The Instigator
The_Devils_Advocate
Pro (for)
Losing
82 Points
The Contender
Johnicle
Con (against)
Winning
90 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+22
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: 9/4/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 11,268 times Debate No: 5272
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (29)

 

The_Devils_Advocate

Pro

I realize that you are to be debating Cooperman88. But if you look on facebook, you will see that Cooperman88 is in fact Jacob Cooper. I am one and the same. So I will debate you on "In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote.

Abraham Lincoln once defined America's democracy as a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." The context of this quote refers to american citizens.

My value for this round will be equality, and my criterion will be democracy. This means that whoever allows for the most amount of democracy by way of equality, 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.

Definitions:
Democracy (root of democratic) - is a government elected by the people. The people elect their representatives who sit in the legislature to make laws
Society - a grouping of individuals which is characterized by common interests and may have distinctive culture and institutions.
Felons - A person convicted of a serious criminal offense punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year.

With that, I will uphold this resolution with three main contentions. The first will be what democracy is. The second contention will be what is happening in america and it's democracy. And my third contention will be why it is wrong to disallow felons the right to vote. I would also like to point out that the resolution refers to America seeing as in America (a democratic society) felons do not have the right to vote.

Contention 1: A democracy, specifically the American democracy, has it's basis on the people voting. In order for a democracy to work, the people must vote. Recently though, there has been a trend especially in young people of not voting. This is why MTV and other major companies have worked on reaching young people and persuading them to vote. Also in america, felons are not allowed to vote. This is contrary to what a democracy is. A democracy relies on it's citizens voting. So this trend of not voting is desperately hurting america, as is not allowing felons the right to vote. But I will discuss this further in my contention three.

Contention 2: Felons are being denied the right to vote. This is common knowledge and should not be argued. According to the Human Rights Watch, there are currently over 3.9 million U.S. citizens that do not have the right to vote. That is one percent of all the population in America.

Contention 3. This is wrong. Alexis de Tocqueville, in his book Democracy In America, said "Once a people begins 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 argument is most commonly called the slippery slope argument. Once something has been done, it invariably leads to something bigger or in this case worse happening. The constitution goes into great detail regarding the right to vote. In it's fifteenth amendment, it says "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." In it's nineteenth amendment, it says "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 sex." In it's twenty-fourth amendment, it says "The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election . . . shall not be denied or abridged . . . by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax." In it's twenty-sixth amendment, it says "The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of age." All of these are pointing to the conclusion that no person be denied the right to vote. No matter what their looks, age, or previous history has been. This should include felons. Felons live in america. They are affected by the same laws that you and I are affected by. If our legislators or president are going to do something that isn't fair in their eyes, they should have a say in that. Democratic principle says that all peoples should be able to vote. There are no limitations.

Thank you very much and I wish you luck in your arguments.
Johnicle

Con

Thank you for the challenge and good luck.

Before beginning, there is a piece of evidence of his that needs updating. It is actually 5.3 million people that can not vote because of felonies, not 3.9 like stated in his last speech. However, this is 2006 and the number may be even greater now. http://www.time.com...

My case/his case…

I oppose:

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

I. Value- Fairness
Within this round, you will see how it is not fair to give equal voice to someone who has kept their trust with the society, and someone who has not. In essence, when someone commits a felony, they deserve to lose the right to vote. Also, you will see that in order to get a FAIR decision, you must eliminate the felon vote. Please cross apply his point about how there 5.3 million felons who do not have the right to vote. Do you really want that overwhelming factor to decide most every election for the rest or your life?

II. Criterion- Just Deserts
Just Deserts is basically giving people what they justly deserve. In this round, you will see that people don't deserve the right to vote after they have committed a felony. Why? Because a right is something you have until you lose it (like gun rights)… And since voting decides who will run our country, it is too important to put in the hands of felons (5.3 MILLION). Give not only the felons, but also the society what they deserve and vote CON.

=============================================

Since my arguments go so well against his, I'm just going to attack his case right now.

Against Value- Equality
--> I immediately challenge my opponent to say when we treat any felons any differently than a regular citizen. EVERYONE was given citizenship and the FELONS lost it. If a regular citizen committed a felony tomorrow, then he/she would be treated EQUALY and would also lose his/her right to vote. In other words, HIS value is flowed to the CON side!

Against Criterion- Democracy
--> Democracy still exists whether or not you vote pro OR con. However, on the con side, it exists in a much better form… Take for example, the 5.3 million that currently can not vote. Let's say that a candidate was up that was willing to be EXTREMELY less harsh against criminals. The extra 5.3 million votes that he would get would create would be enough to change ANY election in his/her favor. But is that what we want to be deciding our elections? Another angle to look at is the fact that more candidates would begin to be more persuaded toward being nice to criminals since there would be much more votes that they could get (since politicians are nothing without the voters).

Definitions seem fine… I will just use common knowledge from the judges for definition unless abuse comes from my opponent (or even from me).

Against Contention I: His first contention is completely useless because we will always have a democracy regardless of if felons can vote or not. A democracy is something that gives people a choice, and the felons already made their choice of going against our society, and because of that, they do not deserve the right to vote for people who help (or hinder) our society.

Against Contention II: 5.3 MILLION voters would put the election into the hands of not only criminals, but FELONS!!!!! Politicians would inevitably reach out to these voters by crafting their views to be likeable by them.

Against Contention III: The problem with his quote is that we're not dealing with voting qualification, but DISqualification (which is two totally different things). Then he goes on to say that this will lead to a lot of people not being able to vote. Well, this law has been around for a long time and it hasn't been blown out of proportions. It still only restricts felons. No discrimination at all, men, women, white, black, Republican, Democrat, all felons can't vote. And as far as the amendments go, realize that it says that we can't DENY these people the right to vote if (then it lists various things) but NONE of them have to do with laws they have broken.

In the end, felons ought to NOT receive the right to vote because they broke a serious enough law to lose the right. If someone abuses a gun, we take it away from them for good reason. If someone abuses society (through becoming a felon), then we take away their right to vote. It's only fair because we DON'T want felons to run our society.

Please vote con… Thank you!
Debate Round No. 1
The_Devils_Advocate

Pro

To my esteemed Johnicle. I thank you for this wonderful debate. It should be both educational and entertaining. I wish you the best of luck. And with no further ado, I shall begin.

I will begin by arguing my opponents case, and then rebut the arguments on my own.

Value - According to the synonym collection version 1, fairness and equality are synonyms. So I guess I can't really argue this.

Criterion - Just deserts is an ironic criterion for this debate. You are saying that they should get what they deserve when some felons get the death penalty, some felons get life in prison, and the rest spend significant time in prison. In fact, of the 5.3 million felons (thanks for the correction) 4 million have already served the court assigned punishment. The punishment that the court thought was just. The statistics come from your own evidence. I would also like to point out, that 5.3 million people is less than 2 percent of our population. The World Fact Book (run by the CIA) says that in July of 2008 there were 303,824,640 people in America.

He argues my value, when they are synonyms, which means that he is arguing his own value. But I will defend anyways. He asks me to say when we treat felons differently. In Maine and Vermont felons are given the right to vote. How is that equal to those in Mississippi? I think you should have read your evidence more efficiently. So this is not a con value. There is unequal treatment in America even as far as felons are concerned. But that's not only what I'm talking about. Felons are people too. Not only are they people, but they are also citizens of this country. No where are felons considered not citizens. So this means that there needs to be equality/fairness towards citizens and felons. This is not happening.

In my opponents argument against criterion, he says that the 5.3 million extra votes would be enough to change any election. In all of american history, I can remember one election that came down to 2% of the vote. George Bush v. Al Gore. All the rest have been considerably over that mark. And if felons were given the right to vote, then I'm sure a politician would try and please them. Just as politicians tried to please African Americans when they were given the right to vote, and women when they were given the right to vote. Politicians should be the ones who strive for what the people of America want. This includes felons. My opponent gives you this horrible scenario of where murderers and rapists are running the country. 2% of people in America is no where near the amount needed. Not only that, but it isn't 5.3 million murderers and rapists anyways. It is people like Leola Strickland of your article that make up most of the 5.3 million felons. People that would like to vote, and haven't done anything significant to deserve the loss of their right to vote.

Contention 1: He says that felons deserve to lose their right to vote because they have gone against society. Well, according to his criterion, just deserts, if felons have violated society, they should no longer be allowed to be a part of society. Not lose their right to vote. This doesn't uphold his own criterion.

Contention 2: 5.3 million voters would not put the election into the hands of criminals or felons. Politicians have bigger fish to fry, hopefully it's salmon because salmon is delicious. They are going to focus on the white male majority, or the white female minority, or the african american male minority, or the african american female minority, etc... My opponent has no reason behind this argument. No offense Johnicle, but most people should be able to see the flawed logic of your reasoning.

Contention 3: The qualification of voting is being messed with by making a qualification. This is what Tocqueville was talking about. As soon as you start messing with what is required to vote, then social behavior has already dictated what is going to happen. I have already proven that your argument about all felons not being able to vote is false. Felons can vote in Maine and Vermont.

His closing argument is also flawed. According to his own criterion, if someone violates society, then they should lose their right to society, not their right to vote. That doesn't make any sense. So his is still not upholding his criterion.

Now for my case.

Contention 1: If you refer to my first speech, I address the fact that a democracy relies on the people to vote. Once again, according to my opponents article, only 40% of people are predicted to vote in this upcoming election. Democracy cannot stand if this continues to happen. How can we say that the people have chosen the candidate that best supports them, when over half of the people aren't voting. This is absurd.

Contention 2: My opponent corrected my research and gave me the number 5.3 million. This is over 1 percent, but less than 2. Felons are a minority group that deserve to have their voice heard. 4 million have already served their time. Once again from my opponents article, if a felon is given the right to vote, they are 50% less likely to perform another crime. So by giving felons the right to vote, not only does it uphold equality and the basis of democracy, it helps reduce the crime rate in America. Even better if you ask me.

Contention 3: I already discussed how my quotation is still correct. I would like to point out that there is discrimination even amongst felons. This is why a vote for the pro upholds democracy through equality/fairness. The amendments point to the fact that all people should be given the right to vote. Not just white men who own property. The reasons these amendments exist is to stop the discrimination against minorities. Felons are minorities.

Now for some brief analysis. My opponent has not done nearly enough work upholding his own value and criterion. In fact, if you look to his first speech, no where do you see where he upholds his value or criterion. He doesn't show you how he links back into anything of his. What he does do, is show you how my arguments are wrong. He says that my arguments link into his quite well, but doesn't present his own argumentation. He only argues against mine. This means that he hasn't upheld his value or criterion. This is critical to LD debate. I on the other hand, have upheld my value and criterion. I have shown you the inequality among felons and citizens of America. I have shown you how by giving the felons the right to vote it would allow for a better democracy by way of equality. I have done exactly what I told you I needed to do. My opponent hasn't. He hasn't supported anything of his, and he hasn't shown you how I don't uphold my own. I have done everything necessary to win this round and my opponent has done nothing to win this round.

I wish you luck johnicle and eagerly await your response.
Johnicle

Con

I too thank you for this debate. It has been a good one with a direction of a good finish. Good luck!

Value Clash: My opponent made a claim that the values are the same thus it is a tie here. But this is not true at all. They ARE the same, but only CON achieves it. This is because throughout the process of a person being a citizen, and a person being a citizen with a felony, people are equally treated. All citizens can be felons; however, we only take the right of voting away from those who actually commit a felony. Therefore, the CON side achieves the value of Equality/Fairness.

Criterion of Just Deserts: Here, you assume that the court's sentence means that they are off scott free. This is not true. There can be (an is) more than one punishment for being a convicted criminal/felon. Just like a convicted sex offender must register as such, a felon can't vote. Just like a restraining order can be issued against someone who commits a crime against someone, a felon can't cast a vote FOR society when he/she has already gone against it. The criterion serves its purpose as such: If you commit a felony against our society, you lose the right to have your voice (vote) heard on how the society is run. And thus, we are FAIR (equal) in our system.

Since the resolution talks about a theoretical situation, I must admit that we are not being fair/equal to the people as of now (states Maine and Vermont vs. Mississippi). However, in each of these states, one another ARE treated equally to each other. Furthermore, I advocate that ALL felons should not get the vote back. Therefore, I urge that the government recognizes everyone as equal by having additional punishments of not being able to vote after committing a penalty. The value still stands on the CON side.

Here, you make two interesting points worth addressing. 1) You assume that all of these elections are only federal elections. But the right to vote goes beyond just the national level it also has state and local elections. In one city, the mayor race was won by one vote. In another election, a school board race was tied and decided by a coin flip. What if instead of a coin flip, it was a felon who decided. Has the felon really earned that right? 2) Also, you assume that 2% of the vote and 2% of the population are the same. For example, you say that the closest presidential race was 2% so that means it's 2% of the vote. 2% of the vote very well could be substantially under the 5.3 million people that have committed a felony.
--> Besides this, the biggest question you have to be asking yourself is "Have these felons earned the right to vote? The answer is no.

Contention 1: To be honest, a crime against society = a person not deserving to be a part of that society. But since that isn't a political option, removing their right to help run society (through their vote) is the best way to say "If you commit a crime against society, you can't decide how society is going to be run." Therefore, they do get what they deserve. Perhaps they do deserve to be exported after committing a felony, but that is non-resolutional. So for now, let's just take away their right to vote.

Contention 2: I think you misinterpret the point of my argument. You see, felons wouldn't ALWAYS be the swing vote, however, sometime they will be (whether local, state, or federal election). And when they are, you must ask yourself, do they really have to right to have a say in the same government and society that they go against, the answer is NO.

Contention 3: You do not have to qualify in order to vote, but you can't be unqualified. The law states that the ‘right of voting can not be denied because of' (several things). This means that it can be denied for other reasons such as felonies. And as long as this law has been around, no abuse has been created. You can't vote if you're not 18 (excluding some rarities in state laws) and you can't vote if you're a felon (also excluding some rare state laws). These are ways to be able to lose your vote, but you don't have to qualify by passing tests or having money, it is guaranteed unless you're not registered, not 18, or not a felon. I see no abuse in the system and my opponent has not pointed out any abuse so this argument must be flowed to the CON side.

HIS CASE:

Contention 1: Again, felons wouldn't control all of the elections, but they will be the swing vote in several of them. Once again, they do not deserve this right.

Contention 2: Woah woah woah, where is your evidence that says that felons that can vote have a 50% less chance of committing a crime. This claim is abusive and unrealistic. Other than that, my opponent claims that felons have the right to have their voice heard. Even though he doesn't say why they deserve to have their voice heard (I have proved the opposite (crime against society = no voice in society)).

Contention 3: This argument is completely abusive. Amendments talk about why rights CAN'T be taken away, not who we guarantee them to. Felons are not one of the reasons to be able to take it away, so legally, CON wins. Even though they're minorities by definition, everyone is capable of being one and no one is born one. Becoming a felony is a CHOICE, and they are assumed to know the consequences of making that choice particularly in the states that outlaw a felony from voting.

Analysis: Democracy STILL exists whether pro or con wins. This criterion is thus useless. However, when you vote CON, you gain the criterion of just deserts (by them getting what they deserve) AND both of the values (taking away the right of felonies voting is fair and equal among the states). NO amendment says that felonies MUST be given voting capabilities, so this argument is useless. There is no substantial reason to give felonies a right to vote but I give you plenty of reasons as to why to take away the right to vote (crime against society = no voice for society). Therefore, I urge a CON vote.

I eagerly await your speech and good luck!
Debate Round No. 2
The_Devils_Advocate

Pro

To my esteemed opponent. There are a couple errors in both your argumentation and your logic. I will show them to you and also the judges in this round. Then I will proceed to tell the readers why I am winning this debate, and should win this debate.

Value - my opponent says that there is equality among felons, and equality among people without felons, therefore equality/fairness is achieved. But whenever there is a difference among people, there is not equality. By seperating the two groups (felons, non-felons) you eliminate the chance of equality existing. This argument is commonly referred to with those who argue discrimination whether it be racial or sexual (of the sex). If I were to speak with an advocate of racial equality, a minority, they would say that they don't want people to give them equality because they are a minority. They would rather there not be any race involved at all. The phrase most commonly used is "I don't want people to see black or white, I want them to see people." This means that by seperating the two groups, there cannot be equality. Only through the treatment of the group as a whole can equality be achieved. This is what I am proposing. My opponent is not. Therefore he is not upholding his own/my value.

Criterion - Just Deserts is not an acceptable criterion for this debate. Democracy is. The reason for this is, it is what the resolution is asking for. Look to my analysis in the first round. In order to support the resolution, we must be supporting a DEMOCRATIC society. Therefore democracy is the logical choice for a criterion. For those who may not understand what LD debate is, allow me to clarify. The criterion of the round is the weighing mechanism. Whoever upholds and supports the criterion the best should win. The value is the way of getting to the criterion. With my value and criterion, I am trying to uphold democracy by way of allowing the most equality. My opponent is trying to uphold just deserts, people getting what they deserve, by way of equality. There are a couple problems with my opponent's argumentation and analysis on this point. The first is that he fails to address the argumentation and analysis I provide on my own criterion of democracy. Without any argumentation on my criterion, you look to whoever upholds this value. If my opponent gives the voters no reason to reject this criterion, then you shouldn't reject it. My opponent has given no reason, therefore you accept it. This means that whoever upholds democracy the best, wins the round. The second area in which he falls, is that he cannot uphold his own criterion. He can't do this in a couple of ways. The first (subpoint a) is that he doesn't tell you how felons not getting the right to vote is just. He provides no definition of what just is. He doesn't tell you why it is just. I tell you that the just punishment would be the removal of that person from society. He does argue this, but I will get to that later. The second reason my opponent can't uphold his own criterion, is because he doesn't show you the link from his value to his criterion. Like I said earlier, he has to access his criterion from his value. He doesn't show you how equality/fairness gives him access to just deserts. For these reasons alone, my opponent should lose the round.

Now for the argumentation refutation...that's right...I can rhyme. He begins by arguing how people are fair. Once again, I ask you to refer back to the analysis on what fair and equal are. By putting people into groups, we have eliminated fairness and equality.

You ask if the felon has earned the right to influence an election. My first response here is...have you? What gives people the RIGHT to vote and influence our country? The constitution makes it pretty clear that it is the people, the citizens, who have the right to influence our country. Felons are citizens, and therefore have the right to influence our country. My second argument here, is that you provide absolutely no reason why the HAVEN'T earned the right to vote. You just say they haven't. There is no logic, no analysis, no evidence to back up why they shouldn't be able to vote. If you look to my last speech, I reference your article and the story of Leola Strickland. What has that lady done to lose the right to vote? The answer...be in the wrong situation at the wrong time. She did nothing to lose it, so why shouldn't she have the right to vote?

Contention 1: My opponent agrees that by violating society, you should be removed from society. This means that as soon as he starts advocating something besides that, he cannot gain access to his criterion of just deserts, or people getting what they deserve. He basically admits that through his argumentation and logic, people are not getting what they deserve even if they do lose the right to vote. This right there means that by no means can my opponent ever win this round.

Contention 2: Even if they are the swing vote in one election, the answer to whether they deserve the right to vote is always yes. Refer back to your own article and the argumentation I have pulled from it to prove my point.

Contention 3: I'm not arguing abuse here. I'm arguing the fact that the idea of democracy is that all people have a say in what their government does. By restricting rights, we find that social behavior will continue to restrict things. I'm not saying there is abuse of the current system. I'm saying the current system is wrong.

My Contention 1: I have argued this thoroughly, and there is no need to beat a dead horse.

My Contention 2: My evidence is your evidence. READ YOUR OWN ARTICLE!!!! That's where the statistics come from.

My Contention 3: Amendments are things that aren't in the constitution that the justices feel should be, or things that change what the constitution says because of recent findings. They aren't restricted to what they can give or what they can take away, except by the spirit of the constitution.

Now for an overview of the round. I will begin with how my argumentation and logic allows for equality. By eliminating the differences between felons and non-felons, and by recognizing them as one group of people, I am allowing for equality to exist. When this equality exists, it allows for a better working democracy. The way it does this is it gives more people the right to vote, and therefore influence what this country does. Since that is the basis for what a democracy is, I have increased the effectiveness of the democracy. This shows you exactly how I use my value to gain access to my criterion. My opponent cannot do this with the only criterion left standing, democracy, and he also cannot show you the route to his own criterion. Therefore my opponent loses.

Another reason my opponent loses, is by him admitting the unjustness of his standpoint. As soon as you see him admitting that the just punishment of one who violates society should be the removal from society, he loses when he doesn't advocate that.

I thank you for this wonderful debate johnicle, and wish you luck in the rest of the tournament. Thank you for judging the round, and I hope that it has been intellectually stimulating, and a fun experience for us all. Have a nice day ;)
Johnicle

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for a round well debated. Regardless of who wins, it was worth taking time to debate it. Now, let's finish this thing up!

==========

Value: The most important argument in LD debate should be immediately won by CON. Here's why: My opponent argues that since we are treating felons differently than regular citizens, then we are not fair and not giving equality. He says that my side is discriminating towards felons, but the problem with this is that discrimination deals with things that people are born into. You can discriminate against other races, tall people, short people, men, women, and the like but discriminating someone for a path they chose is not a bad thing (as far as the law and CRIMINALS are concerned.) Judges, even if you don't by that analysis, I urge you to realize that the people that you are talking about have committed the most serious crime against society, a FELONY! It is FAIR to take away the right to vote away from felons and we are treating all citizens EQUALLY when we do it.

Criterion: Here, my opponent accuses me of things I am not guilty of. He says that I did not argue democracy, but ALL ROUND LONG I've said that whether you vote PRO or CON you still have democracy. I also said that it is stronger on CON because you are FAIR to society and giving them what they deserve (their just deserts).

Then he goes into sub-points:

"The first (subpoint a) is that he doesn't tell you how felons not getting the right to vote is just."-->
-ARE YOU KIDDING ME! Half of my speeches have been talking about how a felony is a crime against society (FACT) and voting is a way of having a voice in society (FACT) and that having a felon lose the right to have a voice in the society that they harmed is a just punishment. This is one of the biggest issues in my case and it is being ignored thus far in the debate. Don't let my opponent get away with these ridiculous claims.

"The second reason my opponent can't uphold his own criterion, is because he doesn't show you the link from his value to his criterion."-->
-Where I do LD, you have the criterion support the value. This is just a simple difference, so you can essentially switch the two and see how my CRITERION does support my VALUE. My value/criterion ‘link' in two ways: 1) By giving felons their just deserts by taking away their right to vote which is fair and equal among felons (in specific states (should be all states)), and 2) CON gives the society their just deserts by treating their society fairly by giving people that have respected it the voice in how it is run.

(Rhyming paragraph)--> Once again, he argues that we should not put people into groups. However, we are only putting people into groups that they chose. Take school for example, if someone is on the football team, do you think that they should be able to vote for the debate team's president? (assuming that they are not on both). Now I'm sure they should be able to vote for the school's president, BUT the difference between that and society is that they are still a part of the school while the felon chose a path AGAINST society. This is not a sign of a good voter. (Just for clarification, this is not a new argument, simply furthering my previous logic on the separation of the society argument that has mostly gone untouched.)

First of all, the ‘Leola Strickland' example is completely new. I will argue it later however but regardless, it should not be accepted (mostly talking to tournament judges). He asked me if I have earned the right to vote and my answer is NO… I am not 18 (different debate). But more importantly, it is not about earning it, it is about UNearning it. Once again, qualifying is not the problem, it is disqualifying. The Constitution protects citizens from where they can't be disqualified. But it does NOT specify felons (argued before and once again untouched). For example, if there was an African American who happened to be a felon. He would lose the right to vote NOT because he was African American, but because he was a felon. This is perfectly in line with the Constitution. As far as the Leola Strickland argument goes… this is a fault of our judicial system of who is and is not a felon. Just because one person that shouldn't be a felon is, that doesn't grant the right for PRO to win.

Contention 1: I can't gain access to just deserts because you should be removed from society (as far as the vote goes)… Where does he warrant this? Where is the link to why not? A felon went against society, and because of this SHOULD HAVE NO SAY in society (original argument). This is giving him/her what he/she DESERVES which is my criterion.

Contention 2: In the article that I provided, the facts seem to be strong. However, the opinions are extreme. I believe he refers to the half less likely to be rearrested if you vote (I see no reasoning in the article as to WHY). This is probably because people that vote are GENERALLY good citizens and shouldn't have been arrested in the first place. This could either have been a bad mistake (still deserved) or a flaw in the judicial system (like a person that shouldn't be a felon in the first place, but that should be the problem we should fix, NOT giving the right to vote to ALL felons). Either way, we can't take these occurrences to be removed from the theoretical debate that LD is. If you are a (deserved) felon, you should not vote.

Contention 3: As far as I'm concerned, it's not the system of ‘felons not being able to vote' that is wrong. Instead, it's WHO are the felons? Besides that, I have covered all of his reasons as to why the current system is flawed.

HIS CASE:

Contention 1 and 2: have both been argued enough. The statics one is not enough to give felons the right to vote.

Contention 3: AGAIN, the Constitution protects people from losing the right to vote. HOWEVER, it does not protect felons from losing the right to vote so once AGAIN, the law argument is flowed to the CON side.

(I have already argued all of his overview points)

My Overview (Crystallization)

In this round, I have shown how CON has the FAIRER democracy. Democracy isn't about giving as many people as possible the right to vote, if it was, babies could vote (which might be more logical than felons voting). The system treats all people equally. If ANY PERSON becomes a felon, they will be treated the same (excluding state restrictions but I have already explained that all states SHOULD have this law in order to treat equally. But this resolution is theoretical in the end)… By removing the right to vote, we give the society AND the felon what they deserve, thus significant increase in just deserts. I gain greatest access to BOTH Values AND Criterions. In the end I must say, ‘If you go against society, you should lose your voice in society. It is only FAIR, and it's is what you deserve.'

With that, I urge you to vote CON.

Thank you for this GREAT debate!
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by zoundmind 7 years ago
zoundmind
I cant belive somone would be so ignorant to think,felons should not be allowed to vote.
im sure if this were the debate, the same discriminitive people would be agenst woman and blacks freedom to choose what goes on in there country 2.
wake up ,u may be next in jail, like 1 out of every 100 americans!
Then should u be allowed to say what goes on in your country? or are you no longer american?
Posted by limevortex69 8 years ago
limevortex69
The resolution is soo broad... If you give it some thought, it doesn't say the right to vote on what?
If nobody realizes that felons are people, and people can vote on at least one thing within their lives.
In other words for example, a group of felons within any society (be it this example be a democratic society) decides to either A: break out of prison by somehow working as a team or B: not escape prison or C: commit suicide or D: not participate within any of A,B, or C. In other words, A person will always have the right to vote on at least one thing within their lives...(repeating myself). Bob is a felon ( for example). He is doing a one man vote on whether he should first pee in the prison toilet and THEN sleep, or sleep and THEN wake up and pee. IT DOESN'T SAY TO VOTE ON WHAT. Also within democracy the power is within the people. Felons are people.

Also when it says felons ought to "retain" the right to vote, retain means: to continue to keep the possession of. In other words, the felons within the specific democratic society would already have had the right to vote to begin with. The negative would have to explain why the felon shouldn't have it ANYMORE, and the Affirmative should explain why the should CONTINUE TO KEEP THE POSSESSION of having voting rights. If by any means the felon(s) was/were ripped of his/her/their right to vote...who or what would take away the right to take aaway the vote?

Just thoughts. I still say the Resolution is quite broad :D
Posted by limevortex69 8 years ago
limevortex69
just to point out, there ARE actually other societies besides the ones in America that don't let felons to vote. An example being the society found within Great Britain. Another example being, Bangladesh. There are many more countries that don't let felons to vote. So, The negative could've totally negated that point.
Posted by SympathyForTheMartyr 8 years ago
SympathyForTheMartyr
I voted Con,
They were more proficient in the debate.
Pro didn't understand Con's attack on his value of Equality.
In an LD round if your values are the same you're supposed to prove how the value is better acheived with your case. There is no "tie", Con knew this and it was evident which one was more experienced with LD.

Pro defined a Democratic Society with the definition of a republic, which isn't necessarily correct, but it works for the debate.

Also, Pro's first 2 contentions were irrelevant.
A contention is a reason as to why you believe a certain way.

You're contentions should be able to properly fit in the blank:
"I believe that felons ought to retain the right to vote because of ______"
Pro's first contention was Democracy;
"I believe that felons ought to retain the right to vote because of Democracy"
That's not a reason, it's your value.
The second contention is a fact, not a reason.
Contentions are meant to be attacked,
How can you attacked a flat out fact?
Oddly enough it wasn't accurate, but that's beside the point.
(Note to Pro: Don't ever have the wrong facts or figures, it makes your opponent look better and more professional, and it makes your opponent look like a genus when they correct your facts.)

Overall I thought the Con did exponentially better than the Pro,
But it just takes practice =]

(Other note to Pro: NEVER pick Equality as your value or Criterion for the Affirmative side in this topic, that was the major reason I voted against you. The value trumps itself. I mean, is it fair for someone who killed another person to have the right to vote, even when they took away the right to vote of another by killing them? Of course not- When you infringe upon someone else's rights you lose yours, simple as that.)
Posted by Cg09 8 years ago
Cg09
Both cases are flawed the AFF tries to tie this to the US and says felons have lost trust in society but never takes into account wrongful convictions or exhonorations
Posted by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
So you're saying; "I should have voted for Pro, but I voted for Con anyway".
Your life will improve markedly when you overcome this problem.
You know you can still change your vote?
Posted by AnotherConservative 8 years ago
AnotherConservative
I voted Con (Neg, in policy jargon) but I think that Pro did better. I couldnt overcome my bias and truly felt convinced by the Con side.
Posted by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
In a weird kind of way... I think you actually got that right.
Posted by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
In a weird kind of way... I think you actually got that right.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
"We should not sentence people to death - because the courts can make mistakes.
We should not deny people the right to vote - because the courts can make mistakes."

No one should ever defend themselves from criminals... because they can make mistakes :D.
29 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by debatefreak22 6 years ago
debatefreak22
The_Devils_AdvocateJohnicleTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Mlorg 6 years ago
Mlorg
The_Devils_AdvocateJohnicleTied
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 bgruber93 7 years ago
bgruber93
The_Devils_AdvocateJohnicleTied
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 twsurber 7 years ago
twsurber
The_Devils_AdvocateJohnicleTied
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:32 
Vote Placed by JosephS 7 years ago
JosephS
The_Devils_AdvocateJohnicleTied
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:50 
Vote Placed by Icarus57 7 years ago
Icarus57
The_Devils_AdvocateJohnicleTied
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 The_Devils_Advocate 7 years ago
The_Devils_Advocate
The_Devils_AdvocateJohnicleTied
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 JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
The_Devils_AdvocateJohnicleTied
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:14 
Vote Placed by Johnicle 7 years ago
Johnicle
The_Devils_AdvocateJohnicleTied
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 Copperhead 8 years ago
Copperhead
The_Devils_AdvocateJohnicleTied
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