The Instigator
AwsomeDebater
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
Danger_Chams-Eddine
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 11/6/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,680 times Debate No: 5899
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

AwsomeDebater

Pro

I am here to affirm the resolution In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote First I'll start with some definitions
Felon: someone who has committed a crime or has been legally convicted of a crime of a higher level than misdemeanor or forfeiture like grand theft, killing, or raping (minor crimes someone will commit, speeding ticket)
Democratic: pertaining to or characterized by the principle of political or social equality for all
Society: an organized group of persons associated together for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purposes.
Retain: to continue to use, practice
Source: Dictionary.com

My value for the round will be Justice defined as giving to each what they are due. And my value criterion is Promoting democracy. This pertains to my value because in a democratic society each are due certain rights and responsibilities, like voting for example, and promoting democracy we will give justice to the people belonging to the society.

Contention 1: Felons of any democratic society need to vote for several reasons. One is that when we deprive felons the right to vote we are making them unequal citizens. This is because they are not receiving their full meaning of citizenship of a democratic society by not voting who will be in charge and to not vote is not exercising you're the requirement of being a full citizen. This pertains to my value criterion by making sure that the definition of democracy is carried out by making sure that everyone is of equal value and not one race, sex, religion, or felon or not. And all of this holds up justice because now each of these citizens are given the right to vote and everyone in that society is given that.

Contention 2: As I said in my definitions democracy is political equality for all, so my question for the negative is why are felon's votes worth less than the average person's? Democratic societies are defined as participation of everyone that the society affects, and felons are still part of the society even in jail. We don't take away there rights as citizens. When felons are removed the right to vote the rest of the society looses out at determining the best candidate to suite the needs of everyone, which is what a democratic society is, by the people for the people. To exclude voices from voting will result in an incorrect choice of candidate. Felons must retain the right to vote in order to keep the process of democracy working as it should.

Contention 3: Taking away Felons right to vote is preventing some groups of people from not having a real voice on elections. The minority groups of any democratic nation are all ready at a disadvantage of having their voice heard but with felons not voting that takes away more and more of their group so that there voice might not even count. Now this ties in with my contention 2 that their voices on top of all felons are not heard, and this is destroying the fundamentals of democracy. This now relates closely to my value criterion in which giving felons the right to vote will stop these problems I have just mentioned and repair democracy. That is why I STRONGLY affirm the affirmative ballot. I now stand open to cross examination.
Danger_Chams-Eddine

Con

First I would like to thank my opponent for presenting her case. Good luck to you and lets have a fun match. I will lay a road map for the Rounds since this is not a "real" LD match. The first round I will present my case, the second round I will critque my opponent's case and answer back to her critiques of mine. Now let's begin!

Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote.
The resolution illustrates a society which government is a democracy. The democracy illustrated in the resolution is a pure democracy this meaning that all the people must have the right. The purity of the democracy is based on if all the citizens in the democratic society can vote are not. It does not matter if the democracy is a direct or representative, the concern of the democracy is the tool the citizens use to direct government. In the society there are citizens that have committed brutal crimes. To distinguish the brutality of a felony the definition use by the American legal system will be used. The society has stripped the felons of their right to vote for punishment for their crimes. After properly evaluating the resolution I stand for the negative position. As the negative I have the burden of proving the following;
1.Do all individuals have the right to vote in a democratic government?
2.Is it just to revoke rights as a deterrent to crime?
3.Is revoking rights a proper punishment for breaking the social contract?
Before I answer the questions I will set parameters for the round.
Democracy: government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in all the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
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.
Felons: Felon is someone who has committed a felony.
Right: Laws that are upheld by the society that has ratifies and respects the sovereignty of the laws
Felony: an offense, as murder or burglary, of graver character than those called misdemeanors, esp. those commonly punished in the U.S. by imprisonment for more than a year.
Government: System design to provide resources and protection for it society.
C1: All individuals have the right to vote in a democratic society. The resolution illustrates a society that's government is a democracy therefore automatically granting the people's vote as a right. The society stated in the resolution must allow the felons to vote, but does not have to count their votes. The society would allow the felons to vote in elections for government policy but does not have to count their votes or respect the felons vote. The felons have not lose the right to vote in their society elections, but because of committing a felony the felon's vote will not be counted. Allowing the felons to vote upholds a pure democracy, but not counting their votes upholds a pure justice and legal system. A pure democracy is essentially a government for the people by the people. A pure legal system concern for punishing criminals for their actions is one that assigns proper punishments to the severity of the crime committed.
C2: The resolution's democratic society has a justice system that punishes felons for their crimes. The ideology of punishment for crimes is a proper one. One should not be able to harm their society freely without worry of repercussions upon themselves. The crime and punishment system in the resolution's society is one of two fold action. The felons were a) punish for committing a felon by losing their right to vote and b) the punishment was severe to deter other citizens from committing felonies. Revoking the individual's rights is a severe punishment to a severe crime. It is proper to strip rights from felons because the punishments are equal to the severity of the crime.
C3: According to Thomas Hobbes and the canonical theory, without society, we would live in a state of nature, where we each have unlimited natural freedoms. The downside of this general autonomy is that it includes the "right to all things" and thus the freedom to harm all who threaten one's own self-preservation; there are no positive rights, only laws of nature and an endless "war of all against all". To avoid this, free men by a social contract establish political community i.e. civil society in which each gain civil rights in return for subjecting to civil law or to political authority. Since rights come from agreeing to the contract, those who simply choose not to fulfill their contractual obligations, such as by committing crimes, deserve losing their rights, and the rest of society can be expected to protect itself against the actions of such outlaws. To be a member of society is to accept responsibility for following its rules, along with the threat of punishment for violating them. It is justified with laws punishing behavior that breaks the Social Contract because we are concerned about others harming us and don't plan on harming others. In this way, society works by "mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon". The felons are citizens that have broken the social contract in their society and must accept the punishment. The society in the resolution has stripped the felons of voting rights or counting their votes because of the felons breaking the contract. If the felons are not reprimanded for breaking the law then the social contract dissolves and the society crumbles. The failing of the society will create a state of nature where the collective people's safety is placed after the individuals needs causing the clich´┐Ż but accurate illustration of a ruined society in chaos.
The negative core values for the resolution are punishment, democracy and societal welfare. The negative aims to deliver proper punishment to all criminals in the resolution. The negative aims to uphold a pure democracy in the resolution. The negative aims to maintain the health of the entire society in the resolution. The negatives value criterion for punishment will be upheld in the resolution by revoking the right to vote from felons in democratic society. The negative value criterion for democracy will be upheld in the resolution by allowing all the citizens the right to vote. The negative value criterion for societal welfare will be upheld in the resolution by enforcing the rules of the social contract. I have presented the negative case for this debate and urge the judge to vote NEG for the win because in a democratic society felons must not have the right to vote.
Debate Round No. 1
AwsomeDebater

Pro

AwsomeDebater forfeited this round.
Danger_Chams-Eddine

Con

Since the AFF forfeit the round i will not attack because it would be un-fair to since she can not fight back.
I will leave it up to the reader to decide who is the winner.
Vote NEG!
Debate Round No. 2
AwsomeDebater

Pro

AwsomeDebater forfeited this round.
Danger_Chams-Eddine

Con

Danger_Chams-Eddine forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Danger_Chams-Eddine 8 years ago
Danger_Chams-Eddine
How am i losing!
Posted by shneezers 8 years ago
shneezers
awesome debater ur case is based on equality therefore ur criterian shud be equality and u should also say how ur contentions connect to ur value
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by shneezers 8 years ago
shneezers
AwsomeDebaterDanger_Chams-EddineTied
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 Labrat228 8 years ago
Labrat228
AwsomeDebaterDanger_Chams-EddineTied
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