentally incompetent would have made the insanity plea. Thus Felons do not fit in this category. We see contention one is negated. Contention 2; Congressional Authority over Voting Much of this contention merely states the status quo, not support for it. I have shown in my argument why the status ought to be changed. Merely stating the status quo does not negate or support Con’s Argument. Con argues that “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.” This is in contrast to America’s fundamental principles of Government. “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” Con has added a multitude of criteria to vote that is un-necessary. The only legitimate government gets its consent from the governed. If felons can’t vote, they can’t give consent. Thus, making the government that takes away the right to vote illegitimate. We ought not have an illegitimate government. Thus Felons should retain the right to vote. Overview: 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. (1) http://www.wisegeek.org... (2) http://hrweb.mit.edu...

Title: Resolved: In the United States, Felons should be allowed to vote upon release from prison. Content: In this debate I will argue that the United States has unethical laws regarding felon voting rights, and that these laws should be loosened. I do realize that some states already allow felons to vote upon release from prison. However, I will argue in this round that the laws should be changed so that all convicted felons in the United States gain voting rights upon release from prison. Round 1- Acceptance/Any definitions con wants to make Round 2- Constructives Round 3- Rebuttals Round 4- Summary

Title: Resolved: In the United States, Felons should be allowed to vote upon release from prison. Content: 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.

Title: Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections. Content: 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.

Title: Resolved: In the United States, Felons should be allowed to vote upon release from prison. Content: 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...

Title: Resolved: in a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote Content: 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.

Title: Convicted Felons should be allowed to vote in all U.S. elections Content: 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.

Title: Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections. Content: 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.

Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: 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...

Title: Released Felons Should Be Allowed To Vote. Content: 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.

Title: Released Felons Should Be Allowed To Vote. Content: 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.

Title: Released Felons Should Be Allowed To Vote. Content: 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.

Title: Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections. Content: 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 :)

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

Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. A: 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) B: Burden of proof As I am proposing the change to the status quo, I accept the burden of proof. I must affirm the resolution. C: Debate Format 4 rounds/6,000 characters/72 hrs. 1st round: acceptance 2nd and 3rd rounds: Arguments and rebuttals 4th round: Final rebuttal and closing statements (No new arguments) (1) http://www.ncsl.org...

Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. A: 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) B: Burden of proof As I am proposing the change to the status quo, I accept the burden of proof. I must affirm the resolution. C: Debate Format 4 rounds/6,000 characters/72 hrs. 1st round: acceptance 2nd and 3rd rounds: Arguments and rebuttals 4th round: Final rebuttal and closing statements (No new arguments) (1)http://www.ncsl.org...

Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: 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.

Title: Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections. Content: 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 :)

Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: I must make clear that my position is in favor of the status quo. I may disagree states that I do not live in but I accept their decisions and the shared federal government that results from our individual election systems. If I understand what you just posted it seems as if you would like all felons to have the right vote including the ones who have not yet finished serving their sentences. You also seem to think that Felons in America only lose their right to vote. They lose other rights also. I say leave the states alone and keep to your own business in your own state. Freedom, liberty and self determination are always a better course than Totalitarianism.

Title: Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections. Content: 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...

Title: Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections. Content: 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 :)

Title: Felon Voting Content: 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.

Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: This debate only focuses on felons. I wold hardly consider a speeding ticket to be a felony charge. I am asserting that only those who have served time in prison should not have the right to vote because they do not care enough about the laws to follow them. Why should we let them vote when they have done something terribly wrong?

Title: You Choose the Topic! Content: 2. Felons should be allowed to vote People need to learn there are consequences to their actions, and punishment is involved. Felonies are big crimes, and there is consequences to your actions. My claim: Felons should not be able to vote.

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

Title: Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. Content: I too thank you for this debate. It has been a good one with a direction of a good finish. Good luck! Value Clash: My opponent made a claim that the values are the same thus it is a tie here. But this is not true at all. They ARE the same, but only CON achieves it. This is because throughout the process of a person being a citizen, and a person being a citizen with a felony, people are equally treated. All citizens can be felons; however, we only take the right of voting away from those who actually commit a felony. Therefore, the CON side achieves the value of Equality/Fairness. Criterion of Just Deserts: Here, you assume that the court's sentence means that they are off scott free. This is not true. There can be (an is) more than one punishment for being a convicted criminal/felon. Just like a convicted sex offender must register as such, a felon can't vote. Just like a restraining order can be issued against someone who commits a crime against someone, a felon can't cast a vote FOR society when he/she has already gone against it. The criterion serves its purpose as such: If you commit a felony against our society, you lose the right to have your voice (vote) heard on how the society is run. And thus, we are FAIR (equal) in our system. Since the resolution talks about a theoretical situation, I must admit that we are not being fair/equal to the people as of now (states Maine and Vermont vs. Mississippi). However, in each of these states, one another ARE treated equally to each other. Furthermore, I advocate that ALL felons should not get the vote back. Therefore, I urge that the government recognizes everyone as equal by having additional punishments of not being able to vote after committing a penalty. The value still stands on the CON side. Here, you make two interesting points worth addressing. 1) You assume that all of these elections are only federal elections. But the right to vote goes beyond just the national level it also has state and local elections. In one city, the mayor race was won by one vote. In another election, a school board race was tied and decided by a coin flip. What if instead of a coin flip, it was a felon who decided. Has the felon really earned that right? 2) Also, you assume that 2% of the vote and 2% of the population are the same. For example, you say that the closest presidential race was 2% so that means it's 2% of the vote. 2% of the vote very well could be substantially under the 5.3 million people that have committed a felony. --> Besides this, the biggest question you have to be asking yourself is "Have these felons earned the right to vote? The answer is no. Contention 1: To be honest, a crime against society = a person not deserving to be a part of that society. But since that isn't a political option, removing their right to help run society (through their vote) is the best way to say "If you commit a crime against society, you can't decide how society is going to be run." Therefore, they do get what they deserve. Perhaps they do deserve to be exported after committing a felony, but that is non-resolutional. So for now, let's just take away their right to vote. Contention 2: I think you misinterpret the point of my argument. You see, felons wouldn't ALWAYS be the swing vote, however, sometime they will be (whether local, state, or federal election). And when they are, you must ask yourself, do they really have to right to have a say in the same government and society that they go against, the answer is NO. Contention 3: You do not have to qualify in order to vote, but you can't be unqualified. The law states that the ‘right of voting can not be denied because of' (several things). This means that it can be denied for other reasons such as felonies. And as long as this law has been around, no abuse has been created. You can't vote if you're not 18 (excluding some rarities in state laws) and you can't vote if you're a felon (also excluding some rare state laws). These are ways to be able to lose your vote, but you don't have to qualify by passing tests or having money, it is guaranteed unless you're not registered, not 18, or not a felon. I see no abuse in the system and my opponent has not pointed out any abuse so this argument must be flowed to the CON side. HIS CASE: Contention 1: Again, felons wouldn't control all of the elections, but they will be the swing vote in several of them. Once again, they do not deserve this right. Contention 2: Woah woah woah, where is your evidence that says that felons that can vote have a 50% less chance of committing a crime. This claim is abusive and unrealistic. Other than that, my opponent claims that felons have the right to have their voice heard. Even though he doesn't say why they deserve to have their voice heard (I have proved the opposite (crime against society = no voice in society)). Contention 3: This argument is completely abusive. Amendments talk about why rights CAN'T be taken away, not who we guarantee them to. Felons are not one of the reasons to be able to take it away, so legally, CON wins. Even though they're minorities by definition, everyone is capable of being one and no one is born one. Becoming a felony is a CHOICE, and they are assumed to know the consequences of making that choice particularly in the states that outlaw a felony from voting. Analysis: Democracy STILL exists whether pro or con wins. This criterion is thus useless. However, when you vote CON, you gain the criterion of just deserts (by them getting what they deserve) AND both of the values (taking away the right of felonies voting is fair and equal among the states). NO amendment says that felonies MUST be given voting capabilities, so this argument is useless. There is no substantial reason to give felonies a right to vote but I give you plenty of reasons as to why to take away the right to vote (crime against society = no voice for society). Therefore, I urge a CON vote. I eagerly await your speech and good luck!

Title: Homos should not be allowed to vote Content: Pro is comparing homosexuals to felons, which still doesn't bring any validity to his position. Most homosexuals are not criminals. Comparing Felons to Homosexuals is like comparing Gold to Silver. Felons are not allowed to vote because they are in prison and it wouldn't matter if they voted or not because they're in jail. Felons have their rights taken away because they made a faulty choice. Innocent Homosexuals have their rights to vote just like everyone else. Just because a certain group of people aren't allowed to vote doesn't mean that you should bring it up towards Homosexuals. We're not debating about felons here. Pro also thinks sodomy, which is an oral or anal intercourse of sex, should be considered a felony. Again, sexual intercourse has nothing to do with this debate topic which is "Homos should not be allowed to vote." He also did not give any statistics of which states had sodomy laws because he said "no I don't care to do the exact counting or a precise rundown of which states had laws against sodomy as a felony." That just comes to show that Pro is too lazy to provide any evidence to support his case. Sodomy laws in the U.S has been repealed and struck down ever since before the 70's. [http://en.wikipedia.org...] Again, this affirm is off topic because felons and sodomy laws have absolutely nothing to do with voting. Pro has completely lost focus on his own debate subject. Pro continues to declare statement that have little or no relation to what we're debating about still. Pro is saying that men and women are sexually abusing themselves for their enjoyment, while misusing the term "sexual abuse." Sexual abuse is basically sexual assault. Sexual assault is "a statutory offense that provides that it is a crime to knowingly cause another person to engage in an UNWANTED SEXUAL ACT by force or threat." [http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...] Based on the definitions I provided, Pro's assertions is proven fallacious. He's saying that just because a person enjoys something doesn't make it right. Although, that is true in a general sense, that statement does not apply well with sex. Sex is human nature. It's one of our most basic needs as a human being according to Abraham Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. [http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_hierarchy_of_needs] Then, Pro blathers about nations taking over and progressives, again, that proves no validity to his position, supports it, nor does it have any relationship to the topic at hand. Lastly, Pro states that all sex outside of marriage should be against the law and that all "fornicators" and "adulterers" should be considered felons and not allowed to vote. This, again, has no relationship to the topic. Pro has completely moved away from the topic of homosexuals and now applies his topic to everything else as he says "ALL SEX." People can choose to have sex before marriage if they choose to. The effects of sex before marriage is non-existent. This affirmation shows nothing, but bias and prejudice because Pro feels that sexual obligation is immoral. (Again, that affirm is subjective because morals are subjective and dogmatic.) Those dogmatic affirms prove nothing to Pro's case at all. Pro also states that he is not discriminating, while his position is for the act of taking away homosexuals civil rights of voting which follows the definition of discriminate. Discriminate - To mare an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, sex, or age. [https://www.google.com...] I've noticed the terms "fornicators" and "adulterers" is related to Christian morals. Although, I am a Christian, this still has nothing to do with political voting. Other than politics, I've researched that fornication is not really pre-marital sex. Fornication is the act of having sex with a person that YOU HAVE NOT ESTABLISHED AN ACTIVE RELATIONSHIP with. Adultery is EXTRAMARITAL SEX which is having sex with someone that is not your spouse. Although, I will agree that these sexual acts are "immoral" I suppose; however, these affirmations are not valid to prove your case on the topic. These cases would be valid in a topic like "Fornication is immoral" or some other topic that's related to sex, not a topic that's related to politics. The definition of fornication and adultery that some people use is oversimplified and doesn't follow its true meaning. [http://slayingevil.wordpress.com...] [http://en.wikipedia.org...] [http://en.wikipedia.org...] Reasons why Pro should lose 1. He did not give any valid assertions 2. He was always off topic 3. He was changing the subject 4. His statements are an act of prejudice and bigotry towards a group of people and promotes discrimination against those group of people. 5. He did not provide any sources to support his case whatsoever.

Title: Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections. Content: 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.

Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: 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.

Title: Ex-felons who commited minor crimes or crimes at a early age should be allowed to vote Content: 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.

Title: In a democratic society, a felon ought to retain the right to vote. Content: 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.

Title: Prisoners should be allowed to vote Content: 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...

Title: In a democratic society, felons out to retain the right to vote. Content: I affirm the resolution: in a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. This resolution not only deals with the United States, but with all democratic societies in the world. Before moving on to the values, I will proceed to clarify definitions. Democracy: a form of government where the supreme power is held by the people;. Felon: a person currently convicted of a felony and not yet completely served their sentences –whether it is imprisonment, probation or parole. Felony: a serious crime (such as murder or arson). My value premise is Democracy; because this resolution deals with felon disenfranchisement in a democratic society, our main goal is to be democratic. Because a democracy is a form of government where the power is held by the people, maintaining the rights of the people is essential to having a democracy. The people's rights must be protected so that they may maintain the supreme power that they hold over the government. Therefore, my value criterion is protection of human rights. There are certain rights that people are entitled to, and that they must have in order to have a functional democratic society. My first contention is that voting is a right in democratic societies that cannot be violated. All people reserve the right to vote and let their opinions be heard in a democratic society. Because a democracy gives power to the people, we cannot choose who has the right to vote. A clear example of a democracy is the United States. Although it is not a pure democracy, it is as close to one a nation can be without being impractical. The United States has a population approximately of 305,559,149. A pure democracy would have to count every one of these votes – therefore a democratic republic is the best way to handle a large population while maintaining a democracy. The Founding Fathers founded this nation upon the idea that everyone is equal and that everyone is entitled to equal rights. The First Amendment of the Constitution includes many rights – one of these is the right to free speech. If a normal civilian's voice is heard through their vote, and a felon is not, we have violated their right to free speech by limiting the impact of their opinion. Even though this resolution does not specifically deal with the United States, it can be agreed that a democratic society tries to give everyone the right to have a say in the government to uphold the concept that the supreme power is held by the people. The sentencing of a felon violates no other rights than the right to liberty – which is why imprisonment is such a severe sentence. Every person has a right to have their voice heard in the government and by letting felons retain their RIGHT to vote, we protect their human rights in a democratic society. My second contention is that disenfranchising felons does not fulfill any of the recognized penal goals. These are retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation and incapacitation. Felon disenfranchisement does not fulfill any of these reasons to punish someone. Felon disenfranchisement does not deter felonies and it does not incapacitate the felon from doing any more crimes. It is clear and quite obvious that felon disenfranchisement does not deter crimes, because a felon undeterred by the chance of being caught and sent to jail won't be deterred by the threat of disenfranchisement, and it also does not stop them from committing future crimes. Violating someone's right to vote is not a suitable method of retribution because it is not proportioned to the offense. My third contention is that by taking away a felon's rights to vote you are counter-productive because you hinder the rehabilitation process. When felons are trying to become normal civilians once again, they need to receive the same benefits as a civilian would. This includes the right to vote. Because a democracy aims to be fair and just it gives power to the people. When you let felons retain the right to vote, you understand that violation of this inherent right is not a suitable method of retribution and you also realize that you help the rehabilitation process by giving them that right. Certain prison facilities are named "Rehabilitation Centers" because they realize that part, and maybe even most, of the reason for imprisoning felons is to rehabilitate them. Through this we can see that rehabilitation is a goal of the justice system and needs to be valued when punishing a felon for crimes. By helping the felons merge with society and become a civilian again, you protect their right to be assisted in the rehabilitation process, and by stripping them of the right to vote, you hinder that right. My fourth contention is that felons aren't necessarily irrational, mentally unstable, and against society. By not letting felons retain the right to vote, you assume that there would be a negative impact on society by giving them the right to vote. However, felonies aren't universally agreed upon, so it is an unfair assumption that felons would negatively affect society. Clear examples of this are sodomy laws everywhere in the world. Sodomy is a felony in places like the state of Virginia, Algeria, Botswana, and Nicaragua, just to name a few. These laws aren't the same in different democratic societies throughout the globe; therefore any statement saying that felons are against society is invalid. Because felonies are not agreed upon globally, there is a blurred line between choice and the right to do certain actions. Therefore, we can agree that we not only protect certain people's rights on the level of doing what they want, but we also protect the right of felons to not have the label of counter productive toward society.

Title: In a Democratic Society, Felons Ought to Retain the Right to Vote Content: My opponent has conceded this debate with the statement "Democracy is can only be successful when all members of society contribute". Felons are members of society. Due to the lack of an argument from my opponent, I will provide a list of democracies which allow for felon voting rights, both restricted and unrestricted: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India (yes, India allows convicted "felons" to vote after release from prison), Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, San Marino, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, South Africa (where Nelson Mandela, a convicted felon, served as President), Sweden, Switzerland, United States (where convicted felon, Sen. Ted Stevens, is not barred from voting, running for senate, and fulfilling his duties as Senator), United Kingdom, and Ukraine all allow some type of restoration of voting rights for felons. (http://felonvoting.procon.org...) Thank you.

Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: Con says “If I understand what you just posted it seems as if you would like all felons to have the right vote including the ones who have not yet finished serving their sentences. ” Yes, that is the case. Con says “You also seem to think that Felons in America only lose their right to vote. ” That is not what I think at all, just not relevant to the debate topic at hand. Let’s not start this off with a straw man fallacy. .. . Con says “Freedom, liberty and self determination are always a better course than Totalitarianism. ” I agree which is why I am in favor of the resolution. Arguments: 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. A: 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 B: 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 C: 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. D: 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 What happens when we take away the right to vote? 1: Government cannot receive power through consent of the governed if the governed cannot vote. 2: Without consent or power the government cannot secure unalienable rights Conclusion: “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. (1) . http://www.merriam-webster.com... (2) . http://en.wikipedia.org...

Title: Felons Ought to Retain the Right to Vote in a Democratic Society Content: First off, i would like to point out that my competitor used the U.S. as an example, and this resolution is not specific to any one democracy, nor is the ban of double jeopardy an inherent trait of democracy. I also would like to add that by losing the right to vote while in prison, felons are not "retaining" that right, because it has been lost for a period of time, therefore by arguing that felons should only have the right to vote after their process in the penitentiary system is finished, my competitor is validiting my side of the argument.

Title: You Choose the Topic! Content: I believe people shouldn't be jailed forever, so have a different consequence like remove voting privileges. I find it on a moral point of view to remove their privilege. Not major privileges that should be accessible to anyone, but only to those who deserve it. Also another point of view is that: I don't want felons voting. Generally felons don't have such good points of view morality and rational wise. Maybe they are power hungry or have no morals. I don't want those people voting. This really can't be confirmed until they do something as bad as a felony. This logic on it's own shouldn't be the reason why felons shouldn't be able to vote, but both logic.

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

Title: In a democractic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote Content: NEGATIVE I negate: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote [Definitions] (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 (3) Retain: to keep in possession or use [Observations] (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". An ex-felon is somebody who has completed their sentence, and a felon, as stated in the resolution, is somebody currently serving their sentence. Therefore, my opponent must prove how letting felons vote in prison is upholding a just democracy [Value/Value Criterion] 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 [Rebuttal] Value: Equality I have 3 responses --> equality (of rights) is impossible during incarceration. If felons were to be equal (in rights), then there would be no punishment. For example, the government puts you in jail. Right there, the government automatically takes away your right to liberty, pursuit of hapiness, and countless other rights -->My opponent is dejustifying all forms of punishment. If incarceration is unjust in and of itself, than there is no way for society to punish criminals --> This creates a 'double standard' (3rd contention) VC: Democracy I have 2 responses --> Democracy, as a form of government, must exhibit the ability to protect society. My opponent then must prove how dejustifying all punishment would help protect society --> Maximization of Fairness better upholds justice. For a government to be just, it must exhibit fairness to its consitituents. However, a democracy is not always just, and a just government is not always a democracy [Contentions] (1) Enfranchising felons is directly proportional to the increase of democracy My opponent is saying that letting these parasites of society vote will have more democracy I have two responses --> you cannot have 'more democracy' --> you can have more people participate in democracy, say children, but this would not uphold my value and value criteria (1a) Felon Disenfranchisement hurts democratic values and rights I have 2 responses --> democratic values include protecting society by way of just punishment. I have already proven how I have met that burden. Let's also not forget how they became a felon: by committing a felony. A felony inherently hurts society, and therefore government --> he brings in race towards the end. This is not resolutional. Because the court of law deals with punishment, you are essentially saying that the court is racist and corrupt. Because the court is racist and corrupt, then any punishment given by the court is corrupt, thus dejustifying all forms of punishment (1b) Restoration of the right to vote enables rehabilitation and reintegration into (a) democratic society I have two responses --> If you agree with my opponents logic, then the opposite (disenfranchising) felons automatically destroys the opportunity to rehabilitate them. Yet, this is false. Many people can become a member of society without having the right to vote. Look no further than Ted Stevens, the Alaskan senator who was found guilty of a felony, yet he serves the best nation in the world --> Once a felon re-enters society, they are considered an ex-felon by society, therefore, anything dealing with an ex-felon is not resolutional (In a democratic society, FELONS....) Cont 2: Allowing felons to vote, once released, is consistent with the return of other rights --> not necessarily. For example, the government revokes the right to bear arms, the right to serve on a jury, the right to privacy, ect. --> Once again, when a felon re-enters society, they are considered an ex-felon by said society, therefore not resolutional and or pertaining to the resolution Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, and that is why I negate the resolution

Title: R: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: 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...;

Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: In response to me asking how taking a felon’s right to vote protects other’s freedom con responds “Because voting is a civic duty necessary for a healthy society and criminals are anti-social with little care for civility.” Voting is a civic duty. Some criminals may have little care for civility, though to assume that for all is foolish. Likewise, a so called “felon” who has been in prison for 20 years may have an entirely different world view then when the crime was committed. Either way, as mentioned previously, felons would make up about 2% of the vote, and that is only if they all voted. Clearly there would be no harm done in allowing “felons” to retain the freedom to vote. "I may not agree with what you have to say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it" I maintain that this quote supports the principle behind this debate. Despite my opponent foolishly declaring that “criminals are anti-social with little care for civility” they are still part of society however removed they appear. They are still governed by the system. Again as the Declaration of Independence states “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” Felons, without the right to vote cannot give consent to be governed and are therefore victims of tyranny. This is a violation of the founding principles of this nation. Con then says “You complain that minorities are disproportionately affected. I agree that is a problem but the problem is for another debate. That debate is about the failed war on drugs and the failed war on poverty.” I never made such an argument. Though it appears that con feels that minorities are disproportionately affected. This is a welcome endorsement in favor of the resolution. Conduct: Con has repeatedly ridiculed me in this debate. Saying things like “I can hardly believe anyone would make the argument…” and “Mind your own business.” These Ad Hominem statements have no place in debate. Con has also repeatedly committed the straw man fallacy saying “You also seem to think that Felons in America only lose their right to vote. They lose other rights also.” I never expressed such a view. “Your proposal here is to have a centralized government make a law to force states to act against our own will.” I never made such a proposal. I merely argued that Felons should retain the right to vote. Not once have I mentioned how this ought to be accomplished. Lastly and perhaps the least offensive “You complain that minorities are disproportionately affected.” I never made such a complaint. Though, it is a reasonable argument to make. I leave it to the voters to determine if the Straw man fallacy and Ad Hominem attacks are valid. Closing Statement: As con conceded, minorities are disproportionately affected. Allowing Felons to retain the right to vote poses no harm. As such, taking such a right away is tyrannical and against the principles this nation is founded on. “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.Vote Pro!

Title: Prisoners Should be Allowed the Right to Vote in Politics. Content: Keep in mind that this is not a debate of whether it is illegal for prisoners to vote, but of whether they "should" be allowed this right. Therefore, referencing a policy/law such as the Supreme court decision of 2000 for the disenfranchisement of voting rights is likely to be deemed as irrelevant in the context of this debate, so debate with caution. Opening Arguments:Felony disenfranchisement: excluding people otherwise eligible to vote from voting (known as disfranchisement) due to conviction of a criminal offence (Wikipedia). Also this is a general issue, but I will be referring to the US frequently, since US polices condone felony disenfranchisement for the most part. Felony disenfranchisement varies in degree in some circumstances sometimes based on the type/degree of the offence or what state they were located in when serving their sentencing. Prisons are generally seen as a punishment for some convictions while for other convictions, they are seen as a means for rehabilitation. This perspective usually varies depending on the viewpoints of the outside parties. Arguably, punishment is the subjective perspective while rehabilitation is the objective perspective. The same case can be likened to voting disenfranchisement. Many prisoners (especially those with minor offenses), contrary to popular belief, strive to better themselves and rejoin society. Felony disenfranchisement is often an overly excessive punishment for certain prisoners. Prisoners already have their liberty take away, including their rights to be with their family and friends or occupy a job whilst in prison. It is certainly justified for them to serve a court's sentencing, but why should their right to vote be taken away as well? Especially considering that there are prisoners serving relatively short-term sentences and who had committed minor offenses. Prisoners would be less likely to be involved in criminal activities if encouraged to participate in the politics as part of their rehabilitation. -Enfranchisement not only bestows self-esteem and a sense of purpose in society, but encourages research and participation with contemporary political issues. "To deny this right is to force the disinherited (to) sit idly by while others elect his civil leaders and while others choose the fiscal and governmental policies which will govern him and his family" (Parris). Felony disenfranchisement conveys to prisoners that not only they committed a crime, but that they committed that crime because they were incapable of acting in a manner fit for society. Granting them the right to vote would likely be consistent with the American tradition of making our democracy more and more inclusive. Arguably there would be reduced re-offending rates and perhaps a society with fewer criminals as a long term effect. Felony disenfranchisement distorts the total voter turnout. -In 2012, all the various state felony disenfranchisement laws added together prevented "an estimated 5.85 million felons" from voting, "up from 1.2 million in 1976" (Wikipedia). "This comprised 2.5% of the potential voters in general; and included 8% of the potential African American voters. " The estimated population for Florida in 2010 was"18,804,623" (US census) and it had the highest disenfranchised voters for any state, with "1.5 million" disenfranchised from voting. That is roughly a calculated 12.5% of the total population that was not represented in Florida. It would virtually be an inaccurate representation in our society, a largely democratic society that prides itself for representing the general populace rather than a select few. The equal protection clause can also come into play if it is recognized in the courts that prisoners who are colored are not represented and are racially discriminated against in terms of voting. Prisoners are not treated as "civically dead" when it benefits the government. - Prisoners remain liable for taxation on any earnings and savings that they have. This is virtually taxation without representation. Many convicts have difficulty finding employment when put on parole after serving a sentence, and so this would be an unfair and excessive punishment when taking that into account. The support of felony disenfranchisement is largely based on subjective values of furthering justice against those convicted, rather than objective values concerning what would really function well in terms of rehabilitation and voter representation. Sources Utilized:-. http://quickfacts.census.gov...-https://en.wikipedia.org...-http://archive.fairvote.org...-http://insidetime.org...

Title: ex felons should be able to vote Content: Extend my arguments

Title: Ex-felons who commited minor crimes or crimes at a early age should be allowed to vote Content: Intro: I am going to try to stress a utilitarian view of America, and how we can benefit from these punishments on criminals. America needs to focus on its new generation which is growing up in a ever changing world. America's new generation needs to learn that it can't just break laws, and think it is okay. We can let ex-felons start to teach everyone from there neighborhood, through there county, through there state how hard prison is, and to the people above there twenties that your voting rights will be taken away. It is for the greater good for America, and that is what I am going to try to stress in this argument. I will like to go by the same definitions provided by my opponents. 1. Minority 5.83 million Americans out of the 300 million Americans are not allowed to vote. This is actually 2% of the American population that my opponent is fighting for. This is where I would like to stress the word Utilitarianism. The greatest benefit for the greatest number of people. Children need to learn the value of breaking the law, and the consequence for breaking the law. Lets try to decrease the 5.83 million people that 1% of the American population. 2. Voting Rights is irrelevant 56% of violent felons are repeat offenders and 61% of all felons are repeat offenders, partially because we"ve given them no choice. It is not the case of voting rights, but it is the case of companies not hiring them. We should prioritize companies hiring them, than voting rights. It is not the voting rights that we should take into priority, but there jobs. We should first make them get financially secure. 3. Lessons We should focus on getting America's children to learn the consequence of breaking the laws. There should be downsides to breaking laws. It would be for the greater benefit of America. We should teach the new generation not to break the law. http://felonvoting.procon.org... http://geekpolitics.com...

Title: Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections. Content: 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 :)

Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: 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. If I lived in a community that had a prison inside its borders I would be very upset if the federal government forced us to allow these prisoners to vote for our town council, Mayor, School board etc... Once again leave communities to make these decisions. 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. 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. They are enforced in brutal ways. Just ask Eric Garner. He was arrested on suspicion of breaking law implemented by progressives. You also propose to have this law implemented and enforced by a centralized government with almost zero representation. I can say "Zero Representation" because cause a ratio of representative to constituent is a million to one. That ridiculous ratio does not make a "Representative Democracy". 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. 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. You ask "What happens when we take away the right to vote?" No one here wants to take away the right to vote. The vast majority of us do not commit acts that deny others their human rights. We keep our right to vote as it should be.

Title: in a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote Content: Ill be going over extensions/clarifications leading into voters First my v and vc the idea of punishment as it is supported through retribution as been remained touch less. My opponent fails to address my link to all crimes being the act of stealing and deprivation and that how in a democratic society one needs to value retribution that states in addition to regular sentencing we need deprive or steal the right to vote from the criminals while still allowing them the ability to take part in other means of society. My second point is that of the jury where if you refer to my initial statement felons don't even have the permission to serve on jury showing that they don't have the privilege or worthiness to vote for the innocence or guilt of one individual. So why should they be able to determine the lives of potential millions if their not even allowed to determine one My next point is that of my universalizability claim. The resolution is to circumstantial and sense such is true it demeans the rule of law or taught of justice, in that its inconsistent. Next my claim of being mentally incompetent and that their are prerequisites still stands and need be considered. For essentially I'm proving that voting is a PRIVELEGE not a right something my opponent fails to understand. As for my opponents voting issues, they are in their entirety flawed for the opposition doesn't lead to slavery that's making an inferential and absurd link. More felonies aren't going to increase as a by product for the neg in that if such was true then my opponents entire claim of rehabilitation woulndt stand, but sense there is not a clear distinction or advocacy between the two contradictory statements you must value neither. POint 3 I value victims rights by upholding my vc something the affirmative lacks. Heroes cant be felons for heroes would never deface the law. And finally my opponents framework clearly doesn't stand. Which is why you must look to my voting issues Neg wins because V and VC better uphold idea of democracy and better support opponents claim of equality through retribution natural rights clearly are not of concern for we are debating as proved privileges Con 1 of trustworthiness still stands Con 2 of consistency is still paramount for its circumstantial reasoning con3 of requirements still stands in that that distinguishes between rights and privileges and most importantly my resolution interpretation of the definitions still stand for they went uncontested proving that retribution is A VALID AND DEMOCRACTIC VALUE For such reasons I urge an opposition

Title: Resolved: In a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote. Content: I'm terribly sorry my opponent missed his time on the actual round. It's perfectly ok with me that you posted them into the comments portion (and I ask that voters pay absolutely no attention to that in deciding their vote). Lets open with some refuutes on my case and then further strengthen my side of today's debate. >>>"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."~ Me Yes, I might be making some assumptions. Forgive me if I give the benefit of the doubt to law-abiding citizens. How dastardly of me.~ You --More like, "forgive me if a few million felons lose the right to vote." >>>" 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. "~Me False analogy, because the felon's decision to drink beer, get married etc. doesn't affect the rest of society.~You --Does it matter if the felon is affecting society as long as they are affecting it in a positive manner? >>>"If we thought criminals could never be reformed, we wouldn't let them out of prison in the first place. "~Me They can be reformed, but I'm assuming they're not reformed, until they prove otherwise.~You Problem, how do they get the chance if you don't give it to them? How can you say, "prove you are reformed," but then give no chance? We give prison sentances and let people out based on them being reformed. Keep in mind, when a persn committs a felony, they're ALWAYS a felon. You're saying this person should never gain the right to vote because they haven't proven they're reformed? Then why let them out of prison in the first place? >>> "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!"~Me Again, we already censor certain opinions that we deem immature or unfit, such as children's and mentally incompetent's. And again, the readers need to ask themself if the forgers and drug dealers are fit to decide your neighborhood's policeman.~You --Problem here is, these people we're talking about here aren't children nor are they mentally incompetent. Another problem here is that you think they'll be choosing policeman. These people will be voting on bills, representatives, senators, presidents, etc (all of which are for our benefit). The police Acadamy picks police officers. Seeing as how these senators, bills, and representatives will affect these felons (especially the felons that are out of prison) they should give their opinion on the issue. What harm does this have on society? Absolutely none. They are still forced to obey by the law after they get out of prison and still forced to pay taxes like everyother citizen, only difference is, they have a scar in their past. Note I said their past. Meaning they've served the due punishment for their crime ALREADY. What purpose then is there to disenfranchise the felon after he's rehabilitated? Lets take drug charges (which you speak of) for example. Now, idk the exact point where a certain ammount of drugs becomes a felony, but what makes you think someone who is a gram above the felony mark has worse judgement on voting for a president than someone who is a gram under the felony mark? Better yet, seeing as how Presidents have to meet a certain minimum to run for president (meaning there is no BAD choice), what makes you think they will be worse at picking a president then any other citizen? You must see that we are excluding these people solely on the purpose of them having a different opinion than us. Now, in an instance when these people can ACTUALLY hurt us, of course it's different, but if the worst that can happen is something that is STILL productive for society, what's the problem. Put it this way> Lets say that there is candidate A and B for any bill, governor, president, senator, mayor, reppresentative etc. Now, there are going to be non-felons who pick both A and B. What makes you think that if a felon picks either A or B that it will be detrimental to our society? 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 subject being argued upon, is the same. If it is the same without the subject, it's not needed. However, if without the subjetc it is something completely different, it is essential and inalienable. 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 to have the right to vote if you're going to have an actual democratic society. I ask my opponent and audience again [...] What is a democratic society, without the right to vote?

Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: Rebuttals: Con says “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.” Voting includes a lot more than just the vote cast for President. Unfit or not, our system is built on a concept of the consent of the governed. That includes consent of those being governed from prison. Con says “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.” right, no difference when it comes to unalienable rights and representation. Being in prison should provide enough of a distinction between felons and non felons… Con says “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.” The Declaration of Independence reads ““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” Governments are instituted to protect rights... including the right to vote. Con says “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.” Breaking the law does not equal not caring about law. What about Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr, etc. They broke laws… They also understood the importance of laws. More than that they understood individual rights should be protected. Rights like voting. 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.

Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: Regarding the most vile anti-social corrupt humans among us. The depraved ones who are found guilty of heinous crimes and destruction of society for self serving purposes. Regarding these incurable criminals who selfishly deny others their human rights, Kasmic wants to give them a share of power in the governance of our society. To that I say "NO!". I will painfully accept the influence a few states will have on our nation by allowing these incurable criminals who have proved themselves to be chronic transgressors of of the boundaries necessary for a healthy society to have some influence on my children's future. These destructive people chose to not be governed at all. You too can make that choice just Step out your door and hurt another citizen. I hope you do not but if you do then you will have chosen to not be governed at all and in that case myself and a super majority of our fellows banish you from our society and its brilliant system. As far as "The War on Minorities" goes, one that Kasmic and I agree needs a solution, does not make banishing incurable psychopaths a wrong measure for the protection our society. It is the wars on the minorities that is the problem. We wrongfully banish these unfortunate people who are victimized arrested and imprisoned by an already corrupt and criminal system. We do not need more of the criminally insane to contribute to this already terribly flawed government. All in all this debate here is about states rights. As Kasmic conceded through silence the federal congress is not a democracy at all. You can not have a democracy when a citizen shares a representative with eight hundred thousand other constituents. In my state legislature I share a representative with 63 thousand fellow constituents. Anyone who appreciates democracy appreciates our constitutional system of leaving much decision making to the states. I assumed Kasmic wanted to use the federal congress to force the states to handle destructive anti-social psychopaths in manners that would go against the democratic will of the states. Kasmic claims I am wrong in my assumption when he says "I merely argued that Felons should retain the right to vote. Not once have I mentioned how this ought to be accomplished." Since my argument is to maintain the status quo I have no problem with Kasmic voicing his opinion as long as he is not promoting the use of federal violence to force my community to act against its will. This particular debate is "Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S." My point is clear Those who chose to commit violence against against innocent members of our society. Those who chose to selfishly steal the fruits of labor from honest people. Those who chose to destroy the fabric of our society for their own personal gain, Those who chronically suffer from criminal insanity have no business in the governance of the rest of us, our lives and our children's future.

Title: You Choose the Topic! Content: 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.

Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: You say "when a crime is committed that action should be taken to preserve the liberty of others" and ask "How does taking a Felon"s right to vote protect other"s freedom?" Because voting is a civic duty necessary for a healthy society and criminals are anti-social with little care for civility. If you prove yourself to be uncivilized and anti-social to the extent that you need to be caged like a wild animal you have proved that your opinion regarding the welfare of society is malignant. "I may not agree with what you have to say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it" One of my favorite quotes. Beautiful. I never thought I would have to explain that malignant speech is crime. You are not allowed to say "Go Loot Ferguson". These exemptions are obvious just as offenders of human rights with good reason get taken out of society and out of the process of governance. Yes I said ..."We have Zero Representation because our ratio of representative to constituent is a million to one. That ridiculous ratio does not make a "Representative Democracy"...but I must not be very clear you failed to understand my point. My point is that congress is not measurably a democracy. You want an entity that is not a democracy to decide who governs my child's future. You want this non democratic body to give nefarious people power to make decisions on how this nation will be structured to receive my children as they transform into adults. I want the best for all of our children. Whereas you and a Non-democratic institution wish to give nefarious people, people so terrible that they would injure and or kill our children to serve their selfish depravity,you would give them a part in deciding the path of our children's lives. If you are in favor of Democracy you will leave these decisions to the states as prescribed in the constitution. You complain that minorities are disproportionately affected. I agree that is a problem but the problem is for another debate. That debate is about the failed war on drugs and the failed war on poverty. Two wars that have terrible effects on minorities. I support pragmatic solution on this problem as a Libertarian. Funny how it is that the politicians elected by minorities vote in the halls of Congress to continue these ill gotten wars. Many minorities suffer the violence of arrest and imprisonment for things that sensible men would not consider a crime. Democrats could fix that problem overnight.

Title: In a democratic society, a felon ought to retain the right to vote. Content: Nothing is necessarily permanent in most developed free countries, other than what follows execution. Applications can be submitted to repeal anything, and applying for the right to vote many years after committing a minor felony should never be futile.

Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: 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...

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

Title: Ex-felons who commited minor crimes or crimes at a early age should be allowed to vote Content: 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.

Title: ToC:Resolved in a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote. Content: 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.

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

Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: 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.

Title: Ex-felons who commited minor crimes or crimes at a early age should be allowed to vote Content: Rules: Clarification: Minor as in like, a crime as a child, minor theft, driving away from a car wreck out of fear, basically anything that isn't huge like rape, or murder. Childhood crime could be minor theft. 1. Try not to forfeit. 2. have fun 3. go by resolution

Title: In a democractic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote Content: To my friend and worthy opponent, glaceau, thank you for challenging me to a debate I will move on to defend my case, then attack my opponents [Observations] (1) --> he accepted/dropped. America can be used, and you can extend this through until the final round (2) "Felons and ex-felons are both inevitably put into society. Because exfelons are a product of once-felons, the debate should centralize around how felons should be conducted in the status quo and post-resolution" --> Felons are not necessarily always put back into society. People on death row and people serving life sentences are never released --> When my opponent states 'status quo', he is referring to incarceration. This means that he does believe that at least part of this debate is to be discussed on behalf of incarcerated felons (a.k.a. felons). He then goes on to say 'post-resolution'. Therefore, if I can prove why this is wrong, then you can extend my observation throughout the round: --> If you agreed with my opponents logic, that is flawed, but, nonetheless, if you did, here is why it is wrong. If you agree that we must start inferring things from the resolution (i.e things that are not implied), bad things start to happen. For example, he says 'post resolution'. If we have to structure debates on things after the resolution, then you must also have to structure such debates on 'pre resolution'. Before felons committed felonies (rape, murder, kidnap) they were adults. Before they were adults they were children. Does my opponent want to extend the privilege of voting to children? Before that, they were babies. Does my opponent want to extend the privilege of voting to babies? If you share his reasoning, then you would [Contentions] Cont 1: Retribution "Felons will...perform their actions in a different society or framework that does not impact... -->This goes directly against his opening arguments. He stated, and I agree, that this action of revoking the freedom to vote is in a democratic framework. Anything else, would be simply unresolutional "For example, if a felon was convicted of rape, that does not necessarily mean the government has to rape the felon back." --> Thank you, that is exactly what I argue. Because my opponent agrees with me, you can extend this contention throughout the round. Because the government cannot treat a consitituent as a moral non-entity (i.e rape them), they must furthermore treat them as a political non entity so the punishment fits the crime and it is not cruel and unusual Cont 2: Legal Consistency "First off, the first sentence implies that maintaining political rights and the freedom to vote is of utmost greater magnitude than any of the implied correlative comparisons." --> Nope, not true. I argue that any system is better of under a perfectly consistent system. We must be uniform and fair in the punishment that is dealt to felons, and voting negative better achieves that. I argue that more intrinsic rights are being taken away, and taking away politcal rights are justified through the uniformity of punishment afforded to prisoners "As long as there is a net loss of the right to society, the felon is being shunned or punished for their activity" -->There is no right to society in incarceration. The government puts you in jail BECAUSE you hurt society, and in order to protect society, must restrict all influence of the felon to society, for example, the right to vote Cont 3: Double Standard "By not upholding the right to vote by the majority of the people and practicing social equality (definition of democracy) you are condoning tyrannistic autonomy" --> Because my opponent did not attack my first observation, America can be used. So, I argue, would not letting these less than 2% of people vote, still be upholding the right to vote for the 'majority of the people'? Of couse, 98% is a majority --> The definition of democracy is not social equality. Although it is portrayed here in America, the two terms do not go hand and hand. Also, it is impossible to give social equality through incarceration. There is no punishment without rights being taken away. Besides, doesn't communism have more social equality than, I don't know, democracy? "Not all of what felons convict are 'the most brazen way'. Poor Generalization" --> Yes, they have defied society, the government, and everything society and the government has put forth. Because there are only two types of crime, misdeamenors and felonies, someone who commits a felony would be breaking the law in a more brazen way I will now move on to attack my opponents case Value: Equality --> Justice is implied by the resolution, and higher on a resolutional scale. Because we are dealing with the punishment of felons, we must be just (giving each their due), not necessarily equal. For example, raping somebody does not warrant equal punishment as insider trading does. Thus, justice is the 'higher standard' VC: Democracy --> implied more by the resolution than his value, however, a just government is not always democratic and a democratic govenrment is not always just. Because I have proven his Value Criteria to be categorically untrue, then mine is superior. Maximizing Fairness is vital to a just democracy [Contentions] "Great way to dehumanize them by calling them parasites" --> Do I even dare argue this, for he defends his whole contention with me using an anology. But, because I deserve to win this debate, I shall --> a parasite is anything that impedes a necessary process. While felons are incarcerated, they become a burden to the State. Because they impede the process of the state trying to progress the rest of society, they are, indeed, parasites. "A felony inherently hurts society and therefore government" --> I stand by this argument. Any felony committed causes pain to a member of society (society). The government is also hurt, because one of its constituents was inflicted pain upon. A governments job is to promote hapinness to its constituents, anything on the contrart would then inflict pain Thank you, and it is for those reasons that I negate the resolution

Title: Ex-Cons should not be denined the vote. Content: 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.

Title: In a Democratic Society, Felons Ought to Retain the Right to Vote Content: My opponent attempts to exclude the US from the resolution for various reasons. He contends the US cannot be a model of this situation because it does not allow all members of their society to vote. My response is that the resolution- "In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote" does not address children or "all members of their society". The resolution addresses felons, and whether or not they should "retain" the right to vote. In order for a felon to "retain the right to vote", he/she must first be eligible for the right to vote barring the fact they are a convicted felon. In other words a 16 year old (a child in the US) felon cannot retain the right to vote because he/she is not of legal voting age and therefore does not have the right to vote in the first place. Though my opponent implies that the affirmative must "prove this in a society", that is not the aim of the resolution. My premise is that in a democracy, felons should retain the right to vote- at least to some degree, and I used the US as an EXAMPLE of a democratic society which allows most felons to retain the right to vote. More examples are the individual 50 states which are also the individual democracies that regulate the right to vote for felons in different degrees. My opponent's contention that prison does not always rehabilitate has already been addressed. He gives the reader the illusion that I stated prison always rehabilitates, but I made no such statement or implication. I made it clear that my argument is for rehabilitated criminals, and that the goal of incarceration is rehabilitation, though it is up to the states (in the US) whether or not prisoners are rehabilitated to the point where they can benefit from the right to vote. My opponent next contends the US is not a democracy, and therefore his contention stands. However, the US is a "democratic society". Though the US is a Federal Republic, it is a democratic society because it is a Federation of Democratic States. The individual states do enjoy direct democracy, and it is the electoral process for the executive of the central government that does not qualify as a direct democracy. A Federal Republic, though not a direct democracy is a representative democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org...). If my opponent wishes to have a separate debate about political processes and what constitutes a democracy we may do so, but his attempt to nullify my arguments based on these objections is simply a clever way of not arguing the facts I presented in R1. My opponent's next response is a revision of his second contention. In response to his new revision, this is not a debate about consistency rather whether or not it "should" be that way. I gave the US as an example of not only why it "should" be that way, but that it "is" that way in the US, and it works. Again, my opponent attempts to turn this into an argument about semantics. I did not write the resolution, but I have made my position clear. Had my opponent really wanted to debate the topic he wouldn't have written the resolution in this manner, nor would he have made it clear in his opening argument that he would leave the door open for an argument on semantics should he not be able to address the facts. I gave 4 different examples of how the semantics can be applied, and how my argument is valid for all of them, though he implies I concentrated on only one. Again, we can have a separate debate on semantics, but the confusion is neither my doing, nor my aim, rather it is that of my opponent. I believe my opponent has failed to successfully answer my R1 arguments, and so it is virtually pointless to present new ones as he will probably just ignore them and attempt to argue the straw man again. Though I know the reader will have common sense, I urge you to re-read my R1 arguments after reading my R2 rebuttals. My opponent presented no new arguments in R2. Thank you.

Title: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote Content: 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

Title: Ex-felons who commited minor crimes or crimes at a early age should be allowed to vote Content: 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.

Title: In a democratic society felons ought to be denied the right to vote. Content: 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...

Title: in a democratic society, felons should retain the right to vote Content: 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.

Title: Ex-felons who commited minor crimes or crimes at a early age should be allowed to vote Content: Crime-an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law. Utilitarianism- The greatest benefit for the greatest number of people A lot of people would think that I am being close minded in believing that ex-felons should not be allowed to vote. Well I am here today to prove that I am not. These children need to bear the punishment of their actions. Better not, they need to be the face of the consequence of crime. I think we can all agree that crime is a horrible, unethical thing to do in a society. But we need to convince these children of it too. These children should know that there privileges will be taken away, and there voting rights will be taken away. I am looking at it from a utilitarian view. This will be the greater benefit for the new generations.

Title: Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections. Content: I accept your challenge and will be arguing that convicted ex-felons should not be able to vote in all US elections. I look forward to debating with you :)

Title: Felon Voting Content: 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.

Title: ex felons should be able to vote Content: I'm just going to respond to my opponents speech. Unless he can substantiate his claims, I just need to rebut his claims since they're baseless. My opponent has the full burden of proof. I'll provide one source, and I will have destroyed my opponent's opening statements. My opponent opens with his opinion. Opinions can't be substantiated. He says we need more people voting, but somehow it doesn't make sense that felons should be the ones filling the polls instead of law abiding citizens. The proper solution is to get more law abiding citizens to vote. He assumes that all felons committed their crime a long time ago. That's an assumption used as a blanket statement. Blanket statements only need one example to be destroyed, and here I can provide a standard that breaks his statement. The minimum punishment for a felony is 48 hours [1]. He says that they're still citizens so they should vote. Something about committing a felony is that they're forfeiting certain rights by damaging the American public. Voting is one of those rights. I await a response. ------------------------------------------- Source: [1] http://www.cga.ct.gov...

Title: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. Content: Lets start at the top. My opponent values equality with a standard of democracy. Starting off with the value of equality: My opponent tells you of a standard of equality but fails to define what equality is. So we must assume that equality is referring to all the things. Obviously this impossible because you cannot have equality of all things. I'll give you a simple example, felons lose there right to liberty and freedom while in prison. Thus, they are no longer complete equals in society. So, my opponents value ultimately fails because there is no bright line as to what equality is so you look back to the negatives standard of Lockes's Social contract in this round. On to the value criterion of Democracy: She tells you that, "My value premise and my value criterion relates because equality is essential to a democracy." You can assume than that my opponent doesnt believe democracy is essential to equality because she did not tell you so. Thus, she is not upholding her value through her standard and is not upholding any type of framework in this debate. Impacts: No brightline for equality so you cannot vote of off it and it cannot be brought up later. Thus the value falls. No explaination of how or why a democracy is essential to equality so you have no reason to look the the standard either because there is no link. Thus the V and VC fall so you look to mine. On to her contention one. She tells you that she contends that by taking away felons rights to vote it will violate constitutional laws. Turn this because giving them it back will violate constitutional laws. Ammendmant 14 tells you that the Right to Vote can be taken away from violators of crimes. So the impact of my opponents contention is turned and is now negative offense. On to her second contention where she tells you that, "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." Notice where she tells you ALL citizens. This cannot be weighed at all in this round because A) Children are not allowed to vote, and B) The mentally incompetent are not allowed to vote. So the entire contention falls because of my opponent believes in universal suffrage which is, as ive shown you, entirely impossible in any society. You can cross-apply my arguement againtst her first contention because she tells you again about how it goes against the ammendmants of citizens. I've already shown you the turn on this arguement so look to that. Also my opponent believes in a "clean slate" for felons. Also impossible because they are felons and, however unfortunate that may be, it cannot be taken back so all these things will still happen. This is where your voting: 1. Cannot uphold an already faulty value, with no explanations. 2. Impact turn of contentions 1 and 3. 3. Contention 2 is illogical and impossible.

Title: Ex-Cons should not be denined the vote. Content: 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?

Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: I will now begin by rebutting Pro's case from R2. Pro argues over Unalienable rights. Voting is not a right. As I have argued, in the 14th amendment it states that it isn't a given right to vote. It is up to the state in which they decide to let felons vote, or not vote. Pro arguing that voting for everyone is a right, is false. The 2nd part of the 14 Amendment can back this up. Pro then goes on to say "We live in a society that requires of its government the protection and security of such rights." Yet the 14th Amendment, it's not a validate right. The state can choose whether or not to enforce this so called "Right". Let's take freedom of speech for example. the Government can't tell the state whether or not the state can enforce this right, it's a given right. Voting, isn't. Pro argues the "The Power of the People" I am not entirely sure what he is arguing here. He gives us 2 quotes, and 1 sentence that doesn't say much nor explain what he is trying to argue here. Are you trying to say that if the government takes away a right, the people will rebell? That is what I'm getting at here. Pro's next argument: D: The whole picture We live in a society that accepts… 1: All people born equal with rights (Equal rights, yes. But these rights are temporarily taken away when the person has acted in poor misconduct.) 2: Government’s function is to secure unalienable rights (Not according the 2nd part of the 14th Amendment which states the States can decide whether or not a felon can vote.) 3: Government receives power through the consent of the governed via voting ( This doesn't mean that Felons should still enjoy freedom because they have murdered somebody. Consequences need to be bestowed so these people can learn from their mistakes. Doing so will also protect your city.)

Title: Homos should not be allowed to vote Content: Felons are not allowed to vote, sodomy should be considered a felony as it was untill recently in many or most states, no I don't care to do the exact counting or a precise rundown of which states had laws against sodomy as a felony......I know the laws are changing and they are pushing laws to outlaw what I am saying as "hate speech'. That does not mean it is normal or good for men to abuse themselves with each other just because they feel like it, nor for woman to abuse each other sexually no matter how much they enjoy it. Enjoying it does not make it right, and a society that does not have the hootzpah to set limitations on perversion cannot remain a free society for long. It will become necessary for other nations to take over, or an opprossive government to rise which is what is happening now in America where we used to have freedom of speech but "progressives" are pushing to ban speech that does not fit their politics. Homos should not be allowed to vote.......... all sex outside of marriage should be against the law.......I'm not discriminating. All fornicators and adulterers should be hit with felonies and being felons, not allowed to vote.

Title: In a Democratic Society, Felons Ought to Retain the Right to Vote Content: First of all, I am perfectly clear with the U.S. ideas, since i have lived there for a substantial amount of time. Second, the resolution is not U.S. specific, it states a "democratic society" the U.S. however cannot be a model of this situaiton becuase it does not allow all members of their society to vote. The U.S. does not allow children to vote; who could be more educated than most voters. With this being stated, the U.S. cannot be a consideration for it does not represent all of the indiaviduals in a society. Without the U.S., my opponent cannot find a specific democratic society to prove his arguement while i have proven that the aff must prove this in any society which he has not. My opponent believes that prison always rehabilitates however, there are always circumstances of this not being true. My opponent's rebuttle to my first contention just soley address the U.S. system; which is inconsisnent because the U.S. is not a true democracy so my first contention stands. My opponent's rebuttle to my second contention does not realize that my second contention simply states that the Affirmative must prove this consistent in all societies, while he only sticks to the U.S., which is not a pure democratic society. My opponent's rubttle to my third contention is that it is contridictory, which i concede. So i my 3rd contention doesnt stand. My opponent's rebuttle to my 4th contention is that i am soley focused on semantics and ought= logical consequence. However he did not show how the variation of ought in serious situation is invalid. So either, my opponent finds this resolution unserious, or does not understand what oweing means. My opponent lacks any sort of framework, and offers no suggestions on why felons should vote. My second contention states the burdens the Aff faces which is left unaddressed. With these ideals in mind, I negate the resolution that in a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote.

Title: Felons Ought to Retain the Right to Vote in a Democratic Society Content: I'd like to start out by making the following observations. 1) My opponent has dropped his ENTIRE case. (Value, VC, and contention.) 2) My opponent has dropped nearly all of my case. (Observations, Value, VC, and first contention.) Moving on to my opponents rebuttal. ----"First off, i would like to point out that my competitor used the U.S. as an example, and this resolution is not specific to any one democracy, nor is the ban of double jeopardy an inherent trait of democracy." This relates back to my 2nd contention. However, my opponent is misunderstanding my point. I'm stating that it is EXCESSIVE PUNISHMENT to take away felons' right to vote. The idea of the double standard was merely to enforce the idea that it is punishing felons excessively by incarcerating them while taking away their right to vote, which, as I said, destroys their right of self-determination. ---"therefore by arguing that felons should only have the right to vote after their process in the penitentiary system is finished, my competitor is validating my side of the argument." I have several responses to this: a) Link this back to my second observation, which my opponent completely ignored. It directly refutes what he said. b) I never said felons should lose the right to vote while incarcerated, I only said it was the burden of the affirmative to prove felons in society should be able to vote. Thus my opponent's logic is flawed as this alleged "argument" that I make doesn't exist. c) Even if you do not buy into those two arguments, my opponent is wrong in saying this. Simply link everything he is saying back to both my contentions, which he dropped. He is 1) destroying the right of self-determination and 2) giving excessive punishment.

Title: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. Content: Do the names Carrie Lenz or Cindy Brown ring a bell? Probably not. They were 26 years old when Tim McVeigh stopped them from ever voting again by bombing the Oklahoma City Federal building. Carrie and Cindy were in good company. There were 166 others in that one felony crime. The Bureau of Justice lists over 847,000 homicides since 1960. If all those people had lived out their normal lives, that would affect over 9 million presidential votes and over 18 million municipal votes. My value is justice. Justice, according to the Encarta Dictionary, is fairness or reasonableness, especially in the way people are treated or decisions are made. There is nothing fair that felons like these are allowed to vote while many victims cannot. My criterion is upholding the equal treatment of citizens. Equality in a democratic society is never reached when you subtract victim voices while adding felon voices. The ONLY way to achieve equal treatment of citizens is to negate the resolution that in a democratic society, felons ought to retain their right to vote. A felon, according to Black's Law Dictionary, is someone who has been convicted of a serious crime. They may be currently incarcerated or released. ---------- Contention 1 Felons have chosen not to vote. Committing a felony requires premeditation and intent. The consequences of felony convictions are widely known to include no firearms, no elected offices, no jury duty and no voting. My opponent agreed in cross examination that a vote could not be changed once cast - so, in order to treat a felon like other members of society - the felon's decision not to vote should be honored by society.

Title: In a Democratic Society, Felons Ought to Retain the Right to Vote Content: 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.

Title: in a democratic society a felon ought to retain the right to vote. Content: I received my opponent's comment about how he didn't have time to come up with arguments because of finals, that's fine, i understand, but according to the LD handbook if you don't reply to any of my arguments towards your case or the counters to protect my case, then you lose. my opponent unfortunately dropped every argument, making me the automatic winner. silence is compliance, my opponent is not allowed to come up with an new arguments or redeem the ones i smashed. therefore the only way to vote is the vote of the affirmation, seeing that all my arguments are still intact and that he dropped every single one of his. this isn't a matter of a opinion, but a matter of rules itself. according to the handbook he dropped everything and he can't come back and protect them now because he failed to respond in his last round. VOTE AFFIRMATIVE!!!!

Title: Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. Content: Since you must have had something important going I will also miss this round to keep things fair. I hope you have not quit this debate. I hope the judges do not dock points.

Title: Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. Content: Thank you for the challenge and good luck. Before beginning, there is a piece of evidence of his that needs updating. It is actually 5.3 million people that can not vote because of felonies, not 3.9 like stated in his last speech. However, this is 2006 and the number may be even greater now. http://www.time.com... My case/his case… I oppose: Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. I. Value- Fairness Within this round, you will see how it is not fair to give equal voice to someone who has kept their trust with the society, and someone who has not. In essence, when someone commits a felony, they deserve to lose the right to vote. Also, you will see that in order to get a FAIR decision, you must eliminate the felon vote. Please cross apply his point about how there 5.3 million felons who do not have the right to vote. Do you really want that overwhelming factor to decide most every election for the rest or your life? II. Criterion- Just Deserts Just Deserts is basically giving people what they justly deserve. In this round, you will see that people don't deserve the right to vote after they have committed a felony. Why? Because a right is something you have until you lose it (like gun rights)… And since voting decides who will run our country, it is too important to put in the hands of felons (5.3 MILLION). Give not only the felons, but also the society what they deserve and vote CON. ============================================= Since my arguments go so well against his, I'm just going to attack his case right now. Against Value- Equality --> I immediately challenge my opponent to say when we treat any felons any differently than a regular citizen. EVERYONE was given citizenship and the FELONS lost it. If a regular citizen committed a felony tomorrow, then he/she would be treated EQUALY and would also lose his/her right to vote. In other words, HIS value is flowed to the CON side! Against Criterion- Democracy --> Democracy still exists whether or not you vote pro OR con. However, on the con side, it exists in a much better form… Take for example, the 5.3 million that currently can not vote. Let's say that a candidate was up that was willing to be EXTREMELY less harsh against criminals. The extra 5.3 million votes that he would get would create would be enough to change ANY election in his/her favor. But is that what we want to be deciding our elections? Another angle to look at is the fact that more candidates would begin to be more persuaded toward being nice to criminals since there would be much more votes that they could get (since politicians are nothing without the voters). Definitions seem fine… I will just use common knowledge from the judges for definition unless abuse comes from my opponent (or even from me). Against Contention I: His first contention is completely useless because we will always have a democracy regardless of if felons can vote or not. A democracy is something that gives people a choice, and the felons already made their choice of going against our society, and because of that, they do not deserve the right to vote for people who help (or hinder) our society. Against Contention II: 5.3 MILLION voters would put the election into the hands of not only criminals, but FELONS!!!!! Politicians would inevitably reach out to these voters by crafting their views to be likeable by them. Against Contention III: The problem with his quote is that we're not dealing with voting qualification, but DISqualification (which is two totally different things). Then he goes on to say that this will lead to a lot of people not being able to vote. Well, this law has been around for a long time and it hasn't been blown out of proportions. It still only restricts felons. No discrimination at all, men, women, white, black, Republican, Democrat, all felons can't vote. And as far as the amendments go, realize that it says that we can't DENY these people the right to vote if (then it lists various things) but NONE of them have to do with laws they have broken. In the end, felons ought to NOT receive the right to vote because they broke a serious enough law to lose the right. If someone abuses a gun, we take it away from them for good reason. If someone abuses society (through becoming a felon), then we take away their right to vote. It's only fair because we DON'T want felons to run our society. Please vote con… Thank you!

Title: In a democratic society felons ought to be denied the right to vote. Content: 1. Under LD debate rules, the definitions have to be made at the outset. However, this is not a debate under LD rules. For a debate.org debate to be made under LD rules, the proponent has to declare that unambiguously in the challenge. That was not done in this case. There are also LD rules pertaining to officially declaring and challenging values and value criteria. Those rules do not apply either. It is free form debate, the intellectual equivalent of a cage match. However, there is no escape from semantics, logic, and verification of facts. Those are inherent to debate. 2. I don't have a problem with Con's definitions as far as they go. The meaning of "democratic" is separately contested below. I also dispute Con's definition of "felony." Note that we are only dealing with convicted felons. Felons who haven't been convicted retain the right to vote. 3. I reject Con's thesis that the preï¿½minent value at issue is or ought to be democracy. The value at issue is and ought to be good government. If democracy were the preï¿½minent value, then the Founders would have specified a democracy in the Constitution rather than a republic. Moreover, if democracy were the most important thing, then non-citizens and even small children would be afforded the right to vote. We have a republic, and we restrict voting in the interests of good government. All democratic governments do the same, all in the interests of good government. 4. I challenge Con to say whether or not he favors extending the vote in all elections to non-citizens and small children? If he does not, then I challenge him to explain the principle at work that he uses to override the extension of democracy. 5. Con asserts, "Clearly there exists no standing relationship between disenfranchising and a criminal act." This assertion is false, because there is clear data that convicted felons are likely to continue exercising poor judgment by continuing to commit criminal acts. The primary interest of career criminals when voting is to undermine the justice system, and therefore that is good reason to withhold voting rights. It is true that some convicted felons will reform and vote according to the general interests of American society. It is also true that some non-citizens and some under-age citizens will exercise the judgment to vote along with the general interests of American society as a whole. The exclusion of those classes of voters is based upon the considerable probability that they will not. The case is as strong or stronger that a convicted felon will not vote with the interests of society considered in the way that non-felons will consider them. Felons can be relied upon to vote overwhelmingly to undermine the justice system. 6. Con rebuts "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." So can a society be "democratic" without being a strict democracy in which everyone votes and every law is put to a direct vote of the people? The definition of "democratic" is http://www.answers.com... 1. Of, characterized by, or advocating democracy: democratic government; a democratic union. 2. Of or for the people in general; popular: a democratic movement; democratic art forms. 3. Believing in or practicing social equality: "a proper democratic scorn for bloated dukes and lords" (George du Maurier). A government need not be a strict democracy, as Con supposes, to be characterized by democracy. None of the definitions support Con's strict definition. Moreover, if Con's definition were accepted, then people would truthfully say things like, "There are no democratic governments anywhere in the world." The opposite is quite clear, people recognize that many governments are characterized by democracy without being the strict democracies that Con supposes. 7. Con asks, "If it [is] said all men were created equal then why are felons disenfranchised?" The short answer is that they may have been created equal, but felons went astray after their creation, and their demonstrated lack of judgment resulted in their disenfranchisement. The long answer is that the quoted "created equal" is in the Declaration of Independence, which is not a governing document. Clarification of the implications of "created equal" lies in the Constitution. The Constitution establishes the classes under which discrimination under law is prohibited, and there is nothing that prohibits discrimination for felony conviction. If the Constitution prohibited discrimination for felony conviction, then felons could not be imprisoned. None of the other protected classes (race, religion, ethnicity) can be imprisoned solely for being a member of the class. 8. Con asks, "what is the difference between felons and citizens, aren't the both citizens?" They are both citizens, but so are small children. Citizenship alone provides no guarantee of a right to vote. 9. Con claims, "my oppent [opponent] 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." It is fair in a debate to call upon the common sense of the audience (or judges). The assertion follows from (1) The main purpose of voting is that citizens may look out for their interests, (2) politicians appeal to the interests of citizens to get votes, (3) criminals have a strong interest in weakening the justice system, and therefore (4) politicians will target criminals with positions that favor weakening the justice system. There is supporting evidence from cases in Florida, cited, wherein Liberal politicians clearly believed they could win the criminal vote. 10. Con claims, "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." First, there is nothing wrong with punishing someone in two different ways. We punish many felons by both imprisoning them and later putting them on parole, and sometimes also making them register and wear a tracking device. Second, Con agreed that a purpose of imprisonment is not only punishment, but to prevent the criminal from doing further harm. Denying the vote is a proper and reasonable way to prevent the criminal from doing further harm by voting for candidates that promise to weaken the justice system. 11. Con asserts "he [Pro] 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." This is incorrect. There are three classes of crimes infractions, misdemeanors, and felonies. J-walking is an infraction. Repeated speeding is usually and infraction, but might rise to a misdemeanor depending upon the state and the circumstances. Felonies are only the most serious crimes. For example, felony drunk driving generally involves killing someone. A felony is "One of several grave crimes, such as murder, rape, or burglary, punishable by a more stringent sentence than that given for a misdemeanor." http://www.answers.com... Summary Con's rebuttal is an artificial construct that supposes that democracy is a supreme value that ought to trump good government. There is ample evidence that virtually no one believes that have more democracy leads to better government. To the contrary, the Founders preferred a republic, and minors and non-citizens are not allowed to vote -- all in the interests of good government. Felons have proved poor judgment and so the interests of good government should prevail. The resolution is affirmed.

Title: in a democratic society, felons should retain the right to vote Content: Do the names Carrie Lenz or Cindy Brown ring a bell? Probably not. They were 26 years old when Tim McVeigh stopped them from ever voting again by bombing the Oklahoma City Federal building. Carrie and Cindy were in good company. There were 166 others in that one felony crime. The Bureau of Justice lists over 847,000 homicides since 1960. If all those people had lived out their normal lives, that would affect over 9 million presidential votes and over 18 million municipal votes. My value is justice. Justice, according to the Encarta Dictionary, is fairness or reasonableness, especially in the way people are treated or decisions are made. There is nothing fair that felons like these are allowed to vote while many victims cannot. My criterion is upholding the equal treatment of citizens. Equality in a democratic society is never reached when you subtract victim voices while adding felon voices. The ONLY way to achieve equal treatment of citizens is to negate the resolution that in a democratic society, felons ought to retain their right to vote. A felon, according to Black's Law Dictionary, is someone who has been convicted of a serious crime. They may be currently incarcerated or released. ---------- Contention 1 Felons have chosen not to vote. Committing a felony requires premeditation and intent. The consequences of felony convictions are widely known to include no firearms, no elected offices, no jury duty and no voting. My opponent agreed in cross examination that a vote could not be changed once cast - so, in order to treat a felon like other members of society - the felon's decision not to vote should be honored by society.

Title: in a democratic society, felons should retain the right to vote Content: "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." --> I never said they should be taken away, however for the desirability of the resolution we need to also see the imapct of returning to society. *He refutes none of my case, thus extend the whole thing.*

Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: Accepted. Good luck!

Title: In a democratic society, felons out to retain the right to vote. Content: To my respected opponent, El Edward, thank you for starting this debate. I hope it will be a good one. >Friedrich von Schiller once said that "votes should be weighed, not counted." I agree with him, and it is because I believe in a social contract with the government that I choose to negate the resolution: >Negated: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. >For clarification of the round, I would like to offer the following definitions (in addition to yours): >Felon: a person who has been convicted of a felony, which is a crime punishable by death or a term in state or federal prison >Felony (elaboration): a crime sufficiently serious to be punishable by death or a term in state or federal prison, as distinguished from a misdemeanor which is only punishable by confinement to county or local jail and/or a fine >Murderer: One guilty of murder; a person who, in possession of his reason, unlawfully kills a human being with premeditated malice. >Social Contract: Implied 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 >I would also like to offer the following observations: :: Observation :: >Due to the wording of the resolution, the felon may or may not be jailed at present. Also due to the wording of the resolution, the affirmative has the burden of proof and must prove the resolution true in all cases. :: Value :: >My value is Human Rights. All humans are given fundamental rights in a democratic society. These rights allow the members of society to freely exercise their views. If, however, the members of society were to break the social contract with the government, then they would not deserve the same rights as others. Having its contract with the individual broken, the government is not longer obliged to allow the felons any right to alter its processes, and thus can revoke the right to vote. :: Value Criterion :: >My value criterion is a Social Contract. Social contracts are vital in every society, democratic or not, because they allow the citizens and the government to give each other power, but also to limit one another. This is fundamentally vital to the legislative processes. Once a citizen has committed a felony and become a felon they have shown that they no longer respect the social contract having committed a high crime. This principle means that the government is no longer responsible to represent the felon as the felon has misrepresented it. It is then under the government's discretion whether or not to re-grant privileges such as the right to vote back to the individual. :: Contention 1 :: >My first contention is that felons do not deserve to decide an election. When felons break the social contract with their government their government is no longer obligated to let them choose its members. If felons were given suffrage and actually did decide an election then an unfit candidate would probably be elected, having a negative impact on society and ultimately showing the poor decision making that caused the felons to become felons in the first place. This will then adversely affect all members of society for the worse of the people. This in itself is a far greater crime than a felony is. :: Contention 2 :: >My second contention is that once felons commit a crime against a society they no longer deserve to be a part of that society. They have violated the social contract with the government as so many other citizens have not. They do not deserve equal treatment to the rest of society because they have made an anti-societal gesture in committing a felony. It is rash to believe that felons have truly changed and become more productive members of society after committing such a high crime. It is an assumption that a society cannot make because it will then endanger itself by allowing convicted felons equality in an unequal world. :: Sub-point A :: >My sub-point A is that all people are created equal but they all make different decisions and do not stay equal. Felons are not chosen to be diverse than the rest of society, they make that choice themselves when committing a felony. They are asking to be valued above the rest of society when they ask to be given the same right to vote. They have committed a high crime and do not deserve the same societal rights as those who have not. That teaches felons that it is permissible to commit a felony and in addition to voting they would even commit a felony again, thus making society much less safe. :: Sub-point B :: >My sub-point B is that equality cannot be achieved in the case of murderers. Having "[killed] a human being with premeditated malice" the murderer has taken the right to vote from their victim. Being deceased, that person can no longer vote or voice their values. The murderer then cannot be granted the right to vote in the interest of equality because they have then created an unequal system by killing off a person and effectively their voice while still retaining their won. :: Conclusion :: >In conclusion, the stipulation of this resolution is which rights felons do and do not deserve. The resolution is correctly negated because felons are not deserving of the right to vote after breaking their social contract with their government. They do not deserve equality to the rest of society because they have committed a high crime (felony) which most of society has not. To treat felons like all others within the society would be endorsing the idea of committing felonies; implicating that despite committing a felony, felons will still be treated like the rest of the society, which should not happen. >I will now move on to my opponent's case. :: Value :: >I agree with my opponent that a main goal in a democratic society (hence the name) is to be democratic. I believe that my opponent does not realize that even democracy has limits. If the democracy would allow its members to go around committing felonies then the society would not survive very long. The democracy needs to be realistic about how much it limits felons. :: Value Criterion :: >Basically the same as my argument against my opponent's value; there must be limits in any society. :: Contention 1 :: >The first thing I would like to bring up is that references to the Founding Fathers and the United States Constitution are not valid in this debate because the resolution refers to a democratic society, not to a republic as is the United States. My argument against you contention is this: felons have made the choice to commit a felony or high crime in their society. Is it really correct to allow them the same rights as good law-abiding people? :: Contention 2 :: >The first thing that I would like to say is that my opponent did a brilliant job of saying his second contention and he deserves a great deal of credit for it. Sadly, though, he is not entirely correct. Though disenfranchisement does not fit any of your reasons for punishment, it is not a punishment so much as it is stopping the felons from poorly influencing the processes of the government. :: Contention 3 :: >My attack against my opponent's third contention goes back to my observation. My observation states that "due to the wording of the resolution, the affirmative has the burden of proof and must prove the resolution true in all cases." Felons do not become normal civilians in all cases. Repeat offenders exist. These repeat offenders are not deserving of the right to vote while they keep committing crimes. :: Contention 4 :: >In his fourth contention my opponent referred to many different countries around the globe where felonies are not the same. That is very true; however, the resolution refers to a hypothetical democratic society, not to any one of those countries.

Title: Ex-felons who commited minor crimes or crimes at a early age should be allowed to vote Content: My opponent tries to attack my argument with a program called DARE, and he admits that this program has not worked. He admits that Americans continue to demand illegal drugs. He is trying to advocate the idea that the war on drugs cannot be beat. That is why I am trying to push for a greater benefit for our new generation. 35 percent of high school students have reported using marijuana. 40% of America is in the middle class. We can safely speculate that this is America's middle class minors. These people are suffering. That is why America should make an example of the 2% that did commit crimes. My opponent points out that we should improve the neighborhoods that these kids live in. I would agree, but it takes billions of dollars to improve these neighborhoods. My opponent assumes that we can just improve neighborhoods just like that, but it is not that simple. We should educate our minors on what can happen if you resort to crime, instead of actual jobs. It would be for the greater benefit of America if we could do this. Vote for the greater benefit, Vote for Con. My opponent tries to critique the utilitarian view on this case, saying that we should also care about the minority. Some people would assume that it is very respectful to take care of the minority. That is like me trying to make the case that we should start giving taxes to the wealthy 1%, because they benefit the economy when they create jobs. He says using my logic can work for the 5% of the unemployed people. I mentioned in my case that we should focus on getting ex-felons financially secure. Getting them financially secure would be a greater benefit, than to just give them voting rights. He also acts like giving them voting rights is going to benefit the economy, when there are 74.8 million minors that are going to actually be the future of America. Vote for the 74.8 million minors that will benefit for Americans. Vote for the future. Vote for con. My opponent says in his next argument that the 90% of felons benefit the economy. I agree, we should help them get financially secure. Voting Rights should pose as the example for the 74.8 million minors that are learning that doing drugs are cool. It would be for the greater benefit. Lastly, my opponent makes the claim that ex-felons can be primary sources. I agree with this statement. However, this is also America. They can create awareness for themselves. Teach our minors their mistakes, so that history does not repeat itself. If the ex-minors know what kind of pain they go through, than they can teach the young the consequence of there action. In the end, my opponent seems like he wants a change in how our society. But I have proved again, and again that we achieve a better, brighter future with my case. We have the chance to decrease crime in minors. We have 5.83 million ex-felons. We have the ability to decrease this number by setting an example. Don't let history repeat itself with my opponents case. Vote con, because Con has a set future in plan, knows the consequence of its actions, and will brighten our future. And if you still support my opponent's case, and are still willing to vote for his case, than I will give you 1 things to think about before making your decision. 1. What does America's future look like when you let my opponent's case run in America? You just benefited roughly 2% of the American population. But you have the chance to put a greater benefit for the 74.8 million minors that are learning that crime is cool. If you vote for his case, you have deleted a better future for America. Think about the consequence of my opponents case, and then think about the greater benefit for the 74. million minors that are going to continue to grow America. Vote for the better future. Vote for Con. http://teens.drugabuse.gov...

Title: In a democratic society felons ought to be denied the right to vote. Content: 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".

Title: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. Content: So since I only have five minutes to make an argument I will make this quick. Felons sholuld not have the right to vote because they have broken the laws therefore surrendering their rights. If they wanted the right to vote they should have never broken the law. My opponet did not make an argument therefore I won.

Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: Rebuttals: Con asserts that those who break the law “don’t understand the importance of laws or else they would follow them.” Con even says “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.” “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.” So if one breaks a law they do not understand the importance of law and should have the right to vote taken away? How about lesser crimes, like speeding? If I speed, according to con, I am expressing that I do not care for law in general, and should not have the right to vote. That seems like a huge assumption that those who break laws do not care about laws. Conclusion: Breaking the law does not equal not caring about law. What about Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr, etc. They broke laws… They also understood the importance of laws. More than that they understood individual rights should be protected. Rights like voting. 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.

Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: I'm sorry, I'm going to waive this last round, I'm sorry Kasmic. Feel free to award Pro conduct, but vote who had more convincing arguments. It's always a pleasure to debate you Kasmic.