The Instigator
YakovF
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Amphia
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

You Choose the Topic!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/5/2018 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 460 times Debate No: 110180
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

YakovF

Con

Here is how it will go down
R1 - Person will bring at least 5 topics for me to go Con/Against. Please make the topics reasonable

R2 - Me choosing one of the topics then bringing my claims. Then the adversary will bring his/her claim.

R3 - Debate

R4 - Finisher..
Amphia

Pro

1. Vaccines should be required for children
2. Felons should be allowed to vote
3. Animal testing
4. The voting age/drinking age/smoking age should be raised (choose whichever you want)
5. Make child marriage illegal in the U.S. (participants must be 18 or older)
Extra: raise the age of majority
Debate Round No. 1
YakovF

Con

2. Felons should be allowed to vote

People need to learn there are consequences to their actions, and punishment is involved. Felonies are big crimes, and there is consequences to your actions.

My claim: Felons should not be able to vote.
Amphia

Pro

My opponent mentions how people must learn the consequences of their actions, however, felons have already served their prison time and completed probation. They have already been punished. Why now does the state get to strip them of their Constitutional right as citizens because they committed a crime?

A good point Politico magazine makes is the following: "If prisoners remain citizens and retain their civic status throughout their sentences, then it follows that prisoners should enjoy the most basic of their civil rights, the right to cast a ballot. Disenfranchising them creates a class of people still subject to the laws of the United States (they were, after all, punished under that law) but without a voice in the way they"re governed"not unlike taxation without representation."

How can we make them abide by the law but then in the same breath say that they don't get a voice in the law.

https://www.politico.com...

Some people make the argument that felons can't be trusted but this is a silly argument. "We let ex-convicts marry, reproduce, buy beer, own property and drive. They don't lose their freedom of religion, their right against self-incrimination or their right not to have soldiers quartered in their homes in time of war...If we thought criminals could never be reformed, we wouldn't let them out of prison in the first place."

It is also unconstitutional because our 8th amendment specifically states: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." This sort of punishment is cruel and unnecessary. By stripping their right to vote, we are stripping their right as a citizen. Yes, felonies are bigger deals than misdemeanors but to assume every convicted felon is evil is unfair. In a just society, we are supposed to try and help felons become better and improve. We don't continue to punish them even after they've served their time.

As Robert F. McDonnell, JD, MPP, MBAI says: " I also believe that once an offender has fully paid his debt to society, he deserves a second chance... It is a mark of good government to restore felons' rights and provide them the opportunity to succeed and become law-abiding citizens again...Therefore, I am amending the criteria used to adjudicate non-violent felons applications for restoration of rights. With these changes, Virginia will have an automatic restoration of rights process."

https://felonvoting.procon.org...

Barring felons from voting is unconstitutional, unfair, and illogical. We can not allow this to happen any longer.
Debate Round No. 2
YakovF

Con

I believe people shouldn't be jailed forever, so have a different consequence like remove voting privileges. I find it on a moral point of view to remove their privilege. Not major privileges that should be accessible to anyone, but only to those who deserve it.

Also another point of view is that:
I don't want felons voting. Generally felons don't have such good points of view morality and rational wise. Maybe they are power hungry or have no morals. I don't want those people voting. This really can't be confirmed until they do something as bad as a felony. This logic on it's own shouldn't be the reason why felons shouldn't be able to vote, but both logic.
Amphia

Pro

Obviously we shouldn't jail people forever (unless they have committed a VERY serious crime) which is why we have the 8th amendment. However, stripping them of their right to vote is cruel and unnecessary punishment. Voting is not a privilege, voting is a right. If you were born in a country you have the right to vote in elections. Would you argue that the right to a fair and speedy trial is a privilege? Or that the 2nd amendment is a privilege? Or that the 1st amendment and all our freedoms are just privileges?

Who are we to say that felons don't have good morals? Thomas Jefferson had slaves, he wasn't felon but I wouldn't argue those are good morals. Donald Trump grabs women by the p*ssy. He isn't a felon but I would't argue those are good morals either. People make mistakes, people also commit horrible crimes. But regardless, we can't dehumanize them. We can't say, "Oh you committed tax fraud? You are no longer an American citizen! Haha, go to jail and when you come out you don't get to vote because you don't count anymore."

We don't get to decide who votes to benefit ourselves. We allow the democratic process to occur because we are a democracy. You serve your time in jail and then you are released. Your punishment should be over.
Debate Round No. 3
YakovF

Con

You are right, I should have referred to it as a right, but isn't the freedom of speech a right also? 1st amendment and the basis of United States, but how come there is limits? Shouldn't we be able to say what we want? Shouldn't we be able to go on a public beach with a microphone, screaming curse words? That may not be the best example, but you get the point. There are limits. I was wrong to say it was a privilege, but it should be taken away at certain times.

Jail is not enough. Google this:
"how many people in jail go back to jail"
It will only take 10 seconds.

"Who are we to say that felons don't have good morals?"
Let's look at your examples.

"Thomas Jefferson had slaves, he wasn't felon but I wouldn't argue those are good morals"
We are talking about felons, not non-felons.

"Donald Trump grabs women by the p*ssy. He isn't a felon but I would't argue those are good morals either"
Again, we are talking about felons, not non-felons.

"People make mistakes, people also commit horrible crimes. But regardless, we can't dehumanize them"
They have to understand there is consequences to your actions. The more serious, the more of the punishment. I agree saying we can't dehumanize people, which is why I'm against solitary confinement. Removing voting privileges isn't dehumanizing a person.

"We don't get to decide who votes to benefit ourselves"
THIS IS MY STRONGEST POINT!
In the 2016 election, the Virginia governor pardon 60,000 felons to help swing the election to Hillary's side. That is exactly what they are doing. They are deciding to choose who votes to benefit themselves by giving back the right. The original goal was to pardon 200,000, but it they only reached 60,000. This is exactly what you are against. Here is my source:
http://dailycaller.com...
Google: "virginia governor pardons 60000 felons to swing election"

"We allow the democratic process to occur because we are a democracy"
Nothing more that I can say that I said before. Consequences to your actions.

"You serve your time in jail and then you are released. Your punishment should be over."
Again, jail doesn't always work. Plus I don't believe people should be in jail for a long time, but at the same time I believe in justice.

Side Note: Please put your sources if you're going to put any information in the last round, and don't forfeit this far into the debate please!

Conclusion:
On (my) morality point of view, I think a human way (not the best but efficient) to punish someone for a felony is to remove the right of voting. Not extended jail time. Not solitary confinement. But remove something important without completely ruining the life of the person.
Amphia

Pro

Having limits is not equatable to losing a right. Me losing the right to vote is not the same as me not being allowed to call someone the n word.

The reason our jail system sucks is not because the institution of jail is inherently flawed. It is because of the way we use it. When people do drugs, we just keep sending them to jail instead of rehabilitating them. Some crimes needs more rehabilitation than jail but that doesn't mean we should get rid of jail. Also, what would we do if people didn't go to jail anymore?

With my morals argument, you seem to be missing the point. The point is that assuming all felons is unfair. People have this misconception that the only felonies are murder and rape thus felons all have bad morals. This is untrue and this is bigotry!

These people already have served their time. They've already been punished! Taking away a person's right IS dehumanizing them. Stop saying voting is a privilege--IT IS NOT. (All caps for emphasis).

Election swaying goes the other way around as well. But even worse. It disenfranchises the poor, minority males, and likely Democrats. What the governor did was wrong but not nearly as bad as what is happening in states where felons cannot vote:

"And don't fall for the line that the nation's original plan called for denying felons the vote. In 1800, no state prohibited felons from voting. On the eve of the Civil War, 80% of the states did, largely to block African Americans, who though rarely allowed to vote were disproportionately represented among felons. Today, the impact of these laws still falls disproportionately on poor, minority males, a fact that seems to have skewed more than a few elections. Anyone familiar with the details of the deadlocked 2000 presidential race will recall that tens of thousands of likely Democratic voters were disenfranchised because of Florida's laws against voting by felons. A relative handful could have made Al Gore president."

http://content.time.com...

"Consequences to your actions."
Like I continue to tell you, these prisoners have already served their punishment. The 8th amendment says that punishment should not be cruel or unnecessary. This violates the 8th amendment.

"Again, jail doesn't always work. Plus I don't believe people should be in jail for a long time, but at the same time I believe in justice."
Once more, the institution of jail is not the problem, the problem is the way we use and handle it in America.

Onto your conclusion:

OI think that it is immoral to take away people's rights. I think it is wrong to make someone follow the law but then not allow them to be part of the law process. No, taking away someone's right to vote will not kill them but that doesn't mean it isn't affecting their life. How horrible it must be to sit and watch, disenfranchised, as your country votes and makes decisions for YOU but you can't have a say.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.