The Instigator
Danger_Chams-Eddine
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Mr.Alex
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Mr.Alex
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/30/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,260 times Debate No: 5843
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (2)

 

Danger_Chams-Eddine

Con

I stand for the side of the negative of the resolution; in a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. The negative panel believes in a democratic society, felons should not retain the right to vote. The negative panel accepts the burden of proving that a democratic society can function properly if felons are disbarred from voting. The negative panel has the moral high ground in this battle. To not stand for the negative you stand for ideology that is immorally inferior and of substandard value.
Before I present the negative panel's case, I will define key words that will help set the parameters of the debate;
Democracy: government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in 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: A person has committed a felony.
Right: Laws that are upheld by the society that has ratifies and respects the sovereignty of the laws
Government: System design to provide resources and protection for it society.
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.
The negative panel's core value is democracy. To stand for the negative panel you value democracy. The affirmative panel does not value democracy as highly as the negative panel. To value democracy in this case is taking the moral high ground. It is morally inferior to not value democracy in this case. The negative panel values democracy because it is essential to the society the resolution scenario implies. Democracy further allows the societies longevity.
The negative panel's value criterion is strengthening the power of voting. The negatives value criterion up holds and achieves its core value of democracy. Democracies work with people voting for representatives and public officials in their government. Strengthen the people's vote you strengthen the government. By allowing the most qualified citizens to vote and the proper candidates to run for public office a society strengthens it power of voting.
My first contention for my case is felons that lose the right to vote will not become a detriment to the society. By granting the privilege of voting to all people, it allows the people to choose how they wish there government to govern them. In a democratic society the populace must vote for the governors and officials. It goes without saying but it must be brought up that some people must vote for the government's officials. So in a democratic society the people automatically have the right to vote, but not all the people. Essentially a democratic society needs the general populace to vote for the governing officials. The negative panel would argue that in a democratic society of one million people, 10% of that population can only have the right to vote, and the society will still function correctly. The topic of the debate is whether felons ought to retain the right to vote in a democratic society. The topic is not in a democratic society all the citizens ought to have the right to vote, nor is the topic is it morally correct to allow all citizens the privilege of voting in a democratic society. The resolution questions the affirmative panel and negative panel if a democratic society can function if certain members of the society can not vote and present the selected members as felons. The negative panels would answer to the questions; that a democratic society will function with only a few people voting in elections and if the non-voting individuals were felons that it is morally correct to not allow them to vote.
My second contention for my case is it is just to revoke the privilege of voting as a deterrent for felonies in a democratic society. To prevent citizens from committing felonies, societies have two major options. The first is creating welfare programs dedicated to research of why people commit felonies and the prevention of people committing felonies. The second is enforcing deterrents to prevent people from committing felonies, such as the death penalty and revoking the privilege to vote. The two methods above prevent the actions of felonies and essentially keep the peace in a section of the society. It is just to revoke the privilege of voting to further insure the safety of the citizens in a society. A democratic society can function if not all of its citizens can vote. Negative panel suggest that citizens that commit felonies are labeled felons by that society and must enjoy fewer privileges than non-felons. This is a strong deterrent to crime and strengthens punishment over crime.
The negative panel suggests that the judge consider the idea of in a democratic society, felons should not retain the right to vote. The frame work of the negative panel's case was built upon a core value of democracy. The negative panel upholds their moral of democracy by implementing our value criterion of strengthen the power of voting. The negative panel's first contention is a convicted Felon has committed gross violations of an established legal system and therefore relinquished any rights and privileges granted by that established system. The negative panel's second contention is it is just to revoke the privilege of voting as a deterrent for felonies in a democratic society. I draw the end of the negative panel's case by urging the judge to vote neg for the win in the debate.
Mr.Alex

Pro

First of I would like to define a few key terms I will be using in my debate.
Democracy: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
Felon: someone who commits a grave crime declared to be a felony by the common law or by statute regardless of the punishment actually imposed

My value is equality of rights
My value criteria is individual rights

Equality of rights can be defined as: a person and/or community having equal status of rights and privileges.
Individual rights can be defined as: every person deserves his/her own right in a community or society.

C1: Upholding the equality of rights results in the best course of action for this resolution.

Equality of rights is something all men/women must share in order to achieve the best outcome for this resolution. When you place felons below people such as you and I, you devalue equality of rights. Felons have equal rights as stated by the constitution of the united states of america. To take away ones rights is to strip down the very morals this country was founded on. If my opponenet truly values democracy then he must believe that to uphold democracy you must follow the constitutional rights it specifies. This being said he must also value equality of rights being that this is the principle upon which the constitution was founded on. You cannot have democracy without equality of rights, so therefore my value supercedes my opponents.

C2: Upholding individual rights is the better criteria for upholding values.

I will now tell you a clear mechanism that intertwines my value and my value criteria. Individual rights is the only way equality of rights can be upheld. In order in to uphold equality of rights, or giving each person an equal desicion in the society, you must give each person individual rights. Individual rights is being denied to felons by my oppopnent, which means he is not letting each person have an equal say in the society, which devalues our very constitution. My opponent believes in democracy, and yet does not believe in the prime principle behind democracy - EQUALITY. Democracy was founded on the belief that each INDIVIDUAL will have an EQUAL say in the decisions made in society.
Denying the right to vote to felons denies them of the very thing democracy is founded on, you cannot single out a group of people because of things done in the past and deny them a right in the present. My opponent also contradicts himself by making his value democracy and then saying he is denying democracy to a specific group of people.

In conclusion i urge you to vote affirmative because: upholding my value and value criteria are the only way (in this debate) that the resolution can be upheld to it's fullest extent, my opponent contradicts his whole case by making his value democracy and then denying basic democratic rights to a specific group of people (bigotry?), and also because upholding my value and value criteria is the moral and just way to determine the resolution.
That's all I have to say for my 1st round.
Debate Round No. 1
Danger_Chams-Eddine

Con

First before I go on ahead with my remark concerning the Affirmative panel's case I would like to thank Mr. Alex for debating me. You seem like an intelligent opponent and I am more than interest to see how this debate turns out.

To set a road map I will critique my opponent's case. I will not defend in this round because no real argument has been present to me.

The point of debate is not to fight over who is wrong or right but to see what panel offers the case with the strongest reasoning. So the negative panel will display how the Affirmative panel's case is of weaker reason.

The affirmative panel's core value the equality of rights and the AFF panel suggest to achieve the equality of rights through their value criterion of honoring individual rights. The equality of rights can not be equal in a society were felons share the same privileges and rights with law abiding citizens. A felon and law abiding citizens are not equal. The NEG panel is not implying that felons are lesser human, but felons have committed crimes that change their status in society. A society can not give a non-felon the same rights and privileges to a felon when the two beings have un-equal stance in society. The non-felon may have the privilege of voting because he has not committed a crime. Felons have committed a crime and therefore lessen their status in society. One can only ensure equality on equal grounds. The two beings are of different status is society and enjoy different privileges. You don't praise a student who excels in his studies the same you do lazy students who fails in his studies purely because the two attend the same school. You don't give equal privileges to felons that you would non-felons because the two dwell in the same society.

The AFF panel first contention implies that a democratic society must uphold the equality of rights for it citizens. That is invalid for a democratic society. A democratic society must ensure that an able body of its population votes for it governors. The chosen officials will automatically protect the rights of its citizens. Such the right to live and having access to the resource needed to maintain that life. The AFF suggest that the NEG devalues felons as sub humans, but the NEG respects felons as humans in a society and must have their rights honor like all other citizens in their society. The NEG suggest that the Felons lose privileges such voting because of their behavior. The AFF was gotten the society the resolution implies wrong. The resolution implies in general a democratic society not the American democratic society. All of the AFF arguments based upon the American constitution have no weight in his argument. The resolution implies a democratic society that should either allow its felons the privilege of voting, not the American democratic society or any other European, African or Asian society. You can only have a Democracy by allowing a portion of its citizens to vote for their governors or officials, not honoring all of the citizens with equal privileges since my opponent is referring to the privilege voting.

The AFF panel second contention is primarily upholding individual rights. The AFF continues to imply that a democracy can only work if all people have equal rights. The AFF is correct that in a democratic government the citizens have the right to vote, because some one must elect government officials. The AFF does not understand the logic of how not everyone in a democratic society has to vote. The NEG is not upholding bigotry, the NEG panel clearly implies that the people that are not granted the privilege of voting is not because of their race, religion, sex and age but because the person has harmed their society. The NEG is insulted to be compared to gross ideology of sexism and racism. The Neg idea of society only allows the citizens of proper standing to vote, and that standing is achieved by not being a felon. The AFF continues to imply that the debate is concerning the American Democratic society. The AFF is mistaken and fails to recognize the fact that resolution implies a society with a democratic government. By using the American constitution again to base his contention upon makes it invalid. But since the AFF continues to bring the American democratic society into his argument I will use the society as an example of how the NEG ideology is proper. The American democratic society does not allow it citizens under the age of eighteen to vote or citizens of mental disease. The citizen are not able to vote but the American Democratic society still functions because a portion of it population votes in it elections. Clearly the American Democratic society is a perfect example of the NEG ideology of only a portion of people voting in a democratic society is just.
Mr.Alex

Pro

First I would like to rebuild my case:

Then negative says that felons should not share rights and laws with law abiding citizens, but nowhere in the resolution does it state that we are debating over the felons citizenship. This is a debate of values, which as I will say is the core to finding the best and most moral solution. This debate of values is primarily over whether rights should be given or taken from felons.
The negative also forgets that since he did not set clear boundaries to what type of democratic society we are debating in, that I did. Since I was the one who selected Liberal Democratic Society, and he did not oppose it in his rebuttal, it stands as the premise upon the society we debate. This being said he cannot say that in an "American Democratic society" because as I have stated we are debating in a Liberal Democratic society. And as follows in a Liberal Democratic Society we are representing what is right in the eyes of the Constitution of the United States. My opponent also states that in a Democracy you cannot "honor all citizens with equal privileges". This is a immoral and illogical statement, simply put it goes against the fabric Democracy is built on. In this way my value, equality of rights, supersedes my opponents. You cannot obtain a Democratic society with have equality for your citizens, to not give equality to felons because of actions committed in there past is not permissible in a democratic society, more specifically a Liberal Democratic society. On that knowledge alone I should gain your vote for this debate, but I will present you more reasons why affirming the resolutions is both right and moral.

The negative states that a felon has "harmed society". Yes, a felon has harmed, but is not now harming. My opponent's arguement is irrelevant to the resolution again because he is bringing up points about what have happened in the past, not what is right in the present. My opponent also implies my ideology is incorrect, when it is his ideology that is incorrect. My opponent does not understand that in order for a democratic society to be a democratic society it must provide rights for each individual, and those rights must be equal. Citizens under 18 and those with mental disease are excluded from the voting process because of ineligibility, not because of deeds they have done or wrongs they have committed. If we were to uphold every crime, petty and serious, no one would be able to vote. My point being no one is perfect and everyone has done something to damage society, even if it was just littering. My opponent wishes to punish felons for wrong doings in the past instead of giving them a chance at a better future.

My opponents value is democracy. My value is equality of rights. As I have said before my value is the greater value because my value submerses and supersedes my opponents. If we did not have equal rights we would not have democracy. My opponents value is dependent on my value, which makes his value weak and flawed. My opponent is basing his case around a weak value that is replaceable and changeable. My value is fixated into moral righteousness and the permissibility of this resolution. Also my opponent shows no clear pathway that connects his criteria to his value. How does removing a certain group of people, felons in this case, strengthen the voting process? My opponents also does not clearly relate strengthening voting to democracy. How does strengthening voting uphold democracy? In my eyes my opponents is not strengthening anything by excluding felons from the voting process, he is just making an impartial society which he believes is right. I bring up, again, my opponents claim to value democracy more highly then me, but in fact I am giving democracy greater value then my opponent. When the negative says he will not include felons in the voting process he is devaluing democracy because he is doing the exact opposite of what democracy stands for - EQUALITY and INDIVIDUALITY.

This is the conclusion of my second round. I have listed reasons why voting aff. is more just, fair, and moral. My opponents wishes to create an impartial society where one's vote does not count. If we were to exclude felons simply because of there past, who would go next? Maybe we would take away the right to vote from people not born in America. Then we might take this right away from another group of people because of there religious, political, or ethnic views. The point is we cannot just take away a right our forefathers died to uphold because someone has made a mistake in there past. We must give everyone there own individual rights, so we can all be equal in society.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
Danger_Chams-Eddine

Con

Since this is the last round I will illustrate why the negative panel's reasoning is far superior to the affirmatives by deeply explaining my case in a summary. I will not attack my opponent because this is the last round and it would not be fair to him, nor I because I could not respond to his attack in the third round. So I will not motivate any more attacks upon my case.

The resolution implies a society with a government that is a democracy. It does not matter if the democracy is a direct or representative. The only thing significant about the democracy is that the citizens in the society vote for their governors and officials. In this society certain citizens have committed harsh crimes. We know this from the mentioning of felons. The significant portion of felons is that the citizen has committed a brutal crime. We interpret the brutality of the crime from the American legal system definition of a felony. We also figure out that in this society that there is a legal system that prosecutes and punish citizens that commit crimes. No where in the resolution does it implies the American or any other democratic society. With the scenario the resolution implies illustrated above the resolution poses the question that should a felon retain the right to vote. Therefore we understand that the felon has already lost his right to vote. The question is asked because the society the felon dwells in has a democracy for a government where the citizens must vote for their governors. The negative panel will answer to the question that the felon should not retain the right to vote. The negative values democracy and will achieve are value through strengthen the power of voting. A democracy must have the populace vote, so by strengthen the power to vote the negative upholds the strongest facet of a democracy. The negative will strengthen the power of voting by only allowing certain individuals vote in elections. To vote one must not commit a felony. A democratic society can function if not all of its citizen's vote. The governors in the government purely must have gotten their through an election by the people. Strengthening the power of voting in a democratic society by disfranchising felons is morally correct. This is a debate of theory. The affirmative has the burden of proving that it is morally correct to allow all citizens in a democratic society to vote. The negative has to prove that it is morally correct to not allow all citizens the right to vote in a democratic society. When the minority that is disfranchised are only because they are felons it is morally correct. Any gender, race and age can be a felon, but they commit a felon. That ideology keeps others from being disfranchised because of sexism, racism or ageism. The negative panel presents contentions to why disfranchising felons is morally correct because a felon that loses the right to vote will not become a detriment to the society and it is just to revoke the privilege of voting as a deterrent for felonies in a democratic society. The felon in the society the resolution implies loses their right to vote because they have harmed the society and the society has endorse the lost of voting rights as a deterrent to prevent other non-felons from becoming felons. I have properly explained the negative reasoning and urge the judge to vote neg because the negative panel's reasoning is superior the affirmatives.

Also I give thanks to my opponent for performing excellently in the debate it has been fun.
Mr.Alex

Pro

Before I begin my third and final round I would like to thank Danger_Chams for a fun and interesting debate.
Now I would like to address a few things my opponent has said in his final round, then I will tell you why voting AFF. is moral and logical.

My opponent says "The resolution implies a society with a government that is a democracy. It does not matter if the democracy is a direct or representative." On the contrary it matters very much the type of democracy we debate in, for it sets the tone for the debate itself. This is only true because my opponent choose the resolution "In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote." It does not just say "Felons ought to retain the right to vote" it has "In a democratic society". And since my opponent did not provide the democracy we debated in, I did. I choose to debate in a Liberal Democratic Society, where we determine who votes based on the laws set down by our founding fathers in the Constitution. Now knowing this we must see that felons ought to be able to vote in a democratic society. Not only because we, as American citizens all deserve the right to vote, but also because of the relevance of a Liberal Democracy to the US Constitution.
"No where in the resolution does it implies the American or any other democratic society." This statement is completely incorrect, as the resolution states "In a democratic society...". This statement basically contradicts the entire resolution, and therefore his own value of democracy. If we it is not implied in the resolution that we are not voting in a democratic society, why does my opponent use democracy as his value?

Now I will list reasons as to why voting AFF. is moral and logical.
First off I would like to say that we should not punish these felons anymore for the crimes they committed in there past. Felons have already been put in jail/prison, and now we as a society believe it's moral to take away a basic right of democracy? We give this right to crack addicts and illegal immigrants, but not American citizens who have made mistakes in there past? That is just immoral, we must give these felons a chance to build a better future for themselves, not just shun them from society. How impartial of a society would have to be to actually exclude a group of U.S citizens from the voting process? If we were to exclude felons from voting we may as well not even call America a democracy. A democracy would never objectify a certain group and take away some of there basic rights as American citizens. This would completely immoral, and I hope as a democratic society we see this.

Next I would like to state that every person in a democratic society deserves equal rights. The equality of rights is the better of our values because, as I have said this whole debate, it supersedes my opponents. You cannot achieve democracy without the equality of rights. As my opponent defines democracy "Democracy: government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system." it is a government by the people, not a government by some of the people. Felons are people, not just dirty prisoners unworthy of the rights that the American Constitution has given them. We must give all people equal rights because it is the only moral way to achieve democracy.

Also strengthening the voting process will not occur when we exclude felons from voting. There is no way my opponents criteria can be achieved by excluding felons from the voting process. My opponent says that "By allowing the most qualified citizens to vote and the proper candidates to run for public office a society strengthens it power of voting." Who decides which people are the most qualified to vote? No one can say that another person is not "qualified" to vote because (a) voting under the American Constitution is not something you need to qualified for, it is a right we all have and (b) How does this strengthen the voting process? You may choose voters you see as qualified simply because they agree with you. If we were to go with opponents value criteria we would not be strengthening anything, just creating an impartial society where society dictates if your are "qualified" enough to enjoy your rights as an American citizen.

And lastly we must uphold the value criteria of individual rights to achieve the most moral and logical solution. I have individual rights, and you have individual rights, but felons do not? By saying that felons should be excluded from the voting process is saying they have less rights then you and I. Is that really moral? Is that really how a democracy should proceed in distributing its rights? The answer to both of these questions is no. By giving everyone individual rights, we are giving everyone equal rights and creating the most moral and most democratic society.

Thank you all for reading and again thank you to Danger_Chams for a fun and interesting debate.
Vote AFF.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by fo-shizzle0855 8 years ago
fo-shizzle0855
i agree. he gave perfect reasons as to why the moral highground is restricting the rights by pointing out that infriction of negitivity towards society is somewhere in there ethnicity, that same value would be with whoever they were planning on voting for. People with those kind of fans are really not people i want leading my country. please don't put down the debators. especially without looking at the case or misunderstanding it.
Posted by Mr.Alex 8 years ago
Mr.Alex
Cg09, first I had clear mechanisms realting my value to the resolution and my value criteria to my value, maybe you just need to read the whole debate instead of just glancing and then commenting on it....
Posted by Danger_Chams-Eddine 8 years ago
Danger_Chams-Eddine
Oh...
Thanks....
I changed my entire case....
Thanks for looking out.....
Posted by Cg09 8 years ago
Cg09
look you say you have the moral high ground.......where is this warranted? how do you have the moral high ground how is restricting an individuals rights more moral than granting them? you do not warrant any of these arguments or answer these questions if you want to make those arguments you need to give reasons why...dont just say uh i do cus........ your opponent did the same thing i'm not trying to be arrogant i'm simply giving you advice so that if you run these cases at a debate tournament you won't get raped
Posted by Danger_Chams-Eddine 8 years ago
Danger_Chams-Eddine
Cg09 I don't understand what you are saying!
Posted by Cg09 8 years ago
Cg09
both your cases have NO WARRANTS!!!!!!!
Posted by Cg09 8 years ago
Cg09
that is the most retarded neg case i've ever heard if you were ever in a round and tried to make those ridiculous statements for your standard w/o having any warrants (which you don't) you will get torn apart
Posted by Mr.Alex 8 years ago
Mr.Alex
Haha danger 1 vote for the tie!! What was the point?
Posted by Danger_Chams-Eddine 8 years ago
Danger_Chams-Eddine
I know...
the debate was viewed 483 times....
483 votes?
Posted by Mr.Alex 8 years ago
Mr.Alex
We really need some votes....
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Mr.Alex 8 years ago
Mr.Alex
Danger_Chams-EddineMr.AlexTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Yummy_Noodles 8 years ago
Yummy_Noodles
Danger_Chams-EddineMr.AlexTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00