The Instigator
Charlie_Danger
Pro (for)
Winning
68 Points
The Contender
InfraRedEd
Con (against)
Losing
23 Points

Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote (LD Topic and Format)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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: 4/26/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,742 times Debate No: 7981
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (22)
Votes (15)

 

Charlie_Danger

Pro

I apologize for not posting in video/audio form, but i don't have access to a camera at the moment and I promise that my AC is in time.

I affirm.
I offer the following definitions to clarify the round:
Felon: a person who has committed an act deemed illegal by that person's government
Democratic Society: Society governed by all citizens using the system of voting
Democratic: the ability to have a say in what action is occurring
Right: an ability or state you can maintain because a government enforces that ability or state
Equality: the quality of being the same in measure, value or status

Observation: The resolution states "felons ought to retain the right...in a democratic society" This does NOT mean any society we currently are residing in or know of today. The resolution does NOT state that United States felons ought to retain the right to vote, nor that any other specific members of specific societies are relevant to this debate.

The value for the round is Human Rights as defined by the UN Declaration of Human Rights. On December 10, 1948, the United Nations released said declaration, setting a standard for all democratic and non-democratic nations everywhere. It has 30 total articles, but for this debate I will focus on the following: "Article 21, Sub Point 3: The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures" To put it simply, all people should have the right to vote in any governmental election. This also has been clearly acknowledged as a human right.

The Criterion is Equality. Democracy is founded upon the principle of equality, since equality shows that all people are of the same value. Democratic acts allow all people to have an EQUAL say in what is occurring. This proves a direct relation to the resolution and therefore is the clear, best choice for today's criterion.

Contention 1: "Felons are still citizens"
Therefore, we cannot rightfully discredit a felon's input on government simply because they have committed a crime. The basic purpose of voting is to gather input from citizens on the issues of their society, and if even one member of that society is a felon, they should still have the right to vote because they are still a citizen, they still are counted in the population and they still experience the results of the election. Furthermore, the commission of a felony does not render a felon incapable of having opinions on other social issues, thus a felon's opinion is still relevant to the society and therefore the felon should retain the right to vote. Because of this, equality is better upheld on the affirmative.

Contention 2: "The Prison system is a punishment system"
All people that are convicted of a felony are given a proper punishment based on the severity of the crime committed. If we were to add a separate and additional punishment to a punishment that they already have served, we are destroying the very system used to judge felons. Adding an addition punishment is destructive of a democratic society because it is neither equal nor democratic, as not all felons have committed the same crime. If we were to negate the resolution, we might as well stick all felons in prison for the rest of their lives because we aren't trusting them to do anything after they have been labeled a felon. Because negating is NOT proportional, equality is better upheld by affirming the resolution.

Contention 3: "Rational Choice Theory"
Rational Choice Theory is the basic process that a person does all the time. It basically shows that citizens only do something that is more beneficial to them than not. In this case, Rational Choice Theory can be applied in the way citizens vote. There is the intense (primary) benefit that each citizen has in an election, (like gay marriage for a homosexual voter or banning abortion for a pro-life voter,) an intrinsic (secondary) benefit, (meaning an issue that the voter has a stance on, but is not high priority) and a voting cost. (Like taking the time to register, standing in line or even filling out the ballot.) Citizens will only vote when the benefits outweigh the costs. The warrants and impacts for this are as follows; affirming allows all voters who have the moral and social standards to suffer the costs of voting in order to cast their vote. Negating however decreases the number of good voters (felon or not) by not retaining their right to vote. Equality is better upheld by the affirmative because all voters are given the ability to cast an equal vote if they choose to. (Meaning any non-voters are creating by choice, not force)
InfraRedEd

Con

LD format. Good I demand two weeks to prepare.

http://wiki.idebate.org...

http://www.farragut.cps.k12.il.us...

and noting, under "criteria:"

In any case, by definition, a criteria is a standard, the real question, and one that should be debated in every round, is what it is a standard for and of. It is also critical to know how the value and criteria are intended to relate.

My opponent goes first and has not come anywhere near LD format. Technically I believe that forfeits the right to make a case since it must be made in the first round.

My opponent has three minutes.

My opponent is so far behind maybe I can make some suggestions. This is a major giveaway. It would not be fair to ask me to go any farther.

The value-criteria relationship need not be exactly as follows but they need be.

I need to know what the criteria for a good policy for participation in public life should be

How these criteria support equality;

Complete description of the proposed participatin policy my opponent supports, including for example children, completely uninformed, non compos mentis, etc, including who should be allowed to become doctors, teachers, run for public office own a business, etc;

How the propoesd policy meets those criteria;

And an example of a democratic country. If thee are none then what is the value of this debate?

What if this fictitious democratic society does not have felons or voting?

If it has consensus that means a felon can block a proposal singlehandedly.

What if the UN is long gone before there is a democratic society?

Does my opponent propose to let felons run for public office?

Would my opponent issue a felon a business license?

The proposed policy, and the idea that you can "pay off" a crime, is unfair to those who have been law-abiding citizens their whole lives. A felon should never be considered morally equal to a law-abiding citizen.

Participation in public life requires above all morality. Teaching, operating a business, and many other functions are regulated, and for good reason. We need to be able to trust individuals who have responsibility to behave responsibly. The good of the society depends on honest people participating in it.

I am leaning toward something of the form

Resolved, that a policy for participation in public life needs to address a variety of possibilities. A con artist should not be allowed to handle money. A criminal should under no circumstances get the opportunity to commit the same crime again. In an enlightened society when someone commits a crime, this represents a failure of society We must address this issue. The most important question we must ask is why this happened, and how to prevent another occurrance. Punishment does not seem to be working. The second priority will be the victims, and finally the rehab of the felon.

And that, in an enlightened society everyone would have a multi-dimensional rating which would designate their qualification to hold public office, serve on juries, vote, make an arrest, carry a weapon and serve on public policy boards such as Parks and Rec. There would be professional designations for doctors, lawyers, accountants, teachers and child care workers.

but Instgator goes first.

Well I have some room left.

The way a debate works is first one side takes a position and defends it; then the opposition takes a stand disagreeing with them and they take turns admiring their own stand and trashing the other guy's.

I am really considered quite a radical in these parts when I insist this is the way it works.

It will take a long time for this to become accepted in debate.com land
and it certainly is terribly unfair to let the opposition take a stand just like the other guy
but that's just the way these unfair rules are written.

These unfair rules should be changed becuse better debates happen when all you have to do is make some stupid statement like "Murder is wrong," and no matter what happens at the end of the debate it is scored by stupidly asking if you still believe that murder is wrong.

http://www.debate.org...

But I argued that since murder is the illegal killing of another person with malice aforethought that a better statement would be that ANY killing of another person with malice aforethought is wrong.
It's a good thing this sleasy tactic was soundly defeated by the judges. Everyone knows that murder is wrong.
Debate Round No. 1
Charlie_Danger

Pro

At this point in the debate, you vote affirmative.

I could stand up (metaphorically) in the final round and say one word and you would still vote Affirmative. My opponent has dropped EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT I HAVE MADE.

The ONLY things my opponent said in his last speech was how I'm not following true LD format. The ONLY thing I am doing differently is the timing, which is fair for both sides, and the fact that I GAVE MY OPPONENT AN EXTRA SPEECH. My mistake, Ed. Here, let's fix it.
Negative, please forfeit the round three speech two. It will be more fair that way.
I just turned my opponent's "LD format" argument.
BUT, if you don't buy that...
Look at the statement he makes: "My opponent has 3 minutes" Hmmm, LD format....I thought that went 6min-7min-4min-6min-3min! My opponent contradicts himself in this manner. I apologize for my opponent's misfortune of accepting this debate WITHOUT READING THE RULES. Can we all take a brief moment to look at the topic...*pause*...okay.

Against everything he wrote:
The only thing my opponent does is b*tch about how I am debating wrong. My opponent claims he knows what Value/Criterion is and how LD format really works.
Let's try reading the rules from the OFFICIAL SOURCE, instead of from a wiki or blog: www.nflonline.org

Here are some reasons why you affirm at this point:
1) ALL affirmative arguments stand
2) Opponent presents NO ARGUMENTS (Neg Constructive and Aff rebuttal alike)
3) ANYTHING HE SAYS IN THE NEXT SPEECH IS PRESENTING NEW INFORMATION (see the rules if you are confused)
4) This is an LD round. My opponent agreed to debate in LD format the moment he clicked the "Accept challenge" button, and he has not done this
5) My opponents responses (if you make the exaggeration of calling them that,) are not signposted or organized at all, which makes it impossible for me to respond to, and you (the judge) to flow.

Pick any one of these and the affirmative wins.
Pick ALL of them, and you are a legitimate judge.

I am sorry that my opponent dislikes how the system works or wants debate to go his way or be more like US criminal court, but there is nothing I can really do about it...
InfraRedEd

Con

Well I still have to have the rules before I can proceed.

Debate formats. Are you referring to one of these?

http://www.csun.edu...

and if so which?

The NFL http://www.nflonline.org... I can't find any rules here.

http://www.nflonline.org... or here

The NFL Board of Directors meets twice a year for rules revision. They vote on each rule change, which affects the entire high school forensics community.

That's from http://en.wikipedia.org...

So there are rules.

They must make ALL the rules since it doesn't say LD format.

Sorry Charlie. No rules no debate.
Debate Round No. 2
Charlie_Danger

Pro

It seems my opponent had a tough time following directions.

"No rules, no debate. Sorry Charlie."
Since there are, and were rules throughout that I FOLLOWED and YOU DIDN'T, I'm not to sorry at all.

Looks like you can navigate through a website as well as you can refute an argument. Here are the EXACT LINKS TO THE RULES AND HOW TO LEARN.
Read this: http://www.nflonline.org...
OR THIS: http://www.nflonline.org...
or contact a local NFL representative.

Judges, here are the reasons you vote affirmative, AGAIN.
1) ALL affirmative arguments stand
2) Opponent presents NO ARGUMENTS (Neg Constructive and Aff rebuttal alike)
3) ANYTHING HE SAYS IN THE NEXT SPEECH IS PRESENTING NEW INFORMATION (see the rules if you are confused)
4) This is an LD round. My opponent agreed to debate in LD format the moment he clicked the "Accept challenge" button, and he has not done this
5) My opponents responses (if you make the exaggeration of calling them that,) are not signposted or organized at all, which makes it impossible for me to respond to, and you (the judge) to flow.
6) My opponent has not followed the rules, but accused me of not doing so myself when the opposite is present.

Thank you all for reading, and a little advice for my opponent:

Don't accept ANY more LD debate topics.

At least untill you read the many links I have given you.
InfraRedEd

Con

My opponent's rules contain an excellent description of value and criteria agreeing with mine, so we are still waiting for my opponent to post his opening argument.

Thank everyone for a very enlightening debate..
Debate Round No. 3
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ournamestoolong 8 years ago
ournamestoolong
All points to PRO, obviously.

(except for Spelling and grammar.)
Posted by alto2osu 8 years ago
alto2osu
I'm gonna have to disagree on the civility issue, man. If you aren't civil in LDV, any good judge will tank your speaker points and it could cost you the debate. The point of the HS competitive debate circuit is to encourage respectful, intelligent debate. If you can't present your arguments respectfully, then you shouldn't be debating, or at least you shouldn't be winning. That's part of rational, human conversations. The trick is doing it even when others do not. So, there really are no excuses for being uncivil.
Posted by Refer_Madness 8 years ago
Refer_Madness
Wow.
It's sad that this guy is actually winning.
I thought you high school debate kids were smart...
Posted by Charlie_Danger 8 years ago
Charlie_Danger
I can understand the points that dobsondebator is making, but remember this:
-The comments are not (refrained from capitalizing *nods at alto2osu*) part of the actual debate and therfore anything in the comment system that you think is against the rules of conduct should not (again refrains from capitalizing "not") be considered in your voting. If you think that a comment is inapropriate, then you should report it with the clear button to the bottom-right.
-There is a fine line between "clash" and "civility", since LD tends to be more heated in its aspects of moral discussion, civility is nowhere on the ballot. Don't confuse this with PFD, where civility is essessial. Logical arguments can be presented with courtesy or not.
-When dobsondebator urges a con ballot, he has no real reason! Here: "1) InfraRed refuted the points with convincing logic.
2) InfraRed remained civil throughout.
3) InfraRed actually maintained arguments and debated any on the "flow"."
Okay. 1) Read the debate. He dropped multiple arguments entirely and the only things he did say were attcking the standards which he did not attempt to replace
2) See comments above
3) Really? If you read the debate in full you would know this is beyond false! His last speech: "My opponent's rules contain an excellent description of value and criteria agreeing with mine, so we are still waiting for my opponent to post his opening argument.

Thank everyone for a very enlightening debate.."
Yeah. That covered the flow precisely.
Signposting was COMPLETELY ABSENT. (Sorry alto2osu, I couldn't last that long. I just use it because I can't put emphasis otherwise due to the fact that I am not actually speaking.)

Please be impartial, fair and logical by voting Pro.
Posted by alto2osu 8 years ago
alto2osu
That, and if I'm not getting my timeline mixed up (which is possible...I didn't follow this debate), Charlie asked his opponent to use LD style in the comments. I realize that the comments are not part of the official debate and that I think I'd want to get the Pro's goat for trying to preempt my debate posts and for insulting my debate style. At the same time, intent was clear :)
Posted by alto2osu 8 years ago
alto2osu
I do have to agree on the civility point, but take another look at the topic Charlie posted:

"Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote (LD Topic and Format)"

I think that's pretty much a clear request. That, and the Pro's case is in LD format. Like, maybe he doesn't say "I only want LDers to take this topic" at the top of his case, but I'm going to give Infra way more credit than that and call this one a no-brainer. It's not like one can't read the Pro's post and figure out intent.
Posted by dobsondebator 8 years ago
dobsondebator
I completely agree; being an LD debator myself, it's a great and structured form of debate. I would urge anyone on debate.org to use it. While I'm not saying it's a TOS violation to request it, I'm saying that no one is required to use one specific form of debate. However, the problem lies in the fact that:

1) No where in his first round does Charlie say "I want LD" or anything of the sort. Read it for yourself; there's nothing there along those lines. So even if we were required to use LD when someone says to use it, Charlie never even requested it in his opening case. While Infra makes the assumption and then critiques LD as a whole, this doesn't mean that because it "looks LD, it is LD."

2) Infra was a lot more civil. Yes, I understand the Pro's frustrations too. Personally, I would be livid trying to debate this topic. But regardless of how a round goes, cursing and just being offensive to your opponent, which I am sure everyone got as the impression from the pro side of the debate, isn't necessary and definitely an immature way to debate a round. You can't have a logical debate unless the debators are civil.
Posted by alto2osu 8 years ago
alto2osu
Dobson: you can totally request a specific style of debate. That's really not a TOS violation in the spirit of the website. I can understand Pro's frustration, because Infra really uses no logical structure to refutations, which in ANY debate is tough to follow. I can't really read this because it is just too much to slog through without coherency.

I think that this doesn't have to be a huge argument. Everyone can move on, and LDers who want to have that sort of debate (as it is a legit, intelligent format when used properly) can simply request debates amongst each other, as I suggested before. I'm always game, and there are plenty of LDers on this site.
Posted by dobsondebator 8 years ago
dobsondebator
No where did it say that you requested LD format in your opening case. No where in the debate.org TOS does it say everyone is required to argue LD, or any specific form of debate. No where does it say that someone is required to argue the same way as the opposition; nor does it say that because it's "an LD topic, so it's an LD case."

However, it does say that you must respect your opponent. And I quote:

[I agree that I...]
"Will not upload, copy, distribute, share, or otherwise use Content that is unlawful, obscene, defamatory, libelous, harmful, hateful, harassing, pornographic, threatening, racially or ethnically offensive, abusive, that would violate another person's rights, constitute or encourage a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability, or violate any local, state, national, or international law or regulation, or that is otherwise inappropriate."

and

"Will follow the following rules while participating on the site. Any disregard for these rules or any of the other terms or guidelines may result in termination of a member's account.

1. No use of profanities or swear words.
2. No personal attacks against other members or a member's opinions.
3. No use of racial, sexual or religious slurs.
4. No threats or implications thereof."

Right off the bat, Charlie_Danger isn't even meeting the Terms of Service of Debate.org.

But even moreso, he's not even arguing. He's just begging everyone to vote his side because he doesn't like what his opponent is doing. Even if you don't like it, you still have to argue it, of which Charlie did none of.

I urge for a ballot for the Con on the grounds that:
1) InfraRed refuted the points with convincing logic.
2) InfraRed remained civil throughout.
3) InfraRed actually maintained arguments and debated any on the "flow".
Posted by alto2osu 8 years ago
alto2osu
I'm not sure of the necessity of swearing or of all caps- we can all read English. Disrespect is unnecessary. The point I'm trying to make is that this is the chance you take. If you want an LD debate, challenge someone whose debate history suggests an LD background specifically.

I'm not saying you can't do LD. I'm saying don't open it up to the entire site if you don't want to take in the "good" with the "bad." I'd be more than happy to accept a challenge on vigilantism, or a number of past topics (I have some still written...somewhere...), but I'm also into LD.
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
Charlie_DangerInfraRedEdTied
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 Maikuru 8 years ago
Maikuru
Charlie_DangerInfraRedEdTied
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 MargotIsAwesome 8 years ago
MargotIsAwesome
Charlie_DangerInfraRedEdTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Vote Placed by Cody_Franklin 8 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Charlie_DangerInfraRedEdTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Vote Placed by Bnesiba 8 years ago
Bnesiba
Charlie_DangerInfraRedEdTied
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 Clockwork 8 years ago
Clockwork
Charlie_DangerInfraRedEdTied
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 Icarus57 8 years ago
Icarus57
Charlie_DangerInfraRedEdTied
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 ournamestoolong 8 years ago
ournamestoolong
Charlie_DangerInfraRedEdTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Refer_Madness 8 years ago
Refer_Madness
Charlie_DangerInfraRedEdTied
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 fresnoinvasion 8 years ago
fresnoinvasion
Charlie_DangerInfraRedEdTied
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