The Instigator
cometfire7
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
HeedMyFeed
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
HeedMyFeed
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/11/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,623 times Debate No: 6470
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (3)

 

cometfire7

Pro

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

Con

I will post my constructive then go over my opponents side of the flow.

I negate the resolution. Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote.
Counter-Definitions
A Democratic Society – An ideal society which provides its' citizens equal representation.
Society- A community of people, as of state, nation, or locality, with common cultures, traditions, and interests. (Black's Law Dictionary)
Felony- A violation of the Social Contract, which results in the felon being put in jail or being put to death.
Social Contract – The gathering of the rights society values the most, which is guaranteed under the Social Contract. In addition, the rights that are sacrificed to protect these rights.
Citizen- A member of society who has abided by the Social Contract.
Vote- A member of democratic society taking advantage of their right to equal representation.
Observation
1.It must be looked at since the resolution states, and it is defined, that what separates a democratic society from any other type of society, is the right to equal representation.
2.It must be looked at since the resolution states, and it is defined, that there is currently no society that is truly democratic, because they do not provide equal representation.
Value and Value Criterion
My value for this round will be safety. Safety is the protection of rights that the society values the most. This must be the highest value, because a society must protect what it values the most for the members of society. A democratic society in this case values the right to equal representation the most.
My value criterion for this round will be the Democratic Social Contract. The Social Contract must be looked at since it best protects the rights the society values the most. Also, it is inherently democratic because it is developed and agreed on by majority of society. In this case, it will provide the best protection for the right to equal representation, which is valued the most by the democratic society. The negative will show how the felons have violated the Social Contract and must lose their right to equal representation.
Contention One: Felon's Have Violated the Social Contract
The felons have violated the social contract of a democratic society. A democratic society must operate under the Social Contract. The Social Contract provides the best protection for the rights the society values the most. It shows the government's obligations to you, and your obligations to the government. The Social Contract states that people gain rights from a government but in turn have to subject to the civil law and political authority of a society. The only right guaranteed to be gained in a democratic society is the right to equal representation. However, even though this is the highest valued right, a democratic society should provide other rights, such as the right to liberty and life under the social contract. It applies in this case because the felon's have violated social contract by committing a felony. The breaking of the social contract allows the government to take away the right that they value the most. In this case, the right that is valued the most is right to equal representation. The felons have shown that they are a danger to the society, and the rights it values the most. Therefore in violating the Social Contract, the felon has forfeited this right that the society values the most, which is protected under the Social Contract. If the felon in this case has violated the social contract, they have violated safety as well. This way the negative better upholds safety because they are upholding the social contract by taking away the felons' participation in civil society. It also upholds the Social Contract, because they have taken away the rights guaranteed by the Social Contract from those that have broken it.
Contention Two: Felons' rights are inherently taken away
According to the resolution, rights are inherently taken away by the democratic society. The two rights that are being mentioned in this case are the right to life and liberty. These two are natural rights people are endowed with according to John Locke. Even though a democratic society does not necessarily have to provide these rights are some that a democratic society should uphold. By putting you in jail or to death, either are results of a felony according to the definition, the society is taking away either the natural right to life or liberty. It is already showing through this that the society can take away rights. Therefore, the society has the authority to take away the right that it values the most, the right to equal representation. As stated previously, the society protects the rights it values the most. It is already protecting the right to life and liberty, so it must protect the right that it sets it apart from other societies, which is the right to equal representation. Roger Clegg, JD, further elaborates on this topic by saying, ""It makes no sense. We incarcerate people and we take away their right to run their own lives and leave them with the ability to influence how we run our lives?" This shows that if democratic societies already take away the right liberty, they must in turn take away the right to equal representation as well. This way the negative better upholds safety, because they show how rights are already taken away for the means of safety. It also upholds the Social Contract, because the negative upholds the Social Contract by taking away the rights it guarantees from those who violate it.
I do not need to go over my opponents definitions since I provided counter definitions.
My value for this round should be prefered over democracy, because the responsibility of any government is to provide safety. That is the basis that a government is formed, because it is to get out of a state of anarchy and to protect the consensus of rights provided by the government. Therefore, safety should be used. As well, Social Contract should be used because it best protects the rights of the people, and better upholds safety. Equality cannot be used because felons are not equal for they committed a felony.
Since you are going by my standards for the round and the fact that a felony violates the social contract, you must automatically negate. As well, my opponents example comes from non legit democratic society since they do not provide equal representation, so that is void. Again, the social status argument is non relevant because no matter your status you receive equal application of rights provided, and they still performed a wrong act. Next, my opponent by citing the constitution fails to realize in Richardson vs. Ramirez the Supreme Court deemed felon disenfranchisement constitutional. Again, my opponent by citing the United States is not providing equality because they do not allow children or the incompetent to vote, which violates equality.
Not enough characters to get everything.
Debate Round No. 1
cometfire7

Pro

I would like to thank HeedMyFeed for accepting this challenge.

I will start out by attacking my opponent's case, and then move on to defending my own.

My opponent's counter-definitions have some problems which I will show:

A Democratic Society – An ideal society which provides its' citizens equal representation
-Democratic society doesn't have to be ideal

Felony- A violation of the Social Contract, which results in the felon being put in jail or being put to death
-This is not the dictionary definition

Social Contract – The gathering of the rights society values the most, which is guaranteed under the Social Contract. In addition, the rights that are sacrificed to protect these rights
-There are 3 Social Contracts, and they cannot be covered by one general theory

Vote- A member of democratic society taking advantage of their right to equal representation
-Vote actually means to express one self's will or choice.

Observations:
1- A democratic society's difference is actually that it mostly follows the principle of democracy, otherwise, it would be called an ideal democracy if it followed democracy exactly.
2- There are many democratic societies in the world, just no ideal democracies.

Value- Democracy outweighs safety because it is explicitly mentioned in the resolution. Also, in order for a democratic society to take place, there must be the idea of democracy.

Value Criterion- The Neg. uses a vague Value Criterion because there are very different Social Contract Theorems, from different people such as Hobbs, Rousseau, and Locke. The use of the general Social Contract Theory means that I can sink the Value Criterion, as well as his first contention together as long as I prove that the Social Contract supports the Aff.

C1- My oppponnt states, "Felons have violated the Social Contract"
In fact, John Locke's Social Contract Theory states that a felon is still within the Social Contract if he commits a felony and is punished for it. The only way he would break the Social Contract would be if he broke the law and then ran away. Thus, since the term felon means that the person has already been punished, the felon has not broken the Social Contract and can maintain the right to vote.
Thus, I have proven that his first contention is false, but also that his VC actually supports the Aff.

C2- "…leave them with the ability to influence how we run our lives."
There is a logical flaw, because regardless of the voting of the felons, the choice that the most people like will still be chosen, which shows that the people themselves have the dominant influence on how run their own lives, not the felons.
-Also, the democratic society cannot just take away rights for no reason. When the society decides to take away the right of life and liberty it is only to protect the people. Furthermore, the right to life and liberty is not mentioned in the resolution, contrary to what the Neg. says, nor in the definition because the definition is not a dictionary definition, but rather a made-up one.
-Finally, the Neg. says "It also upholds the Social Contract". If this contention were true, then it would be helping the Aff. side out anyway, because I have proven that the Social Contract actually helps the Aff.

To defend my case:

Definitions: I have defended my definition, and attacked the contradicting definitions of my opponent, and have shown that my definitions are correct.

Value: I have showed how democracy outweighs safety above.

VC: Equality as a value criterion should still stand. My opponent's only attack is that felons are not equal because they committed a felony: This is not true; nowhere does it state that a felon is not equal to other citizens; there is no proof. Furthermore, again in the Declaration of Independence, it states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal". Thus my value criterion stands, and my opponent's value criterion also helps me out.
Contentions: My opponent claims that eh United States is not a democratic society.
That is not true- The US may not be an ideal democracy, but it is still democratic, as is uses the ideas of democracy, and it is a society, according to my opponent's definition of a society.

C1: Not truly attacked

C2: There are still statistics to prove that poorer people will commit more crimes out of poverty and desperation, and they will lose their rights because they tried to feed their families.
For example: A father of 5 has a job, but does not make enough money to feed his family, even with the social welfare checks. One day, his children are starving and he decides to steal some bread. He gets caught and is charged with burglary, a felony. Is it really fair to deny him the right to vote because he needed food for his family?

C3-C4: My opponent has also not truly attacked these contentions yet.

Thanks for a good debate, and best of luck.

With these arguments, I urge you to vote for the Negative.
HeedMyFeed

Con

I will move straight down the flow.

My opponent attacks my counter definition of democracy and observations on this by saying that it doesnt have to be ideal and there are a lot of types of democratic society. However, turn this because if there are a lot of types of democratic societies, then there cant be "a democratic society." So therefore we must deal with one type of democratic society, which is the ideal kind. Therefore, we can deal with only one type, unlike my opponent.

My opponent attacks my felony counter definition because it isnt a dictionary definition. However, it is a logic definition. By this I mean in an ideal democratic society this is what a felony would entail.

My opponent attacks my social contract definition by saying there are 3 types. However, I am dealing with the concept of the social contract theory and how it would be applied in a democratic society.

My opponent attacks my definition of vote by saying it means to express one self's will, however we are dealing with this resolution in the context of a government. A government defines voting as taking advantage of your right to representation, and with an ideal democratic society it would be equal representation.

My opponent attacks my value of safety by saying democracy is implict in the resolution. However, my opponent drops my point that in order to protect these democratic values we must have safety. Therefore, democracy cannot be achieved without safety. Therefore, safety is more important.

My value criterion my opponent fails to disprove, because he says it doesnt represent a philosopher. However, it does not have to, in fact it is the idea of a social contract. It is how the social contract would be applied in a democratic society.

Attacking my contention one my opponent fails to understand the social contract theory. My opponent again trys limiting it to a philosopher but fails at that. He doesnt understand that all social contract philosophers accept the fact that if you do not uphold your obligation to follow the law, then you violate the social contract. Therefore, the felon has violated the social contract and has threatened democratic values. Therefore, you can extend this contention because the felons have violated the social contract by not following the law.

Attacking my contention two my opponent says that felons vote is not important, however it has been proven that the felons vote can decided elections. http://media.www.thefamuanonline.com...
He goes on attacking by saying that you cannot take away rights for no reasons, however they have violated the social contract and can have their rights taken away. Finally he says that life and liberty is not stated in resolution. However, then the only right that can be stated on the social contract would be the right to equal representation, which would be the one that would be taken away.

Opponents case:

Since I have attacked the value I will move on.

My opponents value criterion is flawed, because society does not treat felons equal because they jail them and deny them equal liberty. Therefore to apply by my opponents value criterion we would have to let felons out of jail. Therefore, we must look the Social Contract.

My opponents contention one is flawed because he is advocating equal rights and this is not possible with felons being denied equal liberty. As well, the United States is not an ideal democratic society, and second felon disenfranchisement is constitutional. It was proven in the case of Richardson vs. Ramirez.

My opponent dropped the attack on my opponents second contention was dropped that they have access to equal rights. As well, this is merely coincidence and preferential treatment cannot be given based off of social class. They violated the social contract and deserved to be punished.

My opponents contention 3 is again wrong because he advocates equal rights. However, felons already do not have equal rights for they have been given reduced liberty. As well, the resolution implies they were punished in a democratic society, not a dictatorship.

Finally his contention 4 is again wrong since voting in this case is being in the context is in an election. There is not disenfranchisment for other cases only governmental elections. As well, voting qualifications are already being limited by not allowing children or the mentally incompetent to vote. Felons belong in this category.

For these reasons vote negative.
Debate Round No. 2
cometfire7

Pro

I will start with my opponent's case, and then move on to defending my case.

Definitions:
Democratic Society, Observations- My opponent is wrong when he says that there are lots of democratic societies, but there can be "a democratic society". Just as if I say, "There are many apples," and then I say "In an apple, there should be a worm": Here, I saying there are many apples, and I am saying that one, any one, of the apples should have a worm inside. Thus, I can say there are many democratic societies, and that in any one of these democratic societies, felons ought to retain the right to vote.
Felony- As I showed before, a felony does not violate John Locke's social contract theory, and therefore the definition of felon should not have anything to do with the social contract theory. Rather, as stated in law dictionaries, the definition is" a person who has committed a felony, which is a grave offense against society, such as murder or burglary, and commonly punished by imprisonment of more than a year, or death."
Social Contract- As I said before, there are three social contracts, with conflicting views; Hobbs thought all men were evil, Rousseau thought some were good, and some were evil, and Locke thought all men were good. These conflicting views cannot all be applied to a democracy because they will have contradictions, and it is impossible to join contradictions together.
Vote- Vote is not about the people taking advantage of the right of equal representation. It is about the people expressing their will or choice. This is shown in the UN Security, where 5 permanent members hold more influence than other members because they can veto any resolution (http://www.globalpolicy.org...). This means that if the majority of the members support a resolution, but one of the permanent members such as France vetoes it, then the whole resolution is dropped. This shows how the permanent members have more influence than the other members, and thus do not have equal representation. Therefore, this example shows how the minor countries do not have equal representation and cannot take advantage of the equal representation, yet they vote, because this expresses their wills and choices. This supports my definition of vote but not the Neg's.

Value- "my opponent drops my point that in order to protect these democratic values we must have safety."
-First, I have checked my opponent's whole case, and he never states that point.
-My opponent agreed that democracy was inherent because he did not argue it, he cannot change his answer
-However, safety does not relate to the resolution because disallowing a felon to vote in a democratic society is not related to safety at all, unless the Negative wants to venture to say that a felon's voting will harm the safety of a society. If the Neg. chooses to follow that path of reasoning, then he would be supporting the idea that a person should only vote if they can make a good decision. This claim is undemocratic and illogical, yet without it, safety will not relate to the resolution. Thus, safety fails as a value.
Value Criterion- I am not saying that it doesn't represent a philosopher, I am saying that the general use of the Social Contract theory allows me to destroy his point by disproving that any one of the Social Contract theories do not support his claims, which I will again show in my attack on the First contention.
C1- "He doesn't understand that all social contract philosophers accept the fact that if you do not uphold your obligation to follow the law, then you violate the social contract" This is completely false. As I said before, Locke stated that a felon is still within the Social Contract if they break the law, but are punished. Thus, since they are already punished by imprisonment, they stay within the Social Contract, so his first contention falls, and as I said before, so does his VC
C2- I am not saying that the felons' votes are not important. What I am saying, is that if the felons really wanted to all vote for a dictator as a president, the rest of the people in America would obviously vote for the candidate who was not a prisoner. They would obviously not say, "Oh, there's a dictator running for president, let's all go vote for him." This shows that if the felon's did really vote for a bad choice, the other people's voting would counteract that bad choice. Furthermore, this only assumes that all felons are bad, and will always make bad decisions, which is not true.
-Also, the resolution also does not talk about the right to equal representation; the only right it talks about is the right to vote, which we are debating about right now

Defending my own case:
V: I have attacked my opponent's value and have successfully defended my value in my rebuttal.
VC: My value criterion of equality is the correct value criterion as I said because it is inherent in the definition of my value, democracy. Furthermore, the resolution only says a democratic society, so if a democratic society was created where felons are not jailed, but only fined, then there would be equality.
-I have disproved his Social Contract as a VC.

C1: I have just showed that equal right is a good VC, and that felons do not have to be denied equal liberty. As well, the US is still a democratic society, and it does not have to be ideal, so it can be used as an example.
C2: The first line of the Neg's attack," My opponent dropped the attack on my opponents second contention was dropped that they have access to equal rights." This line doesn't make sense. According to my understanding of the line, it means that I have dropped the attack against my second contention. However, that is not true; I have not dropped the attack on my second contention at all. He has ignored the lines I wrote for my defense before, so I ask you to look again at the second round, Aff defense of Contention two.
Also, I have again shown before that the felons have not violated the social contract before.
C3: I have already showed that equality stands in my VC. Also, the resolution in no way whatsoever states that the felon has to be punished in a democratic society. According to the idea that my opponent has not argued of "once a felon, always a felon", a felon could potentially come from a dictatorship that happened before a democracy because he would have been punished by the dictatorship, but the status of felon would have carried throughout his lifetime, into the democratic society
C4: The resolution does not mention disenfranchisement, only the right to vote. Thus, the right to vote can be for anything. Also, voting is not just for a government, people can hold votes for everything. Finally, my opponent claims that felons are mentally incompetent to vote; this is obviously not true, take, for example, Chuck Colson (http://www.pfm.org...) which shows that he is in every mentally competent since he has changed.

Vote AFF.
HeedMyFeed

Con

Going down the flow.

Definitions:
Democratic Society- My opponents argues that there are many democratic societies, and that any one of them must allow felons to vote. However, my opponent by doing this is being extremely vague. There are too many different types of democratic societies to look at. My opponent can then be abusive by looking at every democratic society and finding some sort of flaw in one of them. Therefore, we must limit it to "a democratic society", which in this case I have done by looking at an ideal democratic society.
Observation One- My opponent in his round before his last one argued that a democratic society is one that follows the principles of democracy. However, I would like to turn this argument because the principles of democracy is to provide equal representation to its' people.
Observation Two- You can extend this due to the fact no current society follows to the principles of democracy, which is essential according to my opponent.
Felony- My opponent says that felony is not a violation of John Locke's social contract theory. However, I am first not looking at John Locke's social contract theory. Second, my opponent tries to argue it within the context of law dictionaries. However, since you have extended my second observation, those law dictionaries are irrelevant because they are not in the context of a democratic society. Therefore, look at my definition of a felony in the context of the violation of the Social Contract of a democratic society.
Social Contract- My opponent argues that there are different philosophers views. However, my opponent failed to address the fact that all of these philosophers had the same views of what the contract is and does. They did however have differing views on what it protected. However, in this case since it is in the context of a democratic society, it is meant to protect and provide democratic values. This value is the right to equal representation.
Vote- My opponent argued against this by giving the example of the United Nations. However, in this debate we are looking at vote in the context of a democratic society. The United Nations is not a democratic society, therefore his definition of vote is irrelevant. I have provided the definition of vote in the context of a democratic society.

My case
Value: Safety- My opponent argues he did not drop the point that safety protects democratic values. However, if you clearly look at my constructive you see I say safety is "Safety is the protection of rights that the society values the most." I go on saying that it protects right democratic society values the most. Therefore, you can extend this point through. Therefore, in order to have democracy, you must protect the values of democracy. The protection of these values is safety. I have shown through my case that the felon voting is violating the social contract and in turn violating safety. My opponent then goes on and says that I would only let people who can make a good decision should work. This is untrue, I would let people who abide by the social contract vote, and those who do not will not be able to vote.
Value Criterion: Social Contract- My opponent says he can show that I do not uphold the Social Contract. By doing this my opponent is trying to show how he upholds the Social Contract better. Therefore, my opponent is accepting it as a weighing mechanism for the round. Therefore, whoever better upholds the Social Contract will win the round, so this is the Value Criterion for the debate.

My C1- My opponent is saying that they are still within the Social Contract if they are being punished by imprisonment. He uses Locke as an example. My opponent has no source behind this and this completely untrue. In fact it says in the philosophy of the Social Contract, "those who simply choose not to fulfill their contractual obligations, such as by committing crimes, deserve losing their rights." http://en.wikipedia.org... Therefore, one of their rights are the right to vote, and they deserve to lose it. Now you can cleanly flow my contention one through the round, and I show how I better uphold the weighing mechanism of Social Contract and Safety.
My C2- My opponent attacks by saying that the rest of society would vote the opposite of the felon of a bad choice. He goes on and says that not all felons are bad. Both of these statements are flawed. The first for the reason that my opponent drops my Clegg quote which says we don't let felons run their own lives, why should we let them run ours. This says that with felons voting they have the influence to run our lives, which society cannot tolerate since they have shown they will make bad choices. As well, real life scenarios are not as clear cut as the example my opponent brings up. Moving on to the second point not all felons are bad. Clearly they are bad because they committed a felony. They have shown they are bad by committing an act that is violates the social contract. As well, we are dealing with the right to equal representation because that is the right to vote in a democratic society.

Moving on to my opponents case:
V: Already attacked.
VC: Equality is not inherent in the definition of democracy. In fact a democratic society only guarantees the right to equal representation. As well, he moves on saying that felons do not have to be jailed but only fined, that would be equal. However, by fining only felons, that would be unequal. To achieve equality in this case then you would have to equally fine all of society. My opponents value criterion has no bright line. I have already shown how my opponent is "trying" to disprove how I reach the Social Contract, which in turn causes him to "try" to achieve it.

C1: My opponent argues that felons can have equal liberty, and US is a democratic society. However, felons have to be punished in some way, which would not be equal. Otherwise this would lead to anarchy. Second, my opponent dropped that even in the US disenfranchisement is constitutional.
C2:My opponent drops the fact that we cannot give preferential treatment based off of social class so extend this through. As well, poor had access to equal rights but still need to be punished. Social Contract argument addressed.
C3: My opponent says felons don't have to be punished. However, this would lead to anarchy with massive crime rates. He dropped the imply argument I made so extend that they were punished in democratic society.
C4: Disenfranchisement is the removal of the right to vote. http://en.wikipedia.org... Therefore, only the government can do this. Therefore, it is in the setting that the government can organize the vote. Also, I did not say felons were mentally incompetent. I said we already limit people from voting, such as the mentally incompetent, so felons should be too.

For these reasons, you must vote negative.

I would like to thank my opponent for a good debate.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by LightC 7 years ago
LightC
Ok, I'll go through my critiques and then give my RFD.

First, you both had good premises, but you had less warrants then Obama. You keep on spitting out ideas, but you never explain why they are correct.

Second, the neg, makes practically no links between his Value and Value Criterion, and thus his warrants have no links to his value.

Third, the affirmative should have exploited the idea that the negative proposed the democratic obligation of equal representation. By doing so, he could have easily won the round because it would have proved that the judge needs to default to aff, to uphold the "democratic society" burden in the resolution.

Fourth, the negative dropped all of aff's contentions. (I know there is a typing limit)

RFD: I vote affirmative on the voting issue of his value of democracy. The negative never truly mitigated the fact that the resolution specifically states democratic society. You should have argued that there is a difference between democracy and a democratic society. But you did not, thus I must default to the affirmative's value. And since you claimed in your observation that a democracy must first and foremost achieve equal representation, then I must default to the affirmatives standard as well. Therefore, I affirm.
Posted by cometfire7 7 years ago
cometfire7
*word change, second round, AFF
*Vote AFF. Sorry!!! lol
Posted by cometfire7 7 years ago
cometfire7
what do you mean?
Posted by theitalianstallion 7 years ago
theitalianstallion
Next time, break up the text.
Posted by HeedMyFeed 7 years ago
HeedMyFeed
Not looking specifically at Locke's Social Contract, but the theory in general in application to a democratic society. So I am using the Democratic Social Contract.
Posted by cometfire7 7 years ago
cometfire7
Are you using Locke's Social Contract?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by sdcharger 7 years ago
sdcharger
cometfire7HeedMyFeedTied
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 Labrat228 7 years ago
Labrat228
cometfire7HeedMyFeedTied
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 LoveyounoHomo 7 years ago
LoveyounoHomo
cometfire7HeedMyFeedTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03