The Instigator
glaceau
Pro (for)
Winning
47 Points
The Contender
Igor
Con (against)
Losing
14 Points

In a democractic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/28/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,094 times Debate No: 6079
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (9)

 

glaceau

Pro

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

When looking at the basis of the resolution, we read in the first prepositional phrase "in a democratic society," therefore the resolution assumes that felon disenfranchisement is taking place in a democratic framework. Even if some people would view those preferences as "bad" society, a procedural view of democracy would hold that there is no legitimate basis for any preferences to be rejected and equality of all is the implied value.

To define key terms:

Felons - A person convicted of a serious criminal offense punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year.

Democracy (root of democratic) - Of, characterized by, or advocating democracy, Of or for the people in general; popular, Believing in or practicing social equality

The value for this round will be equality, and my criterion will be democracy. This means that whoever allows for the equality by the ways of democracy, will win this round. This is a fair value and criterion because the resolution is talking about what is best for a democratic society, ergo my criterion; and equality is essential to a democracy, ergo my value. Moreso, a democracy is defined as in having or practicing social equality and inversely, without equality, a full democracy cannot be established.

CONTENTION ONE: ENFRANCHISING FELONS IS DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO THE INCREASE OF DEMOCRACY

A. FELON DISENFRANCHISEMENT HURTS DEMOCRATIC VALUES AND RIGHTS
Mauer, Marc, assistant director of The Sentencing Project, "Felon Disenfranchisement: A Policy Whose Time Has Passed?" American Bar Association, http://www.abanet.org..., accessed September 9, 2008

Regarding individuals who complete their sentence, it is difficult to develop a compelling argument for the denial of voting rights. Americans long have professed that once you "pay your debt to society," you are free to rejoin the community. But a felony conviction may continues to deny these rights of citizenship decades after a sentence has been completed, even for a one-time, nonviolent offense. (Regrettably, policymakers in recent years enacted a series of collateral consequences of conviction, many tied specifically to drug offenses, that also extend after sentence. These include bans on receiving welfare assistance, living in public housing, and obtaining financial aid for higher education.) But serious questions can be raised as well regarding the loss of fundamental rights for people currently serving a felony sentence, whether in prison or on probation or parole. Our legal system generally makes a distinction between punishment-the loss of liberty whether in prison or on probation-and the loss of rights. The only exceptions generally conceded by law and policy are those exercises of speech that might conflict with public safety concerns. If we think of voting more broadly, as a fundamental expression of speech, then disenfranchisement becomes an even greater challenge for a democratic society. Suppose, for example, a legislator proposed a bill to make it unlawful for a probationer to write a letter to the editor or to participate in a protest rally. Surely few policymakers or citizens would find this an appropriate consequence of a conviction. Yet in the twenty-nine states that currently prohibit probationers from voting, such restrictions on political expression are firmly in place. The traditional goals of sentencing also leave little justification for disenfranchisement and most other collateral consequences of conviction. Other than serving a retributive function, disenfranchisement certainly does not meet the goals of incapacitation or deterrence. Individuals who are not already deterred from crime by the threat of incarceration are unlikely to be swayed by the prospect of losing their right to vote. Placing a character test on voting eligibility also is reminiscent of past practices that run counter to modern notions of democratic procedure. Once we begin to impose character requirements, voting slips back from being a right for all Americans to a privilege granted by the powerful. The racial impact of disenfranchisement policies is sometimes justified as an inevitable if unfortunate aspect of a race-neutral criminal justice system: if members of a particular racial or ethnic group are more involved in crime, the consequent disproportionate loss of voting rights is merely a result of their activity. Such an argument, though, ignores the compelling evidence of discriminatory racial dynamics in the criminal justice system-racial profiling by law enforcement agencies, the racially disparate prosecution of the war on drugs, and glaring inequities in adequacy of counsel as a function of both race and class.

Affirming the resolution allows for reenfranchisement, which changes how felons function in the electoral system.

B. RESTORATION OF THE RIGHT TO VOTE ENABLES REHABILITATION AND REINTEGRATION INTO DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY
Mauer, Marc, assistant director of The Sentencing Project, "Felon Disenfranchisement: A Policy Whose Time Has Passed?" American Bar Association, http://www.abanet.org..., accessed September 9, 2008

In a more positive vein, the restoration of voting rights can be seen as being in harmony with the rehabilitative goal of sentencing. If an objective of sentencing is to encourage offenders to become less antisocial, then it is in society's interest to engage offenders in productive relationships with the community. Voting is clearly one means of doing so. Such a rationale is employed by the many nations (and the states of Maine and Vermont) that do not relate voting rights to criminal punishment and permit even prisoners to vote. By the standards of most democratic nations, American disenfranchisement policies are extreme, as is our excessive use of imprisonment. No other democratic nation disenfranchises former offenders for life; some countries deny voting rights to citizens after they have completed a prison sentence, but this generally is for a limited period of time and for specific offenses. During the past decade, constitutional courts in Canada, Israel, and South Africa have affirmed the fundamental right of all citizens, including prisoners, to be part of the electorate. The Israeli case is particularly intriguing because it resulted from a challenge to the voting rights of Yigal Amir, the man convicted of killing former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.

Reintegration is a key step to achieve a truly democratic society, which increases the legitimacy of democracy. Democracy impacts to providing the most social justice through the protection of rights, both on a domestic and international scale.

CONTENTION 2:
Allowing felons to vote, once released, is consistent with the return of other rights.

Jeffrey Reiman, "Liberal and Republican Arguments against the Disenfranchisement of Felons," Criminal Justice Ethics, 2005

Technically, disenfranchisement is not considered part of an offender's sentence but only a "collateral consequence" of conviction. Consequently, one rarely sees judges defending disenfranchisement as punishment. With regard to imprisoned felons, the argument implied in this rhetorical question has some force.

Because the idea of Felon Disenfranchisement does not promote the best for society in the form of the preservation of democracy and the creation of justice, the reverse must also be true. If Felons were re-enfranchised It would strengthen the democratic process and would be the most just solution because it preserves democracy by means of marketable ideas being expressed.
Igor

Con

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
Debate Round No. 1
glaceau

Pro

His case:

Overview:
The major flaws of his argumentations are his numerous assumptions. From the very beginning of this debate, he frames it under a "just" society or attaining "justice." However, the way he reasons to attaining justice is the implications of the resolution and the implication he correlates with democracy. Since the resolution is framed under a predicated democracy, we must view this procedurally: there is no legitimate basis for any preferences to be rejected. He offers no brightline as to what is the universal concept of "just" or attaining justice is. This means that under the democratic framework, justice can never be attained. His definition of "democracy" indicates governed by the people. Inversely though—the majority of the people's decision or consensus is what determines a decision rather than whether it is "just or not"

Observation 2: Felons and exfelons 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.

Contention 1: Retribution

The first line of his contention states that it is giving punishment that is "deserved" or punishment that fits the crime, but there can never be a clear brightline as to what is "deserved" or "not" Felons will use this non-delineated brightline of what is deserved or not as a loophole to perform their actions in a different society or framework that doesn't impact the magnitude of "deserved" as badly as the other one does. The denotation and predication of this contention is also off since it assumes that the punishment of the government to the felon has to be the equivalent of what the felon did. For example, if a felon was convicted of rape, that does NOT necessarily mean the government has to rape the felon back. Instead, the focus should be on the magnitude of the punishment towards the felon. For the magnitude of the punishment, he assumes that we must ALWAYS treat EVERY felon as a political non-entity. This is flawed for two subpoints a) It assumes that all felons are convicted of crimes that need the magnitude of dehumanization and b) there is one alternative or one type of punishment that is to be ultimately attained by these felons. It fails to regard other types of punishment that would sever the impact of how rehabilitation into society could be performed.

2) Flaw- "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?" Let's take a look at this sentence and thematic concept. 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. The immediate sentence after that then goes on to state that there are many MORE BASIC rights taken away. Exactly, since there are so many of these basic rights taken away from the felon during their imprisonment, the magnitude of taking away the right to vote or the right to possess societal importance is unnecessary and past the prerequisite of basic rights being taken away. Since there are basic rights taken away, then there is a net loss of the felon's rights in society. As long as there is a net loss of the right to society, the felon is being shunned or punished for their activity. Cross apply Contention 1 Subpoint A—it does a good job of explaining how the loss of the right to vote is an ADDITIONAL consequence pass the prerequisites. "Other than serving a retributive function, disenfranchisement certainly does not meet the goals of incapacitation or deterrence. Individuals who are not already deterred from crime by the threat of incarceration are unlikely to be swayed by the prospect of losing their right to vote. " Look further into my contention as well it also places an impact on the unnecessary removal of the right to vote: "Once we begin to impose character requirements, voting slips back from being a right for all Americans to a privilege granted by the powerful." In other words, to prevent a tyranny or autonomy by one, centralized force, instilling the right to vote to these felons is what keeps the democracy upheld. The syntax he also uses in this contention with "fair" and "basic" ties hand in hand with the overview argument—it's an assumed value that can never be reached by universal consensus or by his own definition of democracy.

Contention 3- Double Standard

This contention is the epitome of too many assumptions. Look to his first line "essentially condoning violent acts." This is flawed for two reasons
a)Look to Contention 1, Subpoint A – Turn: by not upholding the right to vote to the majority of the people and practicing social equality (definition of democracy) you are condoning tyrannistic autonomy
b)If we were to look at his own value justice, by negating something on the "just" reason or the just way wouldn't necessarily be the equivalence of condoning the negative option. For example, if I didn't want to give money to a poor robber, I would not be condoning poverty, but rather acting on a just decision –that giving money to a robber or burglar is not just. Turns his own value
Look to his last sentence "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."
This is flawed for four reasons

a)If they had the same amount of rights for something they committed, they would not be SUPERIOR to law-abiding citizens but rather the right that both are instilled with is of great magnitude to the society/democracy
b)They would not have the same amount of rights. Your contention 2 tells me that they are revoked "certain, basic rights"
c)Not all of what felons convict are "the most brazen way". Poor generalization
d)Extend/Cross Apply my previous argument that different states/societies/frameworks have different punishments/retributions. Different types of behaviors/performances in different areas equate to differentiating magnitudes of what they actually did.

My case:

The value debate
1)Great way to read my value out of context. I'm not talking about any attainment of equality during incarceration nor the magnitude of punishment. The value is there to support the prepositional phrase of the resolution "in a democratic society" a democratic society usurps the idea of "equality" or social equality (refer to my definition). To sustain social equality, there has to be a uniform approach to treating these felons post and pre convictions
2)No warrant to dejustification. C/A no standard of "just"
The criterion debate

1)His definition never ergo-s "protecting society" Rather, look to my uniformed definition—the practicing of social equality and the uniform approach to felons pre and post conviction
2)Contradicting. The first part of his argument states that maximization of fairness better upholds justice. Then he goes on to state that democracy is not always just. Flawed for two reasons
a.No brightline to just or justice
b.No brightline to what is "fair" or "not". If the universal ruling of the people turned out to be "unfair" would it yield to be "fair"?

Contentions:

1)Great way to dehumanize them by calling them parasites
2)Not "more democracy" but a comparison of the magnitude/quality of how you uphold the ideal
3)Children do not have the right to vote. This argument seems to go nowhere, but if it's going where I think look to contention 1, subpoint b - productivity is checked by the participation in voting and activities regarding the quality of society
4)"A felony inherently hurts society" and "therefore government" Cross apply my rebuttal on his contention 3 about the extra topical assumpti
Igor

Con

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
Debate Round No. 2
glaceau

Pro

OVERVIEW:

This guy forgets to argue the LENGTH of my arguments as badly as Brittney Spears forgets to wear her underwear. The framework from the very beginning of this debate that has gone cold-conceded, he offers no BRIGHTLINE as to what a "just" society is. Then he tries to frame his entire case around justice and a "just society" Since the resolution is framed under a predicated democracy, we must view this procedurally: there is no legitimate basis for any preferences to be rejected. He offers ABSOLUTELY NO BRIGHTLINE as to what is the universal concept of "just" or attaining justice is. This means that under the democratic framework, justice can never be attained. His definition of "democracy" indicates governed by the people. Inversely though—the majority of the people's decision or consensus is what determines a decision rather than whether it is "just or not." Even if I drop my whole case and run away, UNDER HIS OWN DEFINITIONAL/RESOLUTIONAL TERMS, JUSTICE CAN NEVER BE ACHIEVED UNDER CONSENSUS.

HIS CASE:
1)"OBSERVATIONS" (WHAT HE TRIES TO DO)
a)He tries to extend his observation 1 about America, let him do that—it won't affect anything. All the arugments he tries to make about America is "non resolutional" or "non-topical", but I'll later prove that in this dsebate round.
b)Don't let him get away with these scrawny, sneaky observation arguments put the gist of your ideals into the core of this debate round.
c)Prefer my overview that goes 100% COLD-CONCEDED. FRAMEWORK SUBSUMES THE OBSERVATIONS
2)He tries to argue that FELONS won't be put into society all the time but this is flawed for FOUR REASONS
a)Felons are the same products of the exfelons by timeframe
b)Extend the TF argument that goes virtually cold-conceded. TF doesn't make or break the thematic concept of a felon from an ex-felon
c)His definitional concept offers no brightline, don't let him bring up new clarifications in the last speech he should have done that from the very beginning
d)All contentions and arguments are predicated off felons
e)Reasonability checks
3)CONTENTION 1-RETRIBUTION
a)He tries to post an argument that post res. Vs pre resolution is the equivalency of adults into babies however that's flawed for four reasons
a.That is not what I'm saying, great job taking it out of context. The argument stands that FELONS are products of EXFELONS by the non-contributory TIMEFRAME which still puts them into the position of what the argument/resolution frames
b.Felons and exfelons are products of each other, there's no reason to reject the arguments when they are FULLY PREDICATED OFF OF FELONS AND THEIR RIGHTS TO VOTE
c.Inevitably put into same position—felons that are NOT put into society are given the net loss of basic rights (he concedes that in contention 2) meaning that they are THEMATICALLY the same position as an ex-felon by a matter of timeframe. Days and Months aren't going to change the ability to be more "just"
d.Reasonability Checks. Observations check. Framework Checks 100 percent.
b)He then goes on to state that the argument about how felons use the fact that there are different types of magnitudes of punishment in different societies as UNRESOLUTIONAL but that's not even WHAT THE ARGUMENT IS IMPLYING UNDER HIS OWN DEFINITIONAL TERMS. What societies come down to CAN BE IN AMERICA. Felon punishment laws and the different magnitudes are GROSSLY inconsistent. Felons use the fact that in one area of the United States, say for instance Texas, may punish less on one misconduct whereas New York on the otherhand, may consider that misconduct of greater magnitude of punishment. Flawed for two reasons
a.It still subsumes a democratic framework. IT REFERS TO DIFFERENT MAGNITUDES OF PUNISHMENT UNDER THE SAME FRAMEWORK.
b.The argument talks about different loopholes for different magnitudes of punishment
c)He miserably tries to argue the argument about rape vs the government raping back as an "I agree" but HE ONCE AGAIN takes this poorly out of context. What the argument is saying is THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO LIMIT to having the government do the same EXACT misconduct to the felon itself. The argument talked about the magnitude of punishments and instead, the government PUNISHES THE FELONS based on the magnitude of what they did… NOT BASED ON WHAT THEY DID.
a.HE COLD CONCEDES Argument 3 and the following two subpoints. Extend that across.
b.The subpoints are as follows: a) It assumes that all felons are convicted of crimes that need the magnitude of dehumanization AT EVERY SINGLE TYPE and b) there is one alternative or one type of punishment that is to be ultimately attained by these felons. THIS MEANS HE POORLY GENERALIZES THE MAGNITUDE OF EVERY MISCONDUCT. THERE ARE DIFFERENT MAGNITUDES OF MISCONDUCT EVEN WITH FELONS.
4)CONTENTION 2-LEGAL CONSISTENCY
a.The only two spotty arguments he makes on this argument's flow is that THERE IS A CONSISTENT SYSTEM and that the felons have no right in the society BUT BOTH ARE POORLY TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT IN THE ARGUMENTATION. HE COLD CONCEDES POINTS 3-7. LET'S TAKE A CLOSER LOOK.
b.On argument subpoint 1, the argument is that the syntax of his contention concedes that the freeom to vote/speech is GREATER than that of basic rights. THIS IS NOT ABOUT A "CONSISTENT SYSTEM". This is about the different magnitudes of rights. Your contention clearly states "other many basic rights are taken away"… "why this" The correlative comparisons indicate that BASIC RIGHTS are far more "basic" or less than that of freedom to vote/speech. This means this argument is wholly flawed for two reasons
i.Out of context
ii.The argument implies basic vs.greater magnitude as opposed to what you think
c.On argument subpoint 2, the argument was that he concedes that BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS ARE TAKEN AWAY meaning that there is NET LOSS OF RIGHTS (regardless of its magnitudes) from the felons THAN THE LAW-ABIDIING CITIZEN. There is STILL A NET LOSS . He further helps to expound this argument by saying that they have no right… exactly, that is my argument. Essentially these felons have less rights in the end than a law-abiding citizen.
d.On argument Subpoint 3, THIS GOES COLD CONCEDED. The argument talks about how, specifically within my first constructive, that TAKING AWAY THE FREEDOM TO VOTE/SPEECH (already conceded to be > basic rights) would be an additional, unnecessary punishment after the removal of the pre-requisites
e.Subpoint 4=Cold conceded. Talks about how EVEN WITH REMOVAL of the freedom of speech/vote there is absolutely no deterrent
f.The impact placed on Subpoint 5 THAT GOES COLD CONCEDED ONCE AGAIN is that when you take away this right to vote/speech, you make the right a reformed privilege to be granted by the only powerful meaning that it condones the tyrannistic autonomy by contention 2 talks about
g.Subpoint 6 talks about how the syntax you place on your contentions are "fair" and "basic" both are assumed VALUES that have no brightline in the democratic society. Refer to my overview if you're lost.
h.Cross Apply democracy- democracy indicates rulings REGARDLESS of how basic, fair, it is in your eyes.
5)CONTENTION 3-DOUBLE STANDARD
a.Once again, very spotty flow. The only three arguments he make are once again taken out of context. He cold concedes many subpoints. Let's take a closer look
b.Subpoint A indicates the Turn: That you condone a tyrannistic autonomy by making the right to vote a reformed privilege against the already taken away prerequisites. You go on to say the 98% vs 2% against the people however this is flawed for two main reasons.
i.There are no warrants to these 2 numbers
ii.The argument was specific to the imposition of character requirements on voting that endlessly and doomlessly turn into a right only to be given to the "privileged"
c.Subpoint B indicates that JUST BECAUSE THERE IS NO AGREEMENT WITH THE NEGATIVE OPTION DOESN'T MEAN I CONDONE
Igor

Con

To my opponent, thank you, and good luck in the final round

[Overview]

Some of my opponents 'crosschecks' appear to be sketchy, so I will try my best to depict what he attempts to argue. Also, you can ignore my opponents continuation of his argument on the comment section, for that his obviously against the rules and for good reason

[My case-Observations]

Observation I: America

--> he accepted it, end of story

Observation II: Felons/ Ex-felons

Pretty much, my opponent argues that felons are put back into society, and therefore I have to extend this to felons that are in society

--> Upon re-entry into society, felons are no longer considered a felon by society. If society still recognized them as a felon, they would still be in jail serving their felony. Because society has realized that their debt was paid off, they are now considered an ex-felon

--> Because ex-felons are not implied by the resolution, anything pertaining to an ex-felon is inherently unresolutional

[My case-Contentions]

Contention I: Retribution

My opponent argues my whole contention because I made an argument on how he was implying things that were not relevant to the resolution

--> My opponent says that we have to look to the time frame from when felons get out. This is wrong because you are inferring something that is not implied by the resolution. For example, he says that all felons are eventually released (which I proved wrong; capital punishment, death in prison, life in jail, etc.) But, because he is looking post-resolution, why can't you look pre-resolution? I was simply using my opponents logic against him. If he is going to infer thinks that are not implied, I then am able to infer things that are not implied. Pre-resolution means giving babies the right to vote, which, in my opinion, is extremely dangerous and jeopardizes the whole democracy

Contention II: Legal Consistency

He argues that we do not have a legal system and that I value the right to vote over basic rights.

--> The whole point of my argument was the fact that we do not have a legally consistent system, and that we must strive towards one, which include disenfranchisement during incarceration

--> I do not value the right to vote over the right to speech. All positive rights are equal. I say that for a neutral arbiter to uphold standard principles of fairness to its constituents, the government must take away the right to vote because more intrinsic rights are withheld through incarceration

Contention III: Double Standard

My opponent says that I am 'turning the right to vote into a privilege'

--> This is wrong. I, more than my opponent, value the right to vote. It is exactly why I value it that I take it away from undeserving people. By rewarding political rights and say in the government in incarceration, my opponent is condoning violent acts and setting a double standard to that of law-abiding citizens by making the law-breakers into the law-makers

[My case-Value/Value Criteria]

Value: Justice

--> my opponent failed to attack my value, and so it can thus be extended

Value Criteria: Maximization of Fairness

--> Once again, he dropped his attack on my VC

[His Case- Observations, Contentions, Value, Value Criterion]

--> he dropped ALL of them. If you do not believe me, check his last post. All my arguments from the previous post are therefore extended

[Voting Issues]

(1) My opponent dropped his attack on my first observation, my value premise, and my value criteria

(2) I defended my second observation and my contentions above

(3) He dropped his WHOLE CASE on the last rebuttal. This includes his value, which his whole case is built upon. In LD rules, he forfeits his case

(4) Because he has forfeited his case and did not present one, he has not reached his negative burden, which is to prove the resolution categorically false

Thank you
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Grabz 7 years ago
Grabz
how can pro be winning? He dropped "Igor"'s whole value structure
Posted by glaceau 8 years ago
glaceau
btw, just worry about posting your side of the debate. i know how i answered all the args
Posted by glaceau 8 years ago
glaceau
offense on the flow from the v debate is fine
Posted by Igor 8 years ago
Igor
yeah, but if you dont extend ur arguments, they are dropped for the whole round
Posted by glaceau 8 years ago
glaceau
if not , it doesn't matter. i already posted the contention 3 debate on the original post and the value/criterion debate is tagged under the turns. gluck.
Posted by glaceau 8 years ago
glaceau
is there a way i can edit my post for the debate? if so, i'll edit it in.
Posted by TheRaven 8 years ago
TheRaven
yea that's not right glaceau......
Posted by Igor 8 years ago
Igor
I'm sure it goes without saying that none of this can be used for it is not in the debate
Posted by glaceau 8 years ago
glaceau
Value debate-
-Implication arguments are extra topical—performs many assumptions before getting to the end result
-His example of rape vs. insider trading is flawed because there is no uniformity of punishment and justice does not solve back for this ideology

Criterion-

-Only argument talks about how democracy is not always just. Flow that to my side, you frame it under a democratic society means you prefer the ovw.
Extend Subpoint 2-3 with 3's a and b subpoint. 2 is the definitional debate and 3 talks about the contradiction you instate "max of fairness-justice. Democracy =/= just. You offer no brightline to what is just, fair and the universal ruling would not be indicative of what is fair to you at all times.
Posted by glaceau 8 years ago
glaceau
5)CONTENTION 3-DOUBLE STANDARD
a.Once again, very spotty flow. The only three arguments he make are once again taken out of context. He cold concedes many subpoints. Let's take a closer look
b.Subpoint A indicates the Turn: That you condone a tyrannistic autonomy by making the right to vote a reformed privilege against the already taken away prerequisites. You go on to say the 98% vs 2% against the people however this is flawed for two main reasons.
i.There are no warrants to these 2 numbers
ii.The argument was specific to the imposition of character requirements on voting that endlessly and doomlessly turn into a right only to be given to the "privileged"
c.Subpoint B indicates that JUST BECAUSE THERE IS NO AGREEMENT WITH THE NEGATIVE OPTION DOESN'T MEAN I CONDONE THE INVERSE. I give you a specific example that goes COLD CONCEDED. If I didn't give money to a poor robber, that doesn't mean I condone poverty, but rather act on that "just" decision (your value). Regardless of what you consider social equality—
i.Refer to the interp/definitional debate about democracy
ii.Any debates about interpretations should have been in the first speech. This skews time and ability to argue
d.Subpoints a and b go cold-conceded. A talks about how these felons DON'T TURN SUPERIOR IN ANY WAY, atmost they turn the equivalents of law-abiding citizens. B talks about how there is still an INEVITABLE net loss of rights as said per your contention 2.
e.Subpoint c talks about how not all felons are convicted in the most "brazen" way. Your only argument you put against this is that it's greater than a misdemeanor. Okay, great. Well a) there is STILL A NET LOSS OF BASIC, HUMAN RIGHTS. B) THERE IS STILL SOME FORM OF PUNISHMENT c) extend my argument that this type of ideology neglects the loopholes of different societies impacting harms greater than others d) being considered a "felon" isn't inherently the perfect way to describe AT ALL TIMES the committing of a brazen-crime
9 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Vote Placed by Clayburn 7 years ago
Clayburn
glaceauIgorTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by jasonxxx102 7 years ago
jasonxxx102
glaceauIgorTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by rubbercement 7 years ago
rubbercement
glaceauIgorTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by JBattle 7 years ago
JBattle
glaceauIgorTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by paperclips 8 years ago
paperclips
glaceauIgorTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by TheRaven 8 years ago
TheRaven
glaceauIgorTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by tropicana 8 years ago
tropicana
glaceauIgorTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by ozarka 8 years ago
ozarka
glaceauIgorTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by glaceau 8 years ago
glaceau
glaceauIgorTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70