The Instigator
snelld7
Pro (for)
Losing
10 Points
The Contender
Metz
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

In a democratic society, felons ought to retain their 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  
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: 7/17/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,180 times Debate No: 8987
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (5)

 

snelld7

Pro

Generally, PRO goes first.
However, if you accept this debate, then you forfeit your right to go second and will therefore go first (I don't feel like going first)

Felony disenfranchisement is the term used to describe the practice of prohibiting people from voting based on the fact that they have been convicted of a felony.

I stand against felon disenfranchisement, convince me otherwise [...]
Metz

Con

I am going to assume this is in LD format due to the fact the wording is exactly the same as the one used my the NFL for the Oct/Nov LD debate topic and because I know my opponent to do LD style debate on this website. Now while its a bit odd for Neg to go first none the less I will.

A government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth." Because I agree with Abraham Lincoln, I negate the resolution. Resolved: In a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote.

My value is Democracy. Much is said about democracy; however at the core of democracy is a system of total popular sovereignty, this is what makes democracy a democracy. Thomas Christiano states "in a democracy, the people rule"

In order to clarify today's debate I a key definition:
Ought: used to indicate requirement or obligation in accord with duty or morality. (Wordsmyth Dictionary)(If a Definition clash is needed-- it is better for this debate as the resolution questions morals and the word ought is used to indicate our preference for weather felons voting should be a part of those morals for all democracies. Thus this definition is the most specific to the round.))

My Value criterion for this debate will be Maximization of the Peoples Will. This is a fairly straightforward idea, we must work to preserve and maximize the will of the people. By Maximizing the will of the people we uphold the principle of popular sovereignty, for, it is the will of the people that holds any democracy together.

Observation: The resolution is questioning what we are obligated to do by either duty or morals. This means that affirming is providing a blanket statement for all democracies that they are bound to felons voting. Negating merely means that we are NOT obligated to do so. This means that it could be enacted in some democracies but not all. The thesis of the negative case is that any normative absolutes limit the ability of citizens to carry out the democratic process.

Contention 1
French Philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre wrote in his book "Existentialism is a Humanism": "man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world – and defines himself afterwards." The same MUST be said of a democracy.
The first clause of the resolution "in a democratic society" and the second "felons ought to retain the right to vote" are inherently contradictory. A democratic society "ought" to do nothing. A society, being democratic must have the power to decide what ought, or ought not be done. So enforcing a "Moral Imperative" such as the Affirmative is trying to do. Endangers the concept of popular sovereignty. By Negation we deny the moral imperative of the resolution and its destructive power on democracy. Let's look at the U.S. constitution. It was made to define the structure of the government and its relationship to the people. However it was made amendable, this is because the framers realized that absolutes would endanger society. In a democracy nobody can say what should or should not happen without backing by its people. So because the affirmative attempts to establish dangerous absolutes the resolution ought to be negated. In other words, what my opponent tries to do is completely destroy the central thesis of a democratic society by enforcing, or shall we say dictating, a law upon any and every democracy. This is inherently dictatorial and therefore not democratic. What my opponent so wrongly does is assume democracy to be normative rather than descriptive. However a democracy is merely a rule by the people, so that is the only requirement of democracy. This resolution doesn't specify a certain democracy so we assume a hypothetical democracy. Now, in this democracy the only thing we can say for sure is that the people rule. Therefore democracy MUST be taken as descriptive. So therefore via popular sovereignty each democracy may decide for itself as opposed to my opponent enforcing policy upon them.
Danish philosopher S�ren Kierkegaard wrote "the thing is to find a truth which is true for me, to find the idea for which I can live and die" A democracy also, must find its own truth and not one imposed by my opponent.

Thus for the sake of democracy worldwide, I negate.
Debate Round No. 1
snelld7

Pro

snelld7 forfeited this round.
Metz

Con

Apparently I misinterpreted this so I dun know what my opponent wants to do.
Debate Round No. 2
snelld7

Pro

I'll rechallenge... reform it? Out of LD Format?
Metz

Con

Ehh I agree with you out of format though....
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by snelld7 8 years ago
snelld7
Not LD format... Just would like to debate this topic... and "And you should either be CON or go first," is pointless to say:

ME: Generally, PRO goes first.
However, if you accept this debate, then you forfeit your right to go second and will therefore go first (I don't feel like going first)

I already know that... just didn't wan2
Posted by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
haha why do you hate this case so much cody?
Posted by Cody_Franklin 8 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Sadly, I absolutely hate the negative case. Hate it with a fiery passion, and I'm pretty sure it's a stretch to tie to the resolution.

Even sadder, I'll still probably end up voting negative anyway if the pro doesn't attack that case the correct way.
Posted by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
Thanks. I want to see what he does against Democratic Existentialism....
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
It is LD.
Posted by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
Wait is this LD format? if So I will accept
Posted by Cody_Franklin 8 years ago
Cody_Franklin
That's true; I would take this, because I dominated this topic back when we used it, but you're pro, and you're supposed to have a case; that's what PRO does.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
L-D...

And you should either be CON or go first.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by MasturDeBator2009 7 years ago
MasturDeBator2009
snelld7MetzTied
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:16 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
snelld7MetzTied
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:16 
Vote Placed by snelld7 7 years ago
snelld7
snelld7MetzTied
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 Charlie_Danger 8 years ago
Charlie_Danger
snelld7MetzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Vote Placed by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
snelld7MetzTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03