Question: Should felons who have completed their sentence be allowed to vote?

Title: Resolved: In the United States, Felons should be allowed to vote upon release from prison. Content: Thank you for this challenge, henryzietlow. I accept the challenge and will debate you on the topic that, "In the United States, Felons should be allowed to vote upon release from prison. I would like to define felons as a person who has committed a crime punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year. This is the way the United States Government defines the term, according to the U. S. Department of Justice.

Title: Resolved: In the United States, Felons should be allowed to vote upon release from prison. Content: Today I stand to affirm the resolution: "resolved: In the United States, Felons should be allowed to vote upon release from prison." Not only are American felon voting laws outdated, they work against the democratic process, and they slow rehabilitation back into society. 1. One of the foundations of democracy is that everybody should vote, and that those elected into the United State's government are those who are supported the majority of the population. By not allowing released felons to vote, it is taking the vote away from up to 7% of the adult population in some states (1). In fact, in 2010, 5.9 million people in the United States were left unable to vote (2). Because of this, up to 6% of the United States (5.9 million people) are left without a vote, and their voices are not heard as loudly in government. This takes away from the democratic process, as despite the fact that the United States is built off of giving everybody a voice, these felons are left with none. So, not allowing felons to vote is taking away from the democratic process, and is making electoral decisions not truly represent the views of the people. 1a. Restricting felon voting rights can change the results of elections. If felons in Florida were allowed to vote in the 2000 presidential election, it would have affected the result. Ex-felons have been seen to almost always vote democratic, and the 527 vote margin of victory of George Bush would undoubtedly be wiped out if the 600,000 felons barred from voting could have exercised their opinions (3). So, it is clear that not allowing felons to vote can change the results of elections, and by not allowing felons to vote, elections clearly do not always represent the people's true views. 1b. Taking away the right to vote does not make logical sense. A fundamental of the American Justice system is that once you complete your prison sentence, your punishment is over. Not allowing felons to vote for extended periods after their release from prison is extending their punishment, and by not allowing felons to vote, it makes rehabilitation into society even harder. This claim is supported by former Attorney General Eric Holder, as he said that taking the right away from felons "Defy[ies] the principles of accountability and rehabilitation that guides our justice system" (1). So, taking away a felon's right to vote is unethical, and unnecessarily extends punishment. 1c. The bill of rights in the constitution of the United States "prohibits excessive sanctions", and reads "punishment for crime should be graduated and proportioned to the offense". Not allowing felons to vote for decades seems to be "excessive," as it is a fundamental right of being an American Citizen. So, not allowing felons to vote for decades is going against the concepts of excessive sanctions, and is an unnecessary right to remove. 2. Allowing felons to vote would help with their transition back into society. Felons without voting rights often feel fed up with the slow pace it takes to be fully re-admitted into society, and because of this, they are often three times more likely to re-offend than those with full rights upon release from prison (1). So, if felons were allowed to vote upon release from prison, not only would they transition more smoothly back into society, they would also be less likely to re-offend. 2a. Small offenses, like even tampering with crab traps illegally can trigger over 7 years without voting rights is some states (3). This simply does not make sense, as these criminals are clearly non violent, and have no intention of hurting anybody. Furthermore, these criminals usually show nothing that hints towards an inability to vote. 3. Felon voting laws are racist, and take the voice away from racial minorities. According to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, up to 20% of adult black males are left unable to vote in some states due to felon voting restrictions (2). African Americans are already a minority, with a relatively small voice in government. By taking the vote away from up to 20 percent of adult male African Americans, the voice of a relatively unspoken minority is being further quenched, as less of them can vote. This gives them even less of a say in elections, and is thus making them further under-represented in government. This also gives white people, the majority, an even larger voice in government. So, felon voting laws take voice away from already overshadowed minorities. 4. Felon Voting laws in the United States are outdated. In most other industrialized countries, felons are allowed to vote, sometimes even while still in prison (1). Additionally, they are even encouraged to do so, in promotion of the democratic process (1). In comparison, American felon voting laws, which take away voting rights until long after prison release seem incredibly restrictive, and outdated, while the laws in these other countries are innovative and modern. If American felon voting laws were loosened to this level, the United States would appear to be a modern, innovative country in one more way, and it would maybe gain more international respect. So, it has been shown that felon voting laws defy the democratic process, make elections seem not to fully represent the people's views, are unconstitutional, harm rehabilitative processes, take the voice away from under-spoken minorities, and are outdated. As such, it seems that felon voting laws need to be changed to become less restrictive. Sources 1- http://www.nytimes.com... 2- http://www.startribune.com... 3- http://america.aljazeera.com...

Title: You Choose the Topic! Content: 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.

Title: Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections. Content: An excellent opening argument put forth by my opponent. My opponent's contentions were P1: Many felons return to prison within 3 years for the same or a different crime P2: It would not be fair to citizens who have never been convicted of a felony P3: Felons should gain the right to vote, by proving that their judgement is valid I'll start by refuting them. P1: Many felons return to prison within 3 years for the same or different crime It may be true that many ex-felons are convicted again, however, my opponent fails to realize that a felon is usually put on parole and/or probation for 3 or more years after being released from prison. These felons are allowed to vote if and only if they are released from all kinds of probation/parole. P2: It would not be fair to citizens who have never been convicted of a felony My opponent claims that giving citizens and ex-felons on even ground is somehow unfair to the group that did not commit a crime (normal citizens). However, the whole point of letting a felon out of prison is to try and let them blend back into normal life, so to speak. But how can they blend back if they forever have a black shadow looming over them? It would not be "fair" to hand a prisoner a lifelong sentence if they've already served their time, but this is what my opponent wants to do. P3: Felons should gain the right to vote by proving that their judgement is valid The main point here is "gain the right to vote" not HAVE the right to vote. By serving their sentence and fulfilling their civic duties, felons gain their full rights. Also, I'd like to request that my opponent provides evidence for this point and put forth a more detailed solution. How will they earn the right to vote? Having refuted all my opponent's points, I'll move on to my own: P1: Restricting felons from voting violates the Constitution. P2: Felon disenfranchisement encourages racial discrimination. P3: Ex-felons deserve the right to vote. P1: Restricting felons from voting violates the Constitution. I've proven in the previous round that not just one, but multiple amendments are violated. 1. The 8th Amendment -- Disenfranchisement for LIFE falls under the category of "excessive sanctions." The prisoner has already served his sentence. He's supposed to be free now, right? But the government still sanctions him on the right to vote. This is clearly a violation of the felon's 8th amendment rights. 2. The 15th Amendment -- Disenfranchisement after release from prison/probation/parole is like denying the citizen the right on account of "previous condition of servitude." The main point here is PREVIOUS condition. It is (quite obviously) true that a ex-felon has been in prison, and I'm not arguing for them to be allowed to vote FROM prison. But after they're out, logically their right should be returned to them by the 15th amendment. P2: Felon disenfranchisement encourages racial discrimination. When so many people of a minority race are not allowed to vote, this clearly creates an imbalance between races. America is known as the "Great Melting Pot" of diversity, but how can we continue to boast this if one minority is a million people down at the ballot box while others go on almost like normal? An overwhelming majority of ex-felons are African American or Hispanic. Not only is this unfair, it actually bolsters crime later on -- it backfires, doing the opposite of what it's supposed to do. According to USA Today: The right to vote helps people get more educated on issues they care about. Also, people who can't voice their opinion in the law might resort -- AGAIN -- to breaking it. Sentencing Project: An overwhelming 78% of all repeated offenses had been disenfranchised. This creates an endless cycle: person commits crime, person can't vote, person commits crime again, person still can't vote. We need to prevent things like this from happening by allowing ex-felons to vote. P3: Ex-felons deserve the right to vote. A felon is essentially a person who makes a mistake. True, a BIG mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. They are still human beings and part of our society, like it or not. They could be limited on the issues they are allowed to vote on, like bills and laws, but they should be allowed to vote in elections. Ex-felons are still affected by the next President. They are still affected by their next Senator. If they're going to follow the law, they should have a say in who makes the law. People can't be persecuted for the past. This concludes my argument for this round. Thank you, I look forward to my opponent's response :)

Title: R: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: Look forward to a great confrontation in round 3! BOPNow, my opponent's case is that felons should be able to vote; logically, this means we should restore voting rights for all felons, and that future felons would not be penalized by removing their right. My opponent bears sole BOP, which means he is responsible to prove that felons should be able to vote. If he fails to do so, or I demonstrate any situation where a felon should not be allowed to vote, I would win. Contention 1 - Government is just, and its powers derive from societyThomas Jefferson says it best in the Declaration of Independence, "All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". The idea of God-given rights form the cornernstone of American justice and a key part of traditional American values. Jefferson continues: " That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed". That is, government exists to protect rights. Its powers, when derived from and held by the people, are just. This includes, by nature, the power to punish those who violate rights. Contention 2 - Punishment consists of revoking of rightsWhat does punishment entail? In general, the idea in common law is that punishment should fit the crime - that is, the more severe the crime, the more severe the punishment. The most common methods of securing punishment - those society has, throughout our history, deemed most just - are through fines, community service, and imprisonment. Outside of a governmental context, these all would be crimes. If I were to forcibly take money from you, require you to work without pay, or lock you in a small room and make it impossible for you to leave, I would be arrested. But, for governments, this is fine. Why? Because when you violate the law, you forfeit rights. Essentially, by refusing to respect the rights of others, you lose some of yours. Loss of voting privileges is just another way to punish people. It's serious nature connotes the seriousness of the crime. Roger Clegg of the Center for Equal opportunity says "It makes sense that felons should lose their right to vote. You don’t have a right to make the laws if you aren’t willing to follow them yourself. To participate in self-government, you must be willing to accept the rule of law. We don’t let everyone vote – not children, not noncitizens, not the mentally incompetent. There are certain minimum and objective standards of trustworthiness, responsibility, and commitment to our laws that we require before people are entrusted with a role in the solemn enterprise of self-government. Those who have committed serious crimes against their fellow citizens don’t meet those standards. "[1]Contention 3 - Voting rights should only be revoked for violent criminals. One area of common ground might be that there are many people who are felons that do no deserve that connotation. Felonies should be limited to the most serious crimes - things like arson, sex crimes (rape, child rape, incest), murder, and treason. In the past and presents, states have been too loose in regards to drug crimes. People can become felons for what should be minor drug crimes, if they should even be crimes at all. The definition of 'felon' should be reduced to violent or treasonous crimes - the most despicable and terrible of actions. It is on firm ground to say a convincted child rapist, murderer, or rapist has forfeited his right to decide laws for others through his actions. These violent criminals have rejected society and its laws, and society is well within its rights to reject them. Contention 4 - Rights could be restored through an arbitration committeeAfter a felon has served their time, it might be reasonable to consider returning their right to vote. This would not be automatic - it might be handled in a similar way to how we handle parole - there might be a voting board, which would thoroughly vet the person to determine if they are truly sorry for what they have done and are committed to living by the laws of society. This would provide incentive for felons to reform - they will be accepted back into society if they are willing to accept the laws that the government of the people has made. ConclusionIn short, there is nothing wrong with restricting voting rights for felons. It works with the American legal tradition, and is a reasonable way to punish those who have decided to reject the laws of society. While the definition of 'felon' might need to be smaller, and a system to allow restoration of rights might be reasonable, there is no reason a pedophile or murderer should be allowed to decide the laws of a society he plainly rejected. References:1. . http://www.ceousa.org...;

Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: As Con, I will argue why felons shouldn't have voting rights. Good luck!

Title: Resolved: In the United States, Felons should be allowed to vote upon release from prison. Content: In this debate I will argue that the United States has unethical laws regarding felon voting rights, and that these laws should be loosened. I do realize that some states already allow felons to vote upon release from prison. However, I will argue in this round that the laws should be changed so that all convicted felons in the United States gain voting rights upon release from prison. Round 1- Acceptance/Any definitions con wants to make Round 2- Constructives Round 3- Rebuttals Round 4- Summary

Title: Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections. Content: First I will begin by responding to your refutation of my main points P1: Many felons return to prison within 3 years of the same or another crime Although I was not able to find data for the rate at which ex-felons return to prison after 3 years, I'm sure it is still a significant percentage, especially after being let off of parole or probation, where they are no longer monitored. The simple fact that many ex-felons are convicted of another crime should be proof enough that all ex-felons should not be allowed the right to vote. P2: It would not be fair to citizens who have never been convicted of a felony You are correct in your statement that " the whole point of letting a felon out of prison is to try and let them blend back into normal life, so to speak". However, by refusing ex-felons the right to vote, are we really hindering their ability to assimilate back into society? I don't think so because this right does not define who is a member of society and who is not, nor does it prevent an ex-felon from doing other things such as getting a job, or driving a car. So the daily interactions involved in "normal life" are not effected by an ex-felons inability to vote. P3: Felons should gain the right to vote by proving that their judgement is valid By serving a full sentence in jail, should an ex-felon really regain the right to vote? Who is to say that serving a full sentence in prison is only a part of the punishment committing a felony, and that an ex-felons inability to vote serves to remind him/her that a life of crime is not worth it, and that they will have to prove that they are productive members of society to regain this right. I think that once a felon gets off of probation or parole that he/she can choose to be evaluated by a psychologist to see whether or not his/her judgement is valid in order to regain the right to vote. However, this would be something that our lawmakers would decide upon so I'm sure a reasonable solution could be agreed on. Now I will move on to your arguments and refute them P1: Restricting felons from voting violates the Constitution. If a US citizen commits a felony, isn't that sufficient means to revoke the right to vote? Also, restricting a person from voting does not seem to be a cruel or unusual punishment, because it does not prevent them from performing daily functions of life. So as I mentioned earlier, the right to vote does not effect an ex-felons ability to function in society and in no way directly harms him/her (indirectly perhaps). As for the 15th amendment, I would interpret it to mean that a right should not be refused as a result of a previous condition of servitude, but would the right be refused as a result of the felony committed? P2: Felon disenfranchisement encourages racial discrimination. Well I would like to point out that African Americans and Hispanics already make up a minority in this country, and so your claim that felon disenfranchisement "creates an imbalance between races" would be true regardless. Its not as if white people vote for one thing and minorities vote for another, so I see it as one million people simply not voting, and do not assume that most of them would have voted for X person due to the color of their skin. That is almost like saying that if we let all prisoners vote, the minorities would have helped Obama win and therefore we are restricting their ability to vote in an attempt to sway election results. Simply not true, for all we know, half of them supported Obama and the other half Romney, so skin color does not determine how a person will most vote. You claim that "people who can't voice their opinion in the law might resort -- AGAIN -- to breaking it." Relating to my first point, if they would break the law a second time because their individual opinion was not heard, then they probably should not have the right to vote. That would be like if I smoked weed even though its illegal because I support its legalization (I don't smoke, but the war on drugs is expensive and ineffective). My individual opinion about the legality of weed was not heard, but does that mean that I can proceed to break the law? Absolutely not. I'd like to point out that although ex-felons cannot vote, they are still able to do a lot of other things such as organize a peaceful protest, or petition for change, etc. This would still allow them a chance to voice their opinion. P3: Felons deserve a right to vote I don't believe that they deserve this right until they can prove that they can handle the right responsibly (as I have pointed out in my third point). You are right, the next president will effect the lives of them as well. However, the president is meant to make decisions in the best interest of the majority, with the goal of producing a solution that satisfies both if possible. Assuming that felons could influence the outcome of an election, which is very unlikely, wouldn't it be detrimental to the majority? It just does not make much sense for people who have made a "BIG mistake in life", as you put it, to be able to influence the outcome of an election that will effect all of us. Thank you, I patiently await your response :)

Title: Felons Ought to Retain the Right to Vote in a Democratic Society Content: I negate the resolution: Felons Ought to Retain the right to vote. My value for determining this is social contract. My criterion for this is the ability of the social contract to uphold societal welfare. Contention 1: By breaking the social contract, citizens have forfeighted their right to vote. By granting any felon the right to vote would contradict the purpose of the social contract.

Title: Resolved: In the United States, Felons should be allowed to vote upon release from prison. Content: I will be debating against the topic, "Resolved: In the United States, Felons should not be allowed to vote upon release from prison. " Now, to jump right in. Sorry about that last round; I was a little bit busy, but I would like to provide constructives and rebuttals in this round. I would first like to point out one statistical discrepancy in the proposition"s case. He has stated that 5.9 million people, or 6% of our country"s population cannot vote, but this is clearly an incorrect statistic. According to the most recent statistics from 2014, our country"s population is 318.9 Million. 5.9 million people out of 318.9 Million is just under 2%, not 6%. This brings us to question all of proposition"s evidence and empiric. Now, to get on to constructive assertions. 1: Allowing these felons to vote is not a federal issue and cannot be decided by the U. S. Government or the Supreme Court to encompass the entire United States, as proposition is arguing. According to the Bill of Rights, this issue is decided by the states. Most prominently, the 14th Amendment makes felon voting a state prerogative, not a federal one. If voters choose to change state laws regarding felons and voting, it's their prerogative. Federalism allows for such state-level experimentation, and it's at the state level where the consequences of new felon-voting laws will best be judged. This assertion itself negates proposition"s whole case. Proposition is arguing that we should make a law encompassing the entire United States to allow these released felons to vote. This is not legal, according to the 14th Amendment of our Bill of Rights. 2: The reason we don"t let children vote in the United States is because they have not developed proper judgment and cannot decide which party to vote for. These felons are not allowed to vote for this same reason. If someone has gone to jail for over one year, then they have committed a fairly bad crime such as assault, they have shown that they are not trustworthy and their judgment is not good. I will now strengthen my case with rebuttals. As pointed out earlier, we come to doubt Pro"s evidence because of the discrepancy. Rebuttal to 1a: A change of an election outcome is not enough reason to base changing the law on. If children were allowed to vote, the result of elections would drastically change, but they are not allowed to vote. A change in outcome has nothing to do with the positive or negative values of Felon voting. Many things may cause a change in the outcome of elections. That doesn"t mean they are good. Rebuttal to 1b: In fact, punishment, more often than not, does not end after a prison sentence is over. Parole is a punishment that is given to the majority of felons coming out of prison, which means their punishment is being continued to make sure that they have learned their lesson. Rebuttal to 1c: Pro has provided no solid evidence for this point, just that it "seems to be excessive" to not let these felons vote. But we have these punishments for a reason. Rebuttal to 2a: This point is invalid to this debate, because this debate is about felons, and tampering with crab traps is not a felony, its only major punishment is a fine. A felon is someone who has been convicted to death or one or more years in prison for a crime. Rebuttal to 3: It is not racist that these felon voting laws are not allowing these felons to vote. The laws are the same for all races. If the laws specifically didn"t allow African Americans to vote, then they would be racist. But the fact that minorities can"t vote because of these laws doesn"t prove the laws to be racist, it just proves that these minorities commit more than the average amount of crimes. Rebuttal to 4: This argument about other countries having felon voting as a law is invalid because the fact that other countries have instated these laws doesn"t prove they are good. Pro has provided us with no statistics to show that with these laws, these other countries were benefited, and all he says is that America "would maybe gain more international respect. " First of all, America doesn"t need any more international respect. And second of all, it is not gain respect in the eyes of other countries if we go against our own constitution. I have refuted all of Pro"s points and added two points to this debate.

Title: Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections. Content: I will attempt to construct my arguments in a similar fashion in order to keep the format consistent Contentions: P1: Many felons return to prison within 3 years for the same or a different crime P2: It would not be fair to citizens who have never been convicted of a felony P3: Felons should gain the right to vote, by proving that their judgement is valid Definitions: Recidivism- Measured by criminal acts that resulted in the rearrest, reconviction, or return to prison with or without a new sentence during a three-year period following the prisoner's release. P1: With many felons returning to prison within three years, how are we to be able to have faith in their good judgement? These are obviously not simple crimes, and if so many return to a life of crime as soon as they get out, then why should they have the right to vote? The effectiveness of our criminal justice system is for another debate, but as it is now, its not actually correcting anybody, its simply detaining them. Here is some interesting data: "Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%), and those in prison for possessing, using, or selling illegal weapons (70.2%)." This would allow all of these felons, most of which return to prison within several years for the same crime, to vote in elections. There is more information on Recidivism rates here [1]. P2: Why should citizens who have been convicted of a felon have the same right as those who have never been convicted of one? Certainly they are not of equal value to society when one was thrown in prison for being a danger to society. If these felons are at risk of recidivism, of which many of them are, then I don't quite think their judgement is valid enough to allow them to vote in elections that could effect the rest of society. P3: Perhaps there should be a system in place for convicted felons to earn the right to vote. I feel that this would be a lot better than simply giving them the right to vote once they had served their time. This would ensure that we do not have voters with compromised judgements, and that they cannot vote before proving that they are able to be productive members of society. Otherwise, they may base their vote on a topic of interest, such as the legalization of a certain drug, etc. [1] http://www.bjs.gov...

Title: Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections. Content: I accept your challenge and will be arguing that convicted ex-felons should not be able to vote in all US elections. I look forward to debating with you :)

Title: Ex-felons who commited minor crimes or crimes at a early age should be allowed to vote Content: Intro: Voting is a right that everyone should have, voting allows people to express how they feel and different opinions and this is a belief that is an important American value to have. Since ex-felons are citizens and since they have served their time and went through all the requirements to get out of their punishment they have every right to vote. Also not allowing criminals to vote will not change the way they act or help them become productive citizens so there is no benefit from it anyway. 1.Broadness of a felon/some committed crimes as kids A felon could be a man who raped and murdered someone in cold blood, but also could be a young man who, after crashing his car into another, drove off out of fear. A felony conviction doesn't automatically make someone so bad of a person that they shouldn't be allowed to vote. Also some committed a crime or action as a kid or teenager and since then they have changed or learned from it, so their right to vote should be given back. 2.Taxation without representation "If you are free and required to pay taxes, which funds the salaries of government officials, then you should have the right to vote for those who will receive those salaries. "America was founded on the concept of no taxation without representation. If felons have paid their debt to society and did the time for their crimes, they should be allowed to vote. They shouldn't be required to pay sales tax and income tax without the ability to influence governmental policy through the ballot. 3.Some claim that some ex-felons go back to jail "Justice.gov shows that 50% of felons who could not secure any employment during the time of their supervised release (generally two-to-five years) committed a new crime or violated the terms of their release and were sent back to prison. However, an astonishing 93% of those who were able to secure employment during the entirety of their supervised release were able to successfully reintegrate back into society and not return to prison. "So the clear solution is to help ex-felons returning to the society find jobs and again not all return to jail anyway. 4.Benefits of ex-felons voting "According to Think Progress: 21 out of 45 countries surveyed have NO restrictions on felon voting at all. Only 5 out of 45 countries bar felons from voting after they've served their sentence. These countries are doing quite well with felons being able to voice their opinions in politics. IF we really want to remain status as a free country as a country you can have opportunities in we shouldn"t limit freedom of speech. "Returning the vote to ex-felons promotes re-integration and gives them representation not only in presidential and state elections, but in the evolution of the laws governing the criminal justice system, which most of us can agree is imperfect also the best way to see problems and issues with the criminal justice system is from people who have experienced it themselves. 5.Racial felon disenfranchisement laws/ racist voting "In America the majority of felons tend to be minorities. In fact according to the Department of Justice for every 15,000 felons sentenced to prison 450 were white 1,356 were Hispanic and 3,188 were black. Although well over a century has passed since post-Reconstruction states used these measures to strip African Americans of their most fundamental rights, the impact of felony disenfranchisement on modern communities of color remains both disproportionate and unacceptable. Throughout America, 2.2 million black citizens " or nearly one in 13 African-American adults " are banned from voting because of these laws. This is way more than the amount of white individuals affected by the same laws in the same states, thus creating an imbalance at the ballot box. This creates discrimination against minorities, especially when they have the potential to change the outcome of a race. According to the Georgetown Law Journal: Felon disenfranchisement has tremendous effects on the political landscape - leading researchers report that felon disenfranchisement "may have altered the outcome of as many as seven recent U.S. Senate elections and one presidential election." Conclusion: the main point however is the fact that no harm comes from letting a ex-felon, even a felon vote. I am not arguing for felons but I am just trying to point out something here. Felons/ex-felons are just as ignorant to politics as most Americans so they have the overall similar political knowledge, since both ex-felons and Americans harm voting by overall being ignorant of the voters they are voting for, both should be allowed to vote. Response to what my opponent said: Since most of the felons/ex-felons who commit these crimes as a kid tend to be in poorer/ghetto areas they do not have any knowledge whatsoever over the privileges lost when doing something, they do not realize they will lose the right to vote.

Title: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. Content: So since I only have five minutes to make an argument I will make this quick. Felons sholuld not have the right to vote because they have broken the laws therefore surrendering their rights. If they wanted the right to vote they should have never broken the law. My opponet did not make an argument therefore I won.

Title: R: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: Clarification/Context So as to be as clear as possible. I am arguing that so called Felons should retain the right to vote in spite of being felons. Below is some basic information on the current circumstance in regard to the debate topic. “The idea of taking away a criminal's right to vote has been around since ancient Greece and Rome. A condition called "civil death" in Europe involved the forfeiture of property, the loss of the right to appear in court, and a prohibition on entering into contracts, as well as the loss of voting rights. Civil death was brought to America by English colonists, but most aspects of it were eventually abolished, leaving only felon disenfranchisement intact in some parts of modern America.”(1)“5.3 million Americans (1 in 40 adults) were unable to vote due to a felony conviction in the 2008 elections. This included 1.4 million African-American men, more than 676,000 women, and 2.1 million ex-offenders who have completed their sentences. “(1) “State approaches to felon disenfranchisement vary tremendously. In Maine and Vermont, felons never lose their right to vote, even while they are incarcerated. In Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia, felons and ex-felons permanently lose their right to vote, without a pardon from the governor. Virginia and Florida have supplementary programs which facilitate gubernatorial pardons. The remaining 45 states have 45 different approaches to the issue. In 38 states and the District of Columbia, most ex-felons automatically gain the right to vote upon the completion of their sentence. In some states, ex-felons must wait for a certain period of time after the completion of their sentence before rights can be restored. In some states, an ex-felon must apply to have voting rights restored.”(1) Burden of proofAs I am proposing the change to the status quo, I accept the burden of proof. I must affirm the resolution. Debate Format4 rounds/5,000 characters/72 hrs. 1st round: acceptance 2nd and 3rd rounds: Arguments and rebuttals 4th round: Final rebuttal and closing statements (No new arguments) Sourceshttp://www.ncsl.org... Comment if interested.

Title: Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections. Content: My main points were: P1: Many felons return to prison within 3 years for the same or a different crime P2: It would not be fair to citizens who have never been convicted of a felony P3: Felons should gain the right to vote, by proving that their judgement is valid Statistically speaking, many ex-felons return to prison after they have been convicted of a felony. If many of them return to prison, even after they have been let off on parole, it can be said that these people have invalid judgements and are not capable of making informed and educated decisions. Therefore they indirectly effect citizens who are able to weigh the consequences of their decisions, and should not be afforded this right unless they can prove that their judgement is valid. Once a person commits a felony, it should not be assumed that he/she is of a stable mental state when he/she is released from prison, and as such the right to vote is no longer a right but a privilege. I have proven that revoking this right does not constitute an "excessive sanction" and does not in any way violate the constitution.

Title: Resolved: in a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote Content: My sincere condolences are extended to opponent, as surely only a crisis of major propositions would have prevented him from typing the word "Continued" some time within the three day response period. Proponents for felons retaining the right to vote often suppose that withholding the right must be either punishment or retribution. Such is not the case. We imprison serial killers not only on grounds of punishment or retribution, we imprison them to prevent them from committing similar bad acts. Depriving a felon of the right to vote is unlikely to be a significant punishment to discourage criminal behavior. Even as retribution it would be trivial. However, removing the right to vote prohibits the felon from committing the bad act of voting for a candidate because the candidate is likely to weaken the justice system. As an example, consider the famous Willie Horton case http://forerunner.com... that came up during the 1988 presidential campaign. Michael Dukakis opposed George H.W.Bush. Willie Horton was a convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. However, as governor of Massachusetts Dukakis permitted Horton to be let out of prison on a furlough program that Dukakis thought would aid rehabilitation. During a furlough, Horton murdered another person. As governor, Dukakis commuted so many sentences for first-degree murder that the time actually served for life without parole was 19 years. (op. cit.) I have no doubt that Governor Dukakis was sincere in his belief that leniency leads to rehabilitation. However, felons will certainly want leniency regardless of whether rehabilitation occurs or not. The recidivism rate proves that most often it does not occur. We may therefore suppose that allowing felons to vote would sway close elections to the side of leniency, particularly when issues other than the justice system dominate the campaign. Felons should not have the right to vote in the interests of pursuing a life of crime. Suppose that there are no criminal justice issues evident in a campaign. We know that many convicted felons are characteristically averse to working for a living. They are therefore likely to vote for whichever candidate promises the largest amount of unqualified government benefits. This is also contrary to the interests of ordinary voters, who are likely to be willing to help the poor, but unlikely to want to support criminals. For these reasons, the resolution should be rejected.

Title: prisoners and should they be able to vote Content: prisoners should not be able to vote. They lost there rights to vote when there done something wrong and they went to prison but I know they have done there time in prison but yeh

Title: You Choose the Topic! Content: 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.

Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: Since they have been in prison they have basically admitted that they are not capable of making rational decisions. We should not give them the opportunity to pick who will be the president or choose other prominent officials that will make decisions for everybody else. Yes all men are "created" equal, but they do not always end up like everybody else. Some choose to live an honest life and others don't. I would say that breaking the law is certainly not caring about it. If you cared about the rules and the law you would not break them in the first place. Felons don't understand the importance of the laws or else they would follow them. Yes all people have the right to vote but some need to understand that if you break the law things are going to be taken away from you. By felons being able to vote all that would do would be to create problems. Those opposed to this issue could backlash and maybe they will stop voting. Felons would only vote for who will give them what they want, not what is best for the country.

Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: R: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U. S. Clarification/Context So as to be as clear as possible. I am arguing that so called Felons should retain the right to vote in spite of being felons. Below is some basic information on the current circumstance in regard to the debate topic. “The idea of taking away a criminal's right to vote has been around since ancient Greece and Rome. A condition called "civil death" in Europe involved the forfeiture of property, the loss of the right to appear in court, and a prohibition on entering into contracts, as well as the loss of voting rights. Civil death was brought to America by English colonists, but most aspects of it were eventually abolished, leaving only felon disenfranchisement intact in some parts of modern America. ”(1)“5.3 million Americans (1 in 40 adults) were unable to vote due to a felony conviction in the 2008 elections. This included 1.4 million African-American men, more than 676,000 women, and 2.1 million ex-offenders who have completed their sentences. “(1) “State approaches to felon disenfranchisement vary tremendously. In Maine and Vermont, felons never lose their right to vote, even while they are incarcerated. In Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia, felons and ex-felons permanently lose their right to vote, without a pardon from the governor. Virginia and Florida have supplementary programs which facilitate gubernatorial pardons. The remaining 45 states have 45 different approaches to the issue. In 38 states and the District of Columbia, most ex-felons automatically gain the right to vote upon the completion of their sentence. In some states, ex-felons must wait for a certain period of time after the completion of their sentence before rights can be restored. In some states, an ex-felon must apply to have voting rights restored. ”(1) Burden of proofAs I am proposing the change to the status quo, I accept the burden of proof. I must affirm the resolution. Debate Format4 rounds/6,000 characters/72 hrs.

Title: Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections. Content: Now into the summary and impact round! No new arguments and refutes as this is the last round :) thanks To summarize, my points were P1: Restricting felons from voting violates the Constitution. P2: Felon disenfranchisement encourages racial discrimination. P3: Ex-felons deserve the right to vote. Ex-felons cannot be barred from voting on legal premises since disenfranchisement for life violates the Constitution. It violates the excessive sanctions part of the 8th amendment as well as the 15th amendment. America needs to defend everyone's voting rights, but how can we fulfill this if ex-felons are still not allowed to vote? Everyone is supposed to be part of the American Dream. We all should have an equal opportunity at life, but ex-felon disenfranchisement violates this. Voting still is a big part of society. Ex-felons are affected by the results of elections. They should be able to have a say in who leads their country. Once a felon starts fulfilling his/her civic duties, they should have their full rights returned to them. On top of all moral values, ex-felons who actually have a say in their government are less prone to committing crime again. Since this reduces crime rates, it only further proves that ex-felons SHOULD be able to vote. What this debate really comes down to is weighing my opponent's main points (bad judgement and potential dangers of felons recommitting crimes) against the simple reality that ex-felons are people who abide by the law and deserve their full rights. If a person has bad judgement, does that mean he can be denied his Constitutional rights? The fact remains that ex-felon disenfranchisement is illegal. Furthermore, the past is the past; we cannot continue to punish ex-felons for mistakes they made long ago. They are already on lower ground than normal citizens. Also, if an ex-felon has bad judgement, he would not have gotten out of parole or probation -- felons have to be reviewed to get fully free. The potential dangers of felons recommitting crimes are not relevant because studies show that ex-felons who can vote are way less likely to commit crime. This is what sets me over my opponent. He has failed to prove the morality and legality behind disenfranchisement, but I've proven the moral and legal reasons behind allowing ex-felons to vote. I suggest voters cast their ballot for my side because I've proven convicted felons released from prison/parole/probation should be able to vote for both legal and moral reasons. I've refuted all of my opponent's refutations/contentions effectively (his refutations were quite repetitive and can be refuted by my rebuttals in previous rounds) and provided more detailed evidence. Overall, I have presented a stronger case. Thank you. Also, I'd like to say thank you to my opponent for an excellent, engaging debate. Your arguments were very well thought out. It was fun debating with you :)

Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: Rebuttals: Con states that “First off, Felons already have voting rights when they get out of prison.” I noted this in round one. There are some cases where voting rights are restored after the sentence is served, but not always. This is also off-point as I am arguing that felons should not have to regain their right, I am asserting they should retain/ never have lost the right to vote. Contention 1; Dishonesty and Poor Character. Con states "We don't let children vote, for instance, or noncitizens, or the mentally incompetent. Why? Because we don't trust them and their judgment... “ We don’t let children vote, it’s true. I disagree that it is due to us not trusting their judgement. Rather it is their inability to reason. This is due to the Pre-frontal cortex of the brain not being fully developed. (1)(2) Non-citizens don’t vote it is true, not because we don’t trust them, but rather because voting is part of the social contract of which non-citizens are not a part of. Con than asks “do criminals belong in that category?” I am assuming the category being children, noncitizens, or mentally incompetent. Clearly felons should not. Felons are not children, are citizens, and if mentally incompetent would have made the insanity plea. Thus Felons do not fit in this category. We see contention one is negated. Contention 2; Congressional Authority over Voting Much of this contention merely states the status quo, not support for it. I have shown in my argument why the status ought to be changed. Merely stating the status quo does not negate or support Con’s Argument. Con argues that “the fundamental reason we do not let felons vote is that we have certain minimum, objective standards of responsibility, trustworthiness and loyalty to our laws that must be met before someone can participate in the sacred enterprise of self-government.” This is in contrast to America’s fundamental principles of Government. “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” Con has added a multitude of criteria to vote that is un-necessary. The only legitimate government gets its consent from the governed. If felons can’t vote, they can’t give consent. Thus, making the government that takes away the right to vote illegitimate. We ought not have an illegitimate government. Thus Felons should retain the right to vote. Overview: Con has argued against the resolution essentially as follows…. 1: Felons fit into a category with the mentally underdeveloped, handicapped, or non-citizens and thus should not have voting rights. 2: Felons under the status quo do not have the right to vote and thus should not have the right to vote. 3: To have voting rights you must meet the specific criteria she lists. Number one is entirely untrue and dismissed. Number two is just a statement of the status quo not support for it. Number 3 is arbitrary and thus not strong support to negate. (1) http://www.wisegeek.org... (2) http://hrweb.mit.edu...

Title: Released Felons Should Be Allowed To Vote. Content: Thank you to the person who accepts this debate. I wish you luck and hopefully one of us will be able to convince the other. Felony disenfranchisement or in simpler terms – denying the right of a felon to vote, has been a long practiced throughout many parts of the world. People who agree with this say that the felon in question has broken their 'social contract' with society and therefore should not be allowed to vote. First off we have to consider the people who this law affects. Many people get convicted in high school of minor crimes that still fall under the heading of a felony. An example of this would being stealing street signs. Then many years later that person who by now has presumably learned their lesson and paid their debt to society wants to take part in one of the greatest and most important acts they will ever do - voting. But because of their past crimes they will be denied their right to do so. What if someone is convicted for a crime like drug possession, but they and many other people think that it shouldn't be a crime. Because of laws that prohibit them from voting you are denying perhaps their only way to disagree with the system that got them in trouble in the first place. It is because of examples like the ones above that Felony disenfranchisement falls under the category of 'cruel and unusual punishment'. We have prison sentences and fines handed out by the courts for a reason, which is to pay your debt to society. To add onto this by denying people the right to vote, by saying because of something that you did in your past and now regret you will never be allowed to vote again is heinous.

Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: In this round, I will state my arguments. First off, Felons already have voting rights when they get out of prison. For example, in California [1] California – Voting rights are restored after parole is completed and no longer incarcerated. Anyways, I will argue why Felons shouldn't have the right to vote. Contention 1; Dishonesty and Poor Character. [2] "We don't let children vote, for instance, or noncitizens, or the mentally incompetent. Why? Because we don't trust them and their judgment... So the question is, do criminals belong in that category? And I think the answer is clearly yes. People who commit serious crimes have shown that they are not trustworthy." People who are felons have committed crimes and have taken other rights of people. Such as committing murder and taking away an innocent life. As my opponent has stated above "“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” When a felon takes can take a life, and the happiness of that person, and the happiness of that family. What gives that felon to have rights that every American bestows? "Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. When someone commits a felon, they should have some rights taken away. Voting privileges should be taken away as well. [3] " Children, non-citizens and the mentally incompetent can't vote because of standards involving trustworthiness and responsibility. The same requirements should apply to felons" Contention 2; [2] Congressional Authority over Voting "Most prominently, the 14th Amendment makes felon voting a state prerogative, not a federal one..." According to section 2 of the 14th Amendment, it's okay to take away a felons right to vote [4] "Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment grants states the authority to deny voting rights to anyone with a criminal conviction, and it is up to the states to determine their own restoration process if they choose to enact one." The 1st Amendment doesn't state "Every U.S citizen no matter what the background, has the right to vote." The 1st Amendment doesn't give that right to everybody, instead they give the states the choice. This is to show, Felons don't have the right to vote, it's not a right. By the 14th Amendment, Felons don't have the right to vote depending on the States choice. This Amendment clearly shows, it's not taking away a right. What should happen. [5] " Your July 16 editorial “Disenfranchised Felons” asserts that the only reason not to let felons vote is “to stigmatize them or to continue punishing them.” To the contrary, the fundamental reason we do not let felons vote is that we have certain minimum, objective standards of responsibility, trustworthiness and loyalty to our laws that must be met before someone can participate in the sacred enterprise of self-government. So we don’t let children vote or the mentally incompetent or noncitizens — or those who have committed serious crimes against other people. The right to vote can be restored to felons, but it should be done carefully and case by case, to ensure that the person has really turned over a new leaf. To put it another way: If you are not willing to follow the law, you cannot demand the right to elect those who make the law." Felons should be able to vote once they have turned over a new leaf and have shown over a span of time that they are capable to vote in a trustworthy matter. They need to have consequences, if they don't, what have they learned? Sources: [1] https://exoffenders.net... [2] http://felonvoting.procon.org... [3] http://www.newsmax.com... [4] https://www.aclu.org...

Title: Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections. Content: I'll begin by responding to refutals P1: Many felons return to prison within 3 years of the same or another crime. You asked "Does it make sense to take away the rights of a citizen just because of something they MIGHT do?". To that question, I respond by saying that this right would be taken away because of something an ex-felon has done in the past and is LIKELY to do again (according to statistics, I know that not every ex-felon is going to be convicted again, but a majority are). I believe that the punishment of disenfranchisement lasts for life simply because its meant to prevent citizens from committing a felony, and thus give them an incentive not to become a felon. P2: It would not be fair to citizens who have never been convicted of a felony. I think that it is perfectly justified to implement bigger consequences for those who have broken the law in the past, in an attempt to prevent them from doing so again. However, if a criminal is determined to start a new life as a law abiding citizen (who would not be shoplifting or anything of the sort anyways), then who is to say that they are not able to find work? Sure, it may be more difficult, but not impossible, and that is just one of the social consequences of breaking the law the first time. If you wanted to become the next CEO of a major corporation, you probably should not have committed a felony. So obviously ex-felons are barred from high ranking positions, and that's because of society, but there are plenty of jobs out there if one is looking for them and is determined to work hard. P3: Felons should gain the right to vote by proving that their judgement is valid. The life long consequences of breaking the law do not mean that a felon cannot become an ex-felon, that's absurd. Once a felon is released from prison, he/she can pursue anything he/she wants, and the inability to vote will not directly effect that freedom (once again, perhaps indirectly). Clearly somebody who has committed a felony has at one time had an invalid judgement, and so, should we really be required to allow them to vote if they are still in a similar state of mind? Would we want a mentally ill person voting? Not an irrelevant comparison, as both may have distorted views of what is right and wrong. Thus the implementation of some sort of psychological evaluation would be enough to confirm a certain level of mental stability and reasoning that is acceptable. Clearly somebody with a reasoning that its ok to kill or steal should not be allowed to vote in elections that influence all of us as a whole. Their judgements and by extension opinions are invalid. Now on to refuting your points P1: Restricting felons from voting violates the Constitution. A) I meant that if a US citizen commits a felony, it is justifiable to revoke their right to vote for life (I'll explain why later) B) Although revoking the right to vote lasts forever, I do not believe it to be an excessive sanction either. Once again, individually, the right to vote does not effect normal life in society, and you can function perfectly fine without it. C) Here I was saying that an ex-felon's right to vote was revoked simply because they broke the law, not because of the previous condition of servitude itself. The mere fact that they were in prison does not effect the right to vote, its the felony that was committed. P2: Felon disenfranchisement encourages racial discrimination. A) Your statement that minorities " occupy the majority of prison cells" is correct. However, even if they could vote, the imbalance would still very much be there. Also, just because many prisoners are minorities does not make it acceptable to give them the right to vote, based merely on that fact. They did something wrong, and the color of their skin has nothing to do with that (although it may be linked to socio-economic background). This is implemented across the board, so even though many ex-felons are minorities, white ex-felons do not have the ability to vote either, and so the law does not discriminate against race. B) You said "Overwhelmingly, the people who commit crimes are from the lower income class, and these are also the people who tend to vote for Democrats". While this may be true, we cannot assume that they would vote for any one candidate, and so revoking an ex-felons ability to vote cannot be seen as an attempt to suppress Democratic voters. That would be openly admitting that most ex-felons are Democrats due to the fact that they are minorities. C) You asked "Then how do you explain the countries that do not disenfranchise ex-felons?" Well I have found no data that would suggest that crime rates and disenfranchisement have any correlation at all. If I had to guess, I would say these countries have a lower crime rate because of their social safety nets and superior public education systems, but I honestly do not know. D) I did not suggest that ex-felons replace the right to vote, I was simply implying that there are other ways to express an opinion other than voting. According to your argument, ex-felons resort to breaking the law if their opinions are not heard, but expressing your opinion can be done through many other ways, and not just through voting. P3: Felons deserve a right to vote. A) How are we supposed to gauge whether or not an ex-felon is capable of using this right responsibly? He/she may vote for a candidate with many flaws because he/she does not have the judgement necessary to see or even weigh these things against possible benefits that the candidate may provide to him/her specifically. B) By voting for the next president, ex-felons indirectly decide which policies and bills are implemented or signed into law. Although they do provide a larger group that is voting, are every single one of their opinions valid enough to be able to effect us all? This is why some kind of evaluation should first be done to ensure that ex-felons are able to reason, and subsequently weigh pro's and con's of candidates in elections. Those were some very strong arguments you put up, I look forward to the final round :)

Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. A: Clarification/Context So as to be as clear as possible. I am arguing that so called Felons should retain the right to vote in spite of being felons. Below is some basic information on the current circumstance in regard to the debate topic. “The idea of taking away a criminal's right to vote has been around since ancient Greece and Rome. A condition called "civil death" in Europe involved the forfeiture of property, the loss of the right to appear in court, and a prohibition on entering into contracts, as well as the loss of voting rights. Civil death was brought to America by English colonists, but most aspects of it were eventually abolished, leaving only felon disenfranchisement intact in some parts of modern America.”(1) “5.3 million Americans (1 in 40 adults) were unable to vote due to a felony conviction in the 2008 elections. This included 1.4 million African-American men, more than 676,000 women, and 2.1 million ex-offenders who have completed their sentences. “(1) “State approaches to felon disenfranchisement vary tremendously. In Maine and Vermont, felons never lose their right to vote, even while they are incarcerated. In Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia, felons and ex-felons permanently lose their right to vote, without a pardon from the governor. Virginia and Florida have supplementary programs which facilitate gubernatorial pardons. The remaining 45 states have 45 different approaches to the issue. In 38 states and the District of Columbia, most ex-felons automatically gain the right to vote upon the completion of their sentence. In some states, ex-felons must wait for a certain period of time after the completion of their sentence before rights can be restored. In some states, an ex-felon must apply to have voting rights restored.”(1) B: Burden of proof As I am proposing the change to the status quo, I accept the burden of proof. I must affirm the resolution. C: Debate Format 4 rounds/6,000 characters/72 hrs. 1st round: acceptance 2nd and 3rd rounds: Arguments and rebuttals 4th round: Final rebuttal and closing statements (No new arguments) (1) http://www.ncsl.org...

Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. A: Clarification/Context So as to be as clear as possible. I am arguing that so called Felons should retain the right to vote in spite of being felons. Below is some basic information on the current circumstance in regard to the debate topic. “The idea of taking away a criminal's right to vote has been around since ancient Greece and Rome. A condition called "civil death" in Europe involved the forfeiture of property, the loss of the right to appear in court, and a prohibition on entering into contracts, as well as the loss of voting rights. Civil death was brought to America by English colonists, but most aspects of it were eventually abolished, leaving only felon disenfranchisement intact in some parts of modern America.”(1) “5.3 million Americans (1 in 40 adults) were unable to vote due to a felony conviction in the 2008 elections. This included 1.4 million African-American men, more than 676,000 women, and 2.1 million ex-offenders who have completed their sentences. “(1) “State approaches to felon disenfranchisement vary tremendously. In Maine and Vermont, felons never lose their right to vote, even while they are incarcerated. In Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia, felons and ex-felons permanently lose their right to vote, without a pardon from the governor. Virginia and Florida have supplementary programs which facilitate gubernatorial pardons. The remaining 45 states have 45 different approaches to the issue. In 38 states and the District of Columbia, most ex-felons automatically gain the right to vote upon the completion of their sentence. In some states, ex-felons must wait for a certain period of time after the completion of their sentence before rights can be restored. In some states, an ex-felon must apply to have voting rights restored.”(1) B: Burden of proof As I am proposing the change to the status quo, I accept the burden of proof. I must affirm the resolution. C: Debate Format 4 rounds/6,000 characters/72 hrs. 1st round: acceptance 2nd and 3rd rounds: Arguments and rebuttals 4th round: Final rebuttal and closing statements (No new arguments) (1)http://www.ncsl.org...

Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: This debate only focuses on felons. I wold hardly consider a speeding ticket to be a felony charge. I am asserting that only those who have served time in prison should not have the right to vote because they do not care enough about the laws to follow them. Why should we let them vote when they have done something terribly wrong?

Title: Prisoners should be given the right to vote Content: Sweeeeet. So firstly today we are arguing the motion: Should prisoners be able to vote? On my side of this, I am arguing against all prisoners voting whilst they are in jail. I have several main arguments why this should not be the case and they should be withdrawn of all and any voting rights. 1. These prisoners are no longer deemed as functioning members of society so therefore do not deserve the right to vote. As prisoners, they are in prison for a reason. Because they are in prison this means several things: firstly, that they committed a crime so bad that the judicial system has felt the need to separate them from the rest of society. Now, this crime may be "non violent" like tax fraud or even extends to violent crimes such as aggravated assault or even murder. Regardless of this, a judge and jury has deemed them unfit to be wandering around the community and have used jail as a means of discipline, separation and rehabilitation. Because of this, there is a clear distinction between the normal, fully participating citizens that give back to society and people who sit in jail. The people who are in jail do not give back to our society in any way. Instead, they have taken away from society in general and ended up in jail. Because of this reason, they should not have the right to vote because they are not functioning citizens meaning they should not be able to have a say on what happens outside of prison let alone who the next president or political party in power should be. They don't live like normal citizens so should not get to have a say on how the government should be run. Secondly, being in prison means they do not get the same rights as the "normal" citizen I have referenced would. We can all acknowledge that in prison, prisoners do not have all of their rights preserved. This because I believe that there are two different types of rights when it comes to situations like these. Firstly, the basic rights you need to exist and secondly your extra rights. Because prisoners are in prison they only have their basic rights which allow them to continue living, perhaps until they get out of jail relative to the offense they have committed. These include the right to food and a roof over your head and the right to clothes and a bathroom etc etc. The other set of rights are the rights a prisoner does not have because they are incarcerated and these are also quite obvious and reasonable. These include the freedom of choice, privacy, the right to travel and employment. Any normal citizen would have these rights but since they are prisoners, they have this type of "extra" right taken away from them. I believe that the right to vote comes under these rights and therefore it is unnecessary to give them this extra right while they are in jail. Because of this, we are perfectly justified to withdraw their right to vote from them. 2. This would give rise to corruption. With a whole new group of people able to vote, this would incentivise parties or presidential candidates to make policies that appeal to prisoners. This would mean that the prisoners, their families, friends or anyone tied to the criminal lifestyle would vote for the parties or candidates that do this. Obviously, this creates an unhealthy cycle of corruption and the result of this are normal people who do not have any criminal convictions or any involvement in the criminal world getting the shorter end of the stick. Therefore, we should not give these criminals the right to vote. 3. Prisoners are usually uneducated and would not make a logical decision anyway. With the exception of let's say, prisoners that have committed tax fraud (which is a small fraction) these prisoners typically start out with rocky beginnings. Resorting to crime from earlier on, they have a minimal education or if they do, they don't tend to care about the political system that much. They would vote for the best looking candidate or even the one that is most appealing so this is hardly an educated vote. Therefore this is the final reason why we should not give prisoners the right to vote.

Title: You Choose the Topic! Content: 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.

Title: Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. Content: I negate that felons should retain the right to vote. In my oppenents first statement of round 4 he said "I value democracy. This value is preferable because it is the most relevant on a resolutional scale. Any given society is better off under a full democracy." A democracy is a government where the people of a society choose their own leaders, and laws. So if this sociaty says they don't want felons to vote shouldn't feons not vote. This is part of democracy. Majority rules. To be exact 81.7% of Americans believe that felons should lose their right to vote. My oppenent also spoke of discrimination in that blacks lose their right to vote more than other races. This is not because our court systems are racist. Our court sytems are fair and just. If any became racist they would immediatly be taken out. My oppenents third contention in round 4 was about felons being in jail and not deserving more punishment. Being sent to prizon and disenfranchised come together. You made a bad choice and got sent to prizon and disenfranchised for it. American citizens are no longer going to allow you to choose who you want to lead them, when you have just got against them all together. Felons are bad people who do not deserve to vote. They are rapists and theives. Murderers and drug smugglers. We, as the american public, do not need the help of these people in voting for our President or any other election.

Title: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. Content: Do the names Carrie Lenz or Cindy Brown ring a bell? Probably not. They were 26 years old when Tim McVeigh stopped them from ever voting again by bombing the Oklahoma City Federal building. Carrie and Cindy were in good company. There were 166 others in that one felony crime. The Bureau of Justice lists over 847,000 homicides since 1960. If all those people had lived out their normal lives, that would affect over 9 million presidential votes and over 18 million municipal votes. My value is justice. Justice, according to the Encarta Dictionary, is fairness or reasonableness, especially in the way people are treated or decisions are made. There is nothing fair that felons like these are allowed to vote while many victims cannot. My criterion is upholding the equal treatment of citizens. Equality in a democratic society is never reached when you subtract victim voices while adding felon voices. The ONLY way to achieve equal treatment of citizens is to negate the resolution that in a democratic society, felons ought to retain their right to vote. A felon, according to Black's Law Dictionary, is someone who has been convicted of a serious crime. They may be currently incarcerated or released. ---------- Contention 1 Felons have chosen not to vote. Committing a felony requires premeditation and intent. The consequences of felony convictions are widely known to include no firearms, no elected offices, no jury duty and no voting. My opponent agreed in cross examination that a vote could not be changed once cast - so, in order to treat a felon like other members of society - the felon's decision not to vote should be honored by society.

Title: in a democratic society, felons should retain the right to vote Content: Do the names Carrie Lenz or Cindy Brown ring a bell? Probably not. They were 26 years old when Tim McVeigh stopped them from ever voting again by bombing the Oklahoma City Federal building. Carrie and Cindy were in good company. There were 166 others in that one felony crime. The Bureau of Justice lists over 847,000 homicides since 1960. If all those people had lived out their normal lives, that would affect over 9 million presidential votes and over 18 million municipal votes. My value is justice. Justice, according to the Encarta Dictionary, is fairness or reasonableness, especially in the way people are treated or decisions are made. There is nothing fair that felons like these are allowed to vote while many victims cannot. My criterion is upholding the equal treatment of citizens. Equality in a democratic society is never reached when you subtract victim voices while adding felon voices. The ONLY way to achieve equal treatment of citizens is to negate the resolution that in a democratic society, felons ought to retain their right to vote. A felon, according to Black's Law Dictionary, is someone who has been convicted of a serious crime. They may be currently incarcerated or released. ---------- Contention 1 Felons have chosen not to vote. Committing a felony requires premeditation and intent. The consequences of felony convictions are widely known to include no firearms, no elected offices, no jury duty and no voting. My opponent agreed in cross examination that a vote could not be changed once cast - so, in order to treat a felon like other members of society - the felon's decision not to vote should be honored by society.

Title: Felons Ought to Retain the Right to Vote in a Democratic Society Content: First off, i would like to point out that my competitor used the U.S. as an example, and this resolution is not specific to any one democracy, nor is the ban of double jeopardy an inherent trait of democracy. I also would like to add that by losing the right to vote while in prison, felons are not "retaining" that right, because it has been lost for a period of time, therefore by arguing that felons should only have the right to vote after their process in the penitentiary system is finished, my competitor is validiting my side of the argument.

Title: In a democratic society, a felon ought to retain the right to vote. Content: Not allowing felons to vote is not an infringement on equality. Anyone can commit a crime and become a felon. Everyone is born with the assumption that when they turn 18 they will be allowed to vote. The standards and the expectations are the same for all citizens. Voting is not the only important way to function as a part of a democracy. The revoking of voting serves as an occasional reminder of mistakes.

Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: Felons have demonstrated bad behavior in choosing to commit the crime they did. So I would think that they are then unfit to make the most important decision than can make, which is to pick the person who will run our country. If we give felons the right to vote, then we are basically saying that there is no difference between them and law abiding citizens. That just does not seem right to me. Yes the government needs to protect people, but not for their voting rights. If they did the crime they need to know that there will be consequences and not being able to vote anymore should be one of them. They should not have the privilege to pick who makes the laws if you are not going to follow them yourself. If felons cared about what the government did then they would not be going out breaking the law that the government has set into place. Yes people are born with equal rights, but when someone chooses to break the laws that have been set in place, and then they have given up the chance to be treated equally with everybody else.

Title: Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. Content: Do the names Carrie Lenz or Cindy Brown ring a bell? Probably not. They were 26 years old when Tim McVeigh stopped them from ever voting again by bombing the Oklahoma City Federal building. Carrie and Cindy were in good company. There were 166 others in that one felony crime. The Bureau of Justice lists over 847,000 homicides since 1960. If all those people had lived out their normal lives, that would affect over 9 million presidential votes and over 18 million municipal votes. If you include those brain damaged by a felon, that number would be much, much higher. (Pause.) My value is justice. Justice, according to the Encarta Dictionary, is fairness or reasonableness, especially in the way people are treated or decisions are made. There is nothing fair that felons like these are allowed to vote while many victims cannot. My criterion is upholding the equal treatment of citizens. Equality in a democratic society is never reached when you subtract victim voices while adding felon voices. The ONLY way to achieve equal treatment of citizens is to negate the resolution that in a democratic society, felons ought to retain their right to vote. A felon, according to Black's Law Dictionary, is someone who has been convicted of a serious crime. They may be currently incarcerated or released. ---------- Contention 1 Felons have chosen not to vote. Committing a felony requires premeditation and intent. The consequences of felony convictions are widely known to include no firearms, no elected offices, no jury duty and no voting. My opponent agreed in cross examination that a vote could not be changed once cast - so, in order to treat a felon like other members of society - the felon's decision not to vote should be honored by society. Contention 2 Felons are not silenced by not voting. The affirmative wants you to believe if a felon cannot vote, he cannot participate in the political process, but Felons CAN actively campaign for issues or candidates if they so desire. Think of Carrie and Cindy or the thousands of brain injured victims of felony crimes and contrast their loss of rights to that of the felons. Then ask yourself if that is equal or just. Contention 3 Permanently keeping felon's from voting serves equality and justice. According to FBI Homicide Reports from 76 to 2005, over 90 percent of homicide victims were old enough to vote, yet were silenced by a felon. Over 81 percent of homicides had multiple victims, meaning that one felon silenced more than one voter. According to the National Child Abuse Center, felons injured over 900,000 children in 2003 alone. Over 700,000, or 80% of abused children are left with a psychiatric disorder by age 21. These disorders, including severe brain injuries, can disqualify them from voting, too. Face it, felons are savagely stealing votes from their victims while fleecing the public for voting rights in the name of democracy. Are you going to find this FAIR? To recap, felons chose not to vote, they are not silenced from politics, and not allowing them to vote serves equality and justice. Therefore, I negate the resolution. Now, let's look at my opponents case and see why it doesn't hold up.

Title: In a democratic society felons ought to retain teh right to vote. Content: I accept my opponent's value of Democracy. A key note of democracy is majority rule. Large groups get more representation and therefore have more power. Felons are not a large group in the United States and therefore should be subject to the will of the non-felons. Opponent's VC-Maximizing rights This better fits the con side. Felons represent 1.6% of the population. By not voting the 98.4% of the non-felon population of the United States has more rights and there for the maximization of rights occurs. 98.4% vs. 1.6% who should get the rights. My VC is rationality. If you stop, sit down, and think about what a felon is you will realize why they should not vote. Over half of felons are drug abusers. 49% of people in prison are there for a violent offence. They are generally less educated. These people are rapists, child molesters, drug lords, thieves, and murders. Do we really want these people to have a say about what goes on in this country. I will first go over my opponents arguments then precede to my own. C1. My opponent said, "If we allow this minority group (felons) to be disenfranchised, what is to stop us from doing it to others?" This is a simple question; the Constitution. Amendment XIV specifically says states have the right to stop criminals from voting. The other Amendments also make it impossible for other minority groups to be disenfranchised. Disenfranchisement is not an issue. C2. The felons don't have a right to vote in states that don't allow it, and in order for any other rights to be violated; the rights of others besides felons would have to be violated as well. In America we have constitutional safeguards against this. Everyone is guaranteed basic rights in the United States. A.Voting does not help felons re-enter society. 67.5% of all felons are sent back to prison within three years of their imprisonment (US Bureau of Justice Statistics). This rate is very consistent across all 50 states. There is no difference between states that let felons vote and states that don't. Voting has no impact on recidivism. B.States have the right to restrict voters based on their criminal records (amendment XIV, section II) Again they made the choice, they knew the consequences, and now they have their voting rights rebuked. It's part of their sentence. C3. If you go back to my criterion by stopping felons from voting we are not crippling it we are strengthening it. There are 5.3 million felons that cannot vote. This is 5.3 million uneducated, drug addicted, parasites on society that we don't have to worry about screwing this country up. In order to have a strong democracy you need educated, people that are going to make the best choice for their country. Felons don't meet this requirement. These are my random arguments against that don't rebuttal my opponent's contentions 1-Harm Principal/social contract It is acceptable to restrict ones liberty when they have infringed on the rights of others. Being a citizen of the United States binds you to this social contract. If you break the laws you must suffer the consequences. Losing voting rights is one of these consequences. 2-Maintain Order Because of their actions we know what criminals support. The question is do we want these morals reflected in our laws? By giving felons representation we are essentially giving them the power to make laws. This would result in a mess. What kind of laws are pedophiles going to try and push? What do you think drug addicts will want? This also can result with problems of political corruption. For these reasons I negate

Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: In response to me asking how taking a felon’s right to vote protects other’s freedom con responds “Because voting is a civic duty necessary for a healthy society and criminals are anti-social with little care for civility.” Voting is a civic duty. Some criminals may have little care for civility, though to assume that for all is foolish. Likewise, a so called “felon” who has been in prison for 20 years may have an entirely different world view then when the crime was committed. Either way, as mentioned previously, felons would make up about 2% of the vote, and that is only if they all voted. Clearly there would be no harm done in allowing “felons” to retain the freedom to vote. "I may not agree with what you have to say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it" I maintain that this quote supports the principle behind this debate. Despite my opponent foolishly declaring that “criminals are anti-social with little care for civility” they are still part of society however removed they appear. They are still governed by the system. Again as the Declaration of Independence states “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” Felons, without the right to vote cannot give consent to be governed and are therefore victims of tyranny. This is a violation of the founding principles of this nation. Con then says “You complain that minorities are disproportionately affected. I agree that is a problem but the problem is for another debate. That debate is about the failed war on drugs and the failed war on poverty.” I never made such an argument. Though it appears that con feels that minorities are disproportionately affected. This is a welcome endorsement in favor of the resolution. Conduct: Con has repeatedly ridiculed me in this debate. Saying things like “I can hardly believe anyone would make the argument…” and “Mind your own business.” These Ad Hominem statements have no place in debate. Con has also repeatedly committed the straw man fallacy saying “You also seem to think that Felons in America only lose their right to vote. They lose other rights also.” I never expressed such a view. “Your proposal here is to have a centralized government make a law to force states to act against our own will.” I never made such a proposal. I merely argued that Felons should retain the right to vote. Not once have I mentioned how this ought to be accomplished. Lastly and perhaps the least offensive “You complain that minorities are disproportionately affected.” I never made such a complaint. Though, it is a reasonable argument to make. I leave it to the voters to determine if the Straw man fallacy and Ad Hominem attacks are valid. Closing Statement: As con conceded, minorities are disproportionately affected. Allowing Felons to retain the right to vote poses no harm. As such, taking such a right away is tyrannical and against the principles this nation is founded on. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”( Declaration of Independence) If the right to vote is taken away, our entire system of government cannot live up to its primary purpose. In the interest of our government filling its purpose, or in other words, securing the unalienable rights afforded to all men, it is only reasonable to conclude that Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S.Vote Pro!

Title: In the United States of America we ought to allow prisoners to vote for candidates Content: I thank Con for presenting well thought out arguments! As a brief roadmap, I will be addressing all the points presented by my opponent. "It would be enormously inappropriate to elect officials through people who have broken the system." This is an interesting statement. I must ask the question, if it's enormously inappropriate then why are they ever allowed to vote upon being released from prison? Under that logic, you believe any individual that has been to prison should never vote. Regardless, even if an individual has broken the "system" I am going to argue representation is more important than suppressing their right to vote. The whole idea of democracy is for everyone's voice to be heard, even if we might not trust their judgement. We see many unintelligent voters all the time, however, this does not mean we ought to suppress their vote. This would be reverting back to the times where only certain sections of society could vote...ie. Rich white men who owned land. "We now have to take care of the prisoner. The prisoner is now essentially a burden on society. If prisoners are apparently more capable of making poor decisions, then why should they help decide the fate of America?" First of all, most prisoners are going to be released at some point (very few life in prisons in comparison). Would you suggest they gain no knowledge of politics while in prison? Second, you talk about how they are a burden on society, and to an extent I agree. However, the election of a president can still directly affect their lives. You see, the problem with suppressing a minority (even if that minority happens to be in a prison), is that it can lead them subject to potential harms. Such as an increase in harshness of sentences changes in the death penalty, etc. Not to mention, once they are released that president could also affect their lives for 4 more years. "We don't allow prisoners to vote because we do not trust their judgement." You talk about the examples of children and the "mentally incapable." In the case of children I would agree with you, they chose the age 18 to wait for the kid to be mature, but this is because children are already receiving representation by their guardians -- thus protecting them. Prisoners don't have this luxury. I'm assuming you mean mentally handicapped, in which case, these people literally cannot vote. It's not that we don't trust their judgement; it's that they literally cannot exercise their right to vote. Unintelligent people are allowed to vote so we can receive better representation, same thing with prisoners. "If prisoners want the right to vote so bad, they should not break the law. Prisoners are not a part of the community. That's why they are secluded in jailhouses." What? Do you suggest all rights being stripped? Flawed logic. I was talking about once they are released. I would argue, releasing the prisoners into a society where they can't feel accepted results in the cycle of going back to prison again

Title: Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections. Content: I'll respond to my opponent's defenses of his main points. P1: Many felons return to prison within 3 years of the same or another crime. Does it make sense to take away the rights of a citizen just because of something they MIGHT do? Why not give all of them life sentences while you're at it? Obviously the answer is that they don't deserve a sentence for life. It's too big a punishment, However, isn't this what disenfranchisement is? It's inability to vote -- for LIFE -- just because of something they might or might not do. Is this fair? P2: It would not be fair to citizens who have never been convicted of a felony. Citizens are not on even ground with felons. For example any person with a criminal record (ex-felons fall under this category) will get heavier fines and punishment than a normal person if they were caught shoplifting or exceeded the speed limit. It's also harder for convicts to get a job, because (admit it) no one wants to hire a criminal no matter how changed they are. P3: Felons should gain the right to vote by proving that their judgement is valid. If disenfranchisement is a punishment, then the disenfranchised convict is not an ex-felon. Since we're debating ex-felons, the point about disenfranchisement being a punishment is invalid. My opponent also argues that a felon needs to prove that his/her judgement is valid, however, voting is very subjective and varies from person to person. There is no such thing as a "valid" vote in an election. No politician is going to go up there and say, "We should legalize all types of drugs and drop the smoking age completely." We all know that's completely crazy and the millions of non-felons in the US are going to vote against it. A felon's vote won't cause something really crazy to happen, but their vote will matter when it comes to something like the Affordable Care Act. Now I'll defend my main points. I will be splitting the defenses into A), B), C), etc. since my opponent made multiple refutations to each point. P1: Restricting felons from voting violates the Constitution. A) "If a US citizen commits a felony, isn't that sufficient means to revoke the right to vote?" Actually, I do agree that a convicted felon shouldn't be able to vote from prison, jail, or while on parole or probation. But after the sentence is over, the right should be returned along with the felon's liberty, freedom of speech, etc. However, since we're debating ex-felons here, my opponent's point is invalid. B) "Also, restricting a person from voting does not seem to be a cruel or unusual punishment..." I never said this. I said ex-felon disenfranchisement violated the part of the 8th amendment about excessive sanctions. C) "As for the 15th amendment, I would interpret it to mean that a right should not be refused as a result of a previous condition of servitude, but would the right be refused as a result of the felony committed?" Again, we're debating ex-felons, not convicted felons in general. Perhaps disenfranchisement could be a form of capital punishment, but once the felon is free and served all sentences, he/she can't have the right to vote taken away. P2: Felon disenfranchisement encourages racial discrimination. A) "...African Americans and Hispanics already make up a minority in this country, and so your claim that felon disenfranchisement "creates an imbalance between races" would be true regardless." The problem is that even though these races make up a minority of the country's total population, they occupy the majority of prison cells. If felon disenfranchisement didn't exist, the imbalance would be gone. B) "It's not as if white people vote for one thing and minorities vote for another, so I see it as one million people simply not voting, and do not assume that most of them would have voted for X person due to the color of their skin." It's not just race, it's class and socio-economic status. Race and class are inseparable because minorities make up much of the lower income class, more so than the majority race. Overwhelmingly, the people who commit crimes are from the lower income class, and these are also the people who tend to vote for Democrats. Wealthier people tend to vote for Republicans. Indirectly (please note this statement is not trying to discriminate) Caucasians tend to vote for one candidate while minorities vote for the other. C) "...If they would break the law a second time because their individual opinion was not heard, then they probably should not have the right to vote." Then how do you explain the countries that do not disenfranchise ex-felons? These countries have a way lower crime rate than the US and other ex-felon disenfranchisement countries. Obviously, a felon's right to voice his/her own opinion prevents him/her from breaking the law. D) "I'd like to point out that although ex-felons cannot vote, they are still able to do a lot of other things such as organize a peaceful protest, or petition for change, etc." Remember, the topic states ELECTIONS. Not laws or policies. Felons need to vote on who leads their country for the next 4 years of their lives. Felons can't petition for a new president. How do you suggest to replace the right to vote in elections? P3: Felons deserve a right to vote. A) "I don't believe that they deserve this right until they can prove that they can handle the right responsibly" My opponent seems to think that if felons are allowed to vote, they'll somehow vote to legalize marijuana or something, but again the topic states elections not issues. The most felons will base their vote on is ObamaCare and other extremely controversial issues because no candidate is going to come out and say they want to legalize marijuana. B) "Assuming that felons could influence the outcome of an election, which is very unlikely, wouldn't it be detrimental to the majority?" My opponent has asked me a direct question. My answer is that no, it will not be a detriment, because again I'm arguing for them to vote in elections, not on bills or policies or issues. They make up part of the population and their voices need to be heard. This is actually better for the majority as there are more opinions on the election rather than just one group. Thanks, I look forward to the next round.

Title: Resolved: In a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote. Content: Cheers! I will argue that by default, felons should not have voting rights, except in some cases where they have proven themselves reformed. ------------------------DEFINITIONS-------------------------------- felony= (1) a felony as a crime which involves a potential punishment of one year or longer in prison.[1] (2) in general, a "serious crime" [2] felons= people who commit or have committed felony democratic society= a society based on majority rule; a society where supreme political power lies with the people [3] right = an abstract idea of that which is due to a person or governmental body by law or tradition or nature [4] vote= express one's preference for a candidate or for a measure or resolution; [5] -----------------------MAIN ARGUMENT---------------------------- First, I will mention that voting is NOT an inalienable right. In a solitary state, a human does not possess any quality that entails the right to vote. Rights to life, liberty etc. might be inalienable and follow from human nature, but the right to vote is alienable and is contingent upon society. Remember Locke's Social Contract theory? Society grants the right to vote on the promise of good behavior, and can suspend it when people break that promise. Having established that society can curtail the right to vote, I will show society ought to curtail the felons' right to vote. There are 2 main arguments why felons don't deserve their right to vote: (a) Punishment: A serious crime deserves a serious punishment. Being stripped of voting rights is a fitting punishment because it emphasizes that voting, which is the basis of a democratic society, is a right that is contingent on keeping the Social Contract. Only law-abiding citizens who uphold the Contract have the right to vote; felons, who have expressed contempt of their fellow citizens by breaking the law are deprived of their right to vote. In combination with being incarcerated, it impresses upon the felons the magnitude of their crimes. (b) The integrity of voting: Ask yourself: would you want your policemen, your judges or your politicians to be elected by those who have committed atrocities such as rape? In many cases, these felons' ideal of society differs from the commoner's ideal, and we must accept this. Given their inappropriate ideals and motivations, felons should lack the right to vote. I also realize that some felonies are accidental and/or less severe than others. There are some felons that reform. For such felons, I propose that we set up a Pardons Commission to determine whether the felons are worthy of receiving the right to vote. All felons will have the right to apply to the Commission for a hearing. This Commission might meet every quarter year, and precedent for such a Commission already exists in some USA states. This will allow the one-time criminals to retrieve their right to vote. -------------REBUTTALS IN ADVANCE--------------- 1) Some argue that the felon will undergo double punishment: after serving his jail time and fulfilling his debt to society, the felon will be made to undergo a 2nd punishment because of not being able to vote. However, this argument commits the fallacy of begging the question [6]. It assumes that the jailtime adequately punishes the felon, and that the lack of voting rights is a 2nd punishment. However, the jailtime and the lack of voting rights can be viewed as 2 parts of a single punishment. Just like drunk driving can lead to both jailing you and depriving you of your driver's license. 2) Some argue that the policy of depriviation of felon voting rights originated in the Civil War - blah blah blah. Basically, they argue that because this policy originated to promote racism or whatever, it must be bad. But this is committing the genetic fallacy. [7] 3) Some argue that the policy is racist because there are many colored felons who get stripped of rights. But, this is really a red herring. If it is a fact that more men of color are felons or something; so be it! These charges of resulting racism are irrelevant as to whether felons should have voting rights. SOURCES [1] http://www4.law.cornell.edu... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... [5] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... [6] http://www.nizkor.org... [7] http://www.nizkor.org...

Title: Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. Content: Wow nice job. This was a good closing statement except you copied and pasted the whole thing from http://www.debate.org... I guess i will still make my closing statements to. First i will attack this new case you just copied then i will make my closing arguments. Against your criterion of Democracy- Democracy is a governement run by the people and decided upon by majority rule. So if the majority of people think felons shouldn't vote they should not be able to. I don't think this is a very good criterion considering we will always still have democracy whether felons vote or not. Felons do have a voice in sociaty. They used this voice when they went against sociaty saying "I don't want any part of this sociaty." They wasted there voice there instead of using it to elect who they want. By committing a very serious crime, ex-felons demonstrate disrespect for the law. Therefore, they should have no input in determining who writes these laws. Now for my closing argument. Felons are people who have commited a serious crime of anger and hatred. These felons have shown they do not have good judgement. We should not let them use thier poor judgement at a time when judgement counts the most, during a national election. 81.7% of Americans believe that felons should lose their right to vote. The american punlic has spoken and came to a conclusion of felons not being able to vote. In my first arguments I proved that felons don't deserve equal rights because the have gone against the law, I also showed that felons could get used by candidates, and I gave facts about them not being trustworthy. Then I spoke about how the American public doesn't want felons voting, and they are the democracy. In my next argument i gave facts about felons having drugs and in most cases going back to jail once set free. In my last argument i spoke about felons having bag judgement. With all of this together i believe you should vote toward the negative side. To Da_Baby_Mami_of_debating- Thank you for this fun debate and may the best debater win. I very much so enjoyed this resolution. I would love to debate you on other topics sometime in the future. Thank you and good bye for now.

Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: Rebuttals: Con says “Felons have demonstrated bad behavior in choosing to commit the crime they did. So I would think that they are then unfit to make the most important decision than can make, which is to pick the person who will run our country.” Voting includes a lot more than just the vote cast for President. Unfit or not, our system is built on a concept of the consent of the governed. That includes consent of those being governed from prison. Con says “If we give felons the right to vote, then we are basically saying that there is no difference between them and law abiding citizens. That just does not seem right to me.” right, no difference when it comes to unalienable rights and representation. Being in prison should provide enough of a distinction between felons and non felons… Con says “Yes the government needs to protect people, but not for their voting rights. If they did the crime they need to know that there will be consequences and not being able to vote anymore should be one of them. They should not have the privilege to pick who makes the laws if you are not going to follow them yourself.” The Declaration of Independence reads ““We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” Governments are instituted to protect rights... including the right to vote. Con says “If felons cared about what the government did then they would not be going out breaking the law that the government has set into place.” Breaking the law does not equal not caring about law. What about Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr, etc. They broke laws… They also understood the importance of laws. More than that they understood individual rights should be protected. Rights like voting. Extended Arguments: If the right to vote is taken away, our entire system of government cannot live up to its primary purpose. In the interest of our government filling its purpose, or in other words, securing the unalienable rights afforded to all men, it is only reasonable to conclude that Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S.

Title: Prisoners Should be Allowed the Right to Vote in Politics. Content: Keep in mind that this is not a debate of whether it is illegal for prisoners to vote, but of whether they "should" be allowed this right. Therefore, referencing a policy/law such as the Supreme court decision of 2000 for the disenfranchisement of voting rights is likely to be deemed as irrelevant in the context of this debate, so debate with caution. Opening Arguments:Felony disenfranchisement: excluding people otherwise eligible to vote from voting (known as disfranchisement) due to conviction of a criminal offence (Wikipedia). Also this is a general issue, but I will be referring to the US frequently, since US polices condone felony disenfranchisement for the most part. Felony disenfranchisement varies in degree in some circumstances sometimes based on the type/degree of the offence or what state they were located in when serving their sentencing. Prisons are generally seen as a punishment for some convictions while for other convictions, they are seen as a means for rehabilitation. This perspective usually varies depending on the viewpoints of the outside parties. Arguably, punishment is the subjective perspective while rehabilitation is the objective perspective. The same case can be likened to voting disenfranchisement. Many prisoners (especially those with minor offenses), contrary to popular belief, strive to better themselves and rejoin society. Felony disenfranchisement is often an overly excessive punishment for certain prisoners. Prisoners already have their liberty take away, including their rights to be with their family and friends or occupy a job whilst in prison. It is certainly justified for them to serve a court's sentencing, but why should their right to vote be taken away as well? Especially considering that there are prisoners serving relatively short-term sentences and who had committed minor offenses. Prisoners would be less likely to be involved in criminal activities if encouraged to participate in the politics as part of their rehabilitation. -Enfranchisement not only bestows self-esteem and a sense of purpose in society, but encourages research and participation with contemporary political issues. "To deny this right is to force the disinherited (to) sit idly by while others elect his civil leaders and while others choose the fiscal and governmental policies which will govern him and his family" (Parris). Felony disenfranchisement conveys to prisoners that not only they committed a crime, but that they committed that crime because they were incapable of acting in a manner fit for society. Granting them the right to vote would likely be consistent with the American tradition of making our democracy more and more inclusive. Arguably there would be reduced re-offending rates and perhaps a society with fewer criminals as a long term effect. Felony disenfranchisement distorts the total voter turnout. -In 2012, all the various state felony disenfranchisement laws added together prevented "an estimated 5.85 million felons" from voting, "up from 1.2 million in 1976" (Wikipedia). "This comprised 2.5% of the potential voters in general; and included 8% of the potential African American voters. " The estimated population for Florida in 2010 was"18,804,623" (US census) and it had the highest disenfranchised voters for any state, with "1.5 million" disenfranchised from voting. That is roughly a calculated 12.5% of the total population that was not represented in Florida. It would virtually be an inaccurate representation in our society, a largely democratic society that prides itself for representing the general populace rather than a select few. The equal protection clause can also come into play if it is recognized in the courts that prisoners who are colored are not represented and are racially discriminated against in terms of voting. Prisoners are not treated as "civically dead" when it benefits the government. - Prisoners remain liable for taxation on any earnings and savings that they have. This is virtually taxation without representation. Many convicts have difficulty finding employment when put on parole after serving a sentence, and so this would be an unfair and excessive punishment when taking that into account. The support of felony disenfranchisement is largely based on subjective values of furthering justice against those convicted, rather than objective values concerning what would really function well in terms of rehabilitation and voter representation. Sources Utilized:-. http://quickfacts.census.gov...-https://en.wikipedia.org...-http://archive.fairvote.org...-http://insidetime.org...

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

Title: Prisoners have forfeited the right to vote by breaking the law Content: Voting is a privilege, not a right, and people in prison has shown they are not worthy of that privilege by breaking the law in the first place. Is it not oxymoronic to grant someone who has broken the law a privilege granted by the law? If prisoners are unsatisfied with their condition, they should not have got there in the first place, and they have only themselves to blame. If they believe their sentence is too long, then perhaps we should consider changing some other laws, but not grant this one. Would you give someone who has recently blown someone else up the privilege of voting for the leader of our community? What kind of leaders do we want?

Title: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. Content: My opponent didn't attack my first contention so it holds contention 2 THE FELON HAS COMMITTED A CRIME the criminal has done a crime and should be punished for it.

Title: Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections. Content: My three main contentions are: P1: Restricting felons from voting violates the Constitution. P2: Felon disenfranchisement encourages racial discrimination. P3: Ex-felons deserve the right to vote. Definitions: Felon = an individual who has committed a felony. Felony = a crime punishable by heavy fines, jail/prison time for more than 10 years, and/or death. Disenfranchisement = restriction of an American citizen from voting. FRAMEWORK: The topic strictly states ex-felons, meaning felons released from prison, parole, and/or probation. P1: Restricting ex-felons from voting violates the Constitution. Voting is a right given to all US citizens by the Constitution. Since an ex-felon has been fulfilling their duties as citizens, they must be able to enjoy the full rights of citizens, which includes the right to vote. Also, ex-felon disenfranchisement violates the 8th Amendment. According to the 8th Amendment: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. " According to the Atkins v. Virginia Supreme Court case: The 8th Amendment "succinctly prohibits excessive sanctions. " Disenfranchising an ex-felon is an excessive sanction in the sense that it extends the punishment beyond the felon"s sentence. Furthermore, the 15th Amendment is violated by ex-felon disenfranchisement. According to Section 1 of the 15th Amendment: 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. Since ex-felons had already been released from prison, according to the 15th Amendment, they cannot be denied the right to vote. We can conclude that ex-felon disenfranchisement is unconstitutional. P2: Felon disenfranchisement encourages racial discrimination. A disproportionate percentage of convicted felons are a minority race. According to the Guardian: The people overwhelmingly affected by felony disenfranchisement laws are minorities. Only 2.5%, 5.8 million people in the voting age population were made ineligible to vote by felon voting laws in 2010. That percentage tripled to 7.7% among African-Americans. Another way of putting this is that 38%, 2.2 million, of all those stopped from voting by felon restrictions are African-American. About a million African-American ex-felons are disenfranchised. According to the Washington Post: In Virginia, Kentucky, and Florida, 1 in 5 African Americans are affected by felon disenfranchisement laws. This is way more than the amount of Caucasian individuals affected by the same laws in the same states, thus creating an imbalance at the ballot box. This creates discrimination against minorities, especially when they have the potential to change the outcome of a race. According to the Georgetown Law Journal: Felon disenfranchisement has tremendous effects on the political landscape - leading researchers report that felon disenfranchisement "may have altered the outcome of as many as seven recent U. S. Senate elections and one presidential election. " When P3: Ex-felons deserve the right to vote. A felon is only released from prison, parole, and/or probation after they have abided by the law, paid off their fines and/or served their sentence. Ex-felons have already paid off their debt to society. Inflicting disenfranchisement upon them is unfair. They deserve the right to vote, no matter what they've done in the past. Emphasis on the PAST. Many other countries allow felons to vote. According to Think Progress: 21 out of 45 countries surveyed have NO restrictions on felon voting at all. Only 5 out of 45 countries bar felons from voting after they've served their sentence. These countries are doing quite well with felons being able to voice their opinions in politics. According to the 2012 Sentencing Project: Nearly 6 million Americans are barred from voting due to their previous conviction. This means that 1 out of 40 adults in this country cannot vote. America is supposed to be a democracy, but how is it democratic when so many otherwise eligible citizens can't vote due to crimes they've committed and have already been punished for? These people deserve their full rights. They deserve to vote. Thank you, this concludes my argument.

Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: I must make clear that my position is in favor of the status quo. I may disagree states that I do not live in but I accept their decisions and the shared federal government that results from our individual election systems. If I understand what you just posted it seems as if you would like all felons to have the right vote including the ones who have not yet finished serving their sentences. You also seem to think that Felons in America only lose their right to vote. They lose other rights also. I say leave the states alone and keep to your own business in your own state. Freedom, liberty and self determination are always a better course than Totalitarianism.

Title: We cannot assume that they do not wish to vote. Content: While many prisoners may not wish to vote we cannot assume this goes for the entire prisoner population. It is their right to have the option of voting and the choice of whether or not to use it.

Title: Prisoners should be allowed to vote Content: I believe that prisoners should have the right to vote. I believe this because in politics the overwhelming view on crime is that longer and harsher sentences are better. No one is making election promises about how they're going to be soft on crime, it's all 'harsh on crime'. So I believe that by giving the prisoners the vote, politicians would have to have a more balanced, and rehabilitation views on criminals.

Title: In a democratic society, a felon ought to retain the right to vote. Content: This is an infringement on equality because felons are in fact not equal with the rest of the citizens. And in a democracy, everyone has to be equal, or it is no longer a democracy. Punishment is for people to learn from mistakes. If felons are punished by taking their right to vote away FOREVER, then they will never learn becasuse they wont have that chance to learn. In a democracy everyone must have equal rights and the same individual rights.

Title: In a Democratic Society, Felons Ought to Retain the Right to Vote Content: My opponent has conceded this debate with the statement "Democracy is can only be successful when all members of society contribute". Felons are members of society. Due to the lack of an argument from my opponent, I will provide a list of democracies which allow for felon voting rights, both restricted and unrestricted: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India (yes, India allows convicted "felons" to vote after release from prison), Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, San Marino, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, South Africa (where Nelson Mandela, a convicted felon, served as President), Sweden, Switzerland, United States (where convicted felon, Sen. Ted Stevens, is not barred from voting, running for senate, and fulfilling his duties as Senator), United Kingdom, and Ukraine all allow some type of restoration of voting rights for felons. (http://felonvoting.procon.org...) Thank you.

Title: Prisoners should be allowed to vote Content: Background Now, I will point out that it has been declared constitutional for states to disenfranchise felons in the supreme court case Richardson v. Ramirez[1] so here I will not be presenting any legal reasons why felons should be allowed to vote, as the legal reasons show that they can't. Instead, I will focus on explaining why this ruling is wrong. Not every felon has committed a terrible crime. In many states, it is considered a felony to possess a certain amount of marijuana[2]. Thus, also in these states, your voting rights can be taken away just because you have marijuana. I think that since many states are now legalizing marijuana, and a majority(53%) support marijuana legalization [3] with that number rising every year, it is safe to say that people are beginning to realize that marijuana use or possession is not a crime. Since marijuana possession, I consider, a lesser crime than say murder or theft, why should all felons have their voting rights taken away? Some didn't do anything that really harms others. I imagine there are other "felonies" that most people would agree are not actually that major of a crime, yet they are felonies and they would prevent you from being able to vote in basically every state. In addition, some estimate that at least 10% of convicts are innocent of their crime and wrongly placed in prison.[5] Why should these people be denied their right to vote just because the other 90% of prisoners did commit a terrible crime? I consider it a worse problem to deny 10 innocent people the right to vote, than to allow 90 felons the right to vote. While it seems like it's proper to deny a murderer or another felon the right to vote, I'll explain in my next point why this is flawed as well. Laws are based off of what seems moral and immoral Since laws are based off of what seems moral and immoral, and there is tons of evidence to suggest that morals are subjective[4], why should criminals have their voting rights stripped away over something that is subjectively wrong? Even murder is subjectively wrong, as many cultures consider murder okay in some circumstances that America or other nations would consider immoral[4]. Since I believe laws are supposed to reflect what society deems what is moral, shouldn't criminals still have a say over such laws? Prisoners are still part of society, albeit they are put somewhere they can no longer harm others, but they still are part of society, they are just separate from most people in society. Just imagine one day that society deems it morally justifiable to murder someone in a specific circumstance, however the law is lagging a little behind society. Then what begins to happen is a massive influx of prisoners will occur as more and more people are murdering under those circumstances, and more and more people are being denied a right to vote. This makes it impossible to change the law, even if majority of people want to make it legal to murder in that instance, and it’s considered moral to do so, but the law can never be changed because people are constantly being thrown in prison. Now, perhaps my opponent will say there is good reason to have murder under all circumstances to be illegal, so it should never change, but if majority of society agrees it is moral, why should there be a law against it? In addition, it is merely my opponent’s subjective opinion that murder would be wrong in that instance, so what makes their subjective opinion better than others’? This is all hypothetical of course, I don’t know if my opponent would have brought this point up, but I rebutted it in case they would. Since murder is universally agreed upon in our society to be wrong, perhaps we can go back to the the marijuana usage argument to get my point across better, if it seemed my murder example was weak. Most people believe marijuana usage is morally okay, now imagine if a majority of people who believe marijuana usage should be legal are thrown in prison because they, themselves, use marijuana. The law can thus never change, even though marijuana usage is seen as moral by society, because people are getting their voting rights taken away. This can apply to any action that changes to be moral by society's view. I will leave my argument at this for now. Sources: [1]https://en.wikipedia.org... [2]http://www.drugtreatment.com... [3]http://www.pewresearch.org... [4]http://www.debate.org... [5]http://www.tandfonline.com...

Title: Felon Voting Content: Five point three million Americans are denied the right to vote, simply because of their criminal records. If these convicts were able to vote it may amount to the difference in who our country's own president may be. It could have a huge impact on the laws that are in affect as well. This is why I stand in firm affirmation of the resolution; Resolved: in a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. President of John Jay College of Criminal Justice, Jeremy Travis, stated that, "In more than a dozen states, a convicted felon loses the right to vote-for life. Thirty-two states prohibit offenders on probation or parole from voting." "In states with lifetime bans, the consequences for democratic participation are deeply disturbing." Before we discuss the topic any farther I would first like to establish and clarify some key definitions and terms. Democratic:pertaining to or characterized by the principle of political or social equality for all 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 Felon:one who has committed a felony Retain:to continue to use, practice Right to Vote:a legal right guaranteed by the United States Constitution Contention 1:Convicts and Ex-convicts are treated like any other average citizen in every other aspect of their lives. Felons are expected to follow and obey the laws just the same as you and me. Why should we not give them the right to help choose the leaders they have to follow and vote on the laws that they are expected to obey? If felons are responsible to uphold the standard set by society, they should have the same rights and privileges as others. Steve Chapman stated, "We let ex-cons 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 home in a time of war. But, the assumption in most places is that they can't be trusted to help choose our leaders. If we thought criminals could never be reformed, we wouldn't let them out of prison in the first place." In some states, Maine and Vermont, felons are allowed to vote even while being incarcerated. How can one justify this being fair to a convict in Missouri. It should be a standard all across the board that everyone's voting rights are treated equally, even a felon's(see Equal Protection Clause, Contention 3). Allowing one felon to vote and not allowing another to is creating a double standard based on location, which has no legitimate effect on voting rights. Contention 2:Felons are serving or have served the punishment they were sentenced for their crime. A judge is a highly trained professional. They make decisions to determine punishments and consequences accordingly. When they sentence a felon they sentence them to a punishment that is adequate to the crime they committed. There is no reason for society to think of themselves above a felon and impose further regulations. It is not our place to judge others when we ourselves could just as easily be in their place. By denying a felon this right we are demoralizing them and depriving them of their basic human rights. We are alienating them from society. A felon has already been given a punishment for the crime they committed so why should we make them keep suffering for something that happened in the past and was already dealt with? We are taking away the capability for a felon to fix their life and reform into the "average Joe." By doing this we are putting society in a susceptible position. Contention 3: The right for everybody to vote is protected by the constitution. Amendment VIII of the Constitution states, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishments inflicted." Also according to the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, "Congress finds that the right of citizens of the United States to vote is a fundamental right." Contrary to the beliefs of many that voting is a privilege, Congress itself wrote that it is a right that ALL United States citizens have, regardless of any discriminatory factor. Lastly, there is this little part of the Constitution that is referred to as "The Equal Protection Clause.(Amendment XIV, Section 1)." It states that, "No state shall enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." This makes it clear that any ordinance outlawing a citizen's right to vote is unconstitutional. The United States was established under the values and morals of our country's founding fathers. As I have shown with my three points of contention, they clearly had the intent of allowing all citizens the right to vote, no matter what the circumstances may have been. Felons, as I stated in my first contention, are expected to follow the same laws. Taking away more basic human rights separates them from society. If citizens expect laws to be followed, everyone needs equal input on the making of these laws. Not only do we need to follow through with the resolution because of the hypocrisy and double-standards involved, but also because it is protected constitutionally. The VIII amendment to the constitution, The National Voter Registration Act of 1993, and the Equal Protection Clause all reference that disenfranchisement is wrong. Also, Making a felon pay for their mistake even after completing their sentencing completely violates my second point of contention. They were given an appropriate sentencing. Taking away the right to vote was not included in it. For the reasons I have stated above I know the affirmative side is the right side. This is why I urge you to return a negative ballot today. Thank You.

Title: Prisoners should be given the right to vote Content: So what my opponent does to start off is beg the question. To put it simply, con needs to give a reason for why prisoners shouldn"t be able to vote and in response, con says that because they don"t deserve their extra rights. So what this leads me to ask is, why don"t they deserve their extra rights. Yes prisoners don"t have the right to see their family everyday, but does that mean that they shouldn"t have the right to vote? The justice systems are not infallible in deciding what is right or wrong. Therefore saying that because the justice system thinks this, is invalid. And I say to con again, everyone commits things that have a negative impact on society, and my opponent assumes that a crime had to do with another individual"s rights. Someone could have being doing drugs alone, but that did not infringe on anyone else's rights. Then my opponent brings up a line that I believe is really foolish, "you can't do the time, don't do the crime", because this assumes that every prisoner did a crime on purpose, and that they had a choice, and that their other option was better. Then my opponent says, "there are only very RARE cases where people are imprisoned on false grounds", but this is equivalent to saying that not all rapes are reported, because how would you know if they weren"t reported? My opponent assumes on this point that people who have been imprisoned on false grounds, have been recognized as innocent. Con later says, "crimes that authority and the rest of society not only deems, but knows, are bad.", in which con sees something being bad as objective. Someone doesn"t know something is bad, but they can think it. Then my opponent attempts to attack my point about prisoners giving back to society by saying giving back is, "contributing to a community in some way", but my opponent neglects that giving a vote to someone who will provide a better future, is contributing to the community. And if my opponent says that prisoners won"t vote for the right person, then she assumes ignorance in prisoners, but not in the people from the outside. Has anyone heard of the prison debaters that beat a Harvard debate team? Then my opponent says they are leeching off families, well how does that make their opinion invalid. People leech off of families outside of prison, but this doesn"t make their opinion invalid. My opponent"s point is essentially, they have done something bad, even though everyone does bad things, therefore they shouldn't lose their right to have their opinions heard. "They may not even be out by the time this government they vote for is in power." Well to this I can just simply say, what about the people that will be? Also they don"t need to be outside of jail for the effects of the president to affect them. The president could make certain regulations to prisons, which will affect the prisoners. Therefore con"s point about vicariously living, is refuted. The purpose of the prison is not to remove them from society, unless my opponent makes the point that the people in prison aren"t a society. I would rather say that the purpose is to rehabilitate them. Then my opponent brings up the same foolish quote, after I made the point that some people make mistakes. And con states that if we saw every murder as an accident, then nothing would be punished, but i"m not saying everything is a mistake. I"m saying there are cases where it is, so therefore you would be taking away their right with no reason. Also my opponent neglects that people get punished for their mistakes. Even if it is a mistake, people do get punished. It"s not as if someone accidently murders someone in court the judge will let him go. Therefore my point that mistakes does make us human, still stands. My opponent continuously begs the question by saying prisoners shouldn"t deserve this and that, without giving actual contentions. I"m asking why they don"t deserve to be given those extra rights. Con then goes on to say that people don"t deserve rights if they took the life of another human being and brings up the Dylan Roof example. First con says that wasn"t a mistake which I guess makes my opponent a mind reader. Someone doesn"t need to seek help for something to not be a mistake, and even if someone put himself in a situation, that doesn"t necessarily mean that this person intended for this type of outcome. The stress and certain anxieties could have turned him irrational, and make him do something he regretted. Now whether something someone did was devastating is subjective to the person, someone may say something is a big deal and someone else may not. But since it still is a negative impact on society, we judge whether a negative impact warrants for someone to take away their voice. But I point out again that everyone has some sort of negative impact on society. My opponent keeps on bringing up the point of negative impacts which I have refuted, con also brings up how they have been taken away from society but I have refuted that as well, and then says they have taken away the rights of someone else, therefore their rights should be taken away but two wrongs don"t make a right so that point is invalid. Now, my opponent again brings up how raping or killing someone can not be counted as a mistake, but I feel like my opponent is confusing mistake with accident. Con is essentially saying that people can"t regret what they did, but as we all know is false. And my Ted Bundy example was not to prove that people can"t do mistakes regarding cases with rape and murder, but that they are criminals and smart. Again i"m not making the point that everything is a mistake, I"m making the point that prisoners can make mistakes. And my opponent essentially groups all the prisoners together by saying they are, family leechers, non mistake making, and dumb. Then con pulls out a straw man when saying, oh pro says mistakes are human, that must mean my opponent is saying rape and murder is human, which is not what I"m saying. I"m not saying that the specific acts we did is what makes us human, but I"m saying the fact that we are infallible and make mistakes, is what makes us human. Con is basically saying, if thinking is what makes us human, then thinking about raping someone is what makes us human. Con asks where is the line drawn to where we have the right to take someone's right away, I say where is the line drawn that we do? I ask my opponent if someone with an impeccable record loiters, do they really think that their right to vote should be taken away. "The last thing I would want to have as a victim of a traumatic incident such as a rape is knowing my rapist is voting and getting the sense of merging into society like "everyone else" and not really feeling the consequences of his crimes which is isolation from society. An election comes round every 3 years (in my country) and this should not be prioritised over justice and the isolation of a person who committed a felony from society (as prison does) and taking away any extra rights they may have is something they deserve as once again" Lastly, my opponent reiterates points that I have already refuted. If my opponent thinks that the purpose of prison is to exclude someone from society, then what are the harsh conditions for and I suggest the people and voters to look up the definition of society. Then con strawmans again by saying that they wouldn"t feel right if prisoners weren"t having the consequences for their actions, which is assuming that the only consequence they get is their right to vote taken away, which is not the case. And again begs the question by saying prisoners do not deserve extra rights, without saying why and me not refuting it. In conclusion, my opponent makes tremendous generalizations and assumptions, as well as making strawman"s.

Title: Convicted Felons should be allowed to vote in all U.S. elections Content: Countries like our own are succeeding with letting their felons vote Half of all the European countries allow all current inmates to vote, and virtually all former inmates in Europe have full voting rights. Take Ireland for example. For elections in the Republic of Ireland, there is no disenfranchisement based on criminal conviction, and prisoners remain on the electoral register at their pre-imprisonment address. Prior to 2006, the grounds for postal voting did not include imprisonment, and hence those in prison on election day were in practice unable to vote, although those on temporary release could do so. In 2000 the High Court ruled that this breached the Constitution, and the government drafted a bill extending postal voting to prisoners on remand or serving sentences of less than six months.However, in 2001, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court ruling and the bill was withdrawn.After the 2005 ECHR ruling in the Hirst case, the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2006 was passed to allow postal voting by all prisoners. Also, judge, we have Germany, in which the law even calls on prisons to encourage prisoners to vote. Only those convicted of electoral fraud and crimes undermining the "democratic order", such as treason are barred from voting, while in prison. However, as soon as they are released from prison, they regain their voting rights! Now judge, i would like to mention how these countries are going in their criminal ways. According to a 2004 study done by Oxford Univ., former prisoners who vote are half as likely to re-offend, and so far, half of these European countries, whom are letting their felons vote, are having their repeating felons reduced by half. Judge, this shows that with letting their felons vote, these countries are not having repeated crimes! This is reducing the amount of crimes committed by ex-felons by HALF, Lets also think about this logically. these countries are both democracies, and their governments are very similar to ours. and yet, they are letting their felons vote. while letting their felons vote, they are not only reducing the amount of crimes occurring in their countries, but they are also letting more people have a say in who gets to govern over the people. How judge, how can this be harmful to anybody? and judge, as i will state in my 2nd cont., giving people a second chance does not hurt, and in some cases, it even provides benefits.

Title: Resolved: In the United States, Felons should be allowed to vote upon release from prison. Content: I extend all my arguments to the fourth round. I also have effectively refuted all of Pro's points, and by forfeiting, he is conceding this. He has also not refuted either of my assertions, so those are still standing. As I have proved, I come out on top with the two arguments that felon voting isn't a federal issue and that these felons have bad judgment, I win this debate. Thank you, henryzietlow, for this challenge, and I urge a vote for the Opposition, or Con, side of this debate.

Title: Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. Content: Legislatures in 16 states have loosened voting restrictions on felons over the last decade, according to a new report, a trend hailed by some rights advocates as a step toward democratic principles and fairness, especially for black Americans. What voting restrictions, if any, should be placed on felons? Because of their high incarceration rate, blacks are most affected by the voting bans that vary widely among the states, with many barring current inmates and parolees from voting until they have fulfilled their sentences, and some barring felons for life. In recent years, Iowa, Nebraska and New Mexico have repealed their lifetime bans on voting by people who have been convicted of felonies, and several other states made it easier for freed prisoners or those on probation to vote, according to the report, issued yesterday by the Sentencing Project, a liberal advocacy group in Washington. The recent changes have restored voting rights to more than 600,000 individuals, the report said. But because the country's prison population has continued to rise, a record number of Americans, 5.3 million, are still denied the vote because of criminal records, it concluded. "It's good news that many people who'd been disqualified from voting are being re-engaged as citizens," said Jeremy Travis, president of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York and a leader of the movement to smooth the re-entry of prisoners to society. "I think people are realizing that the country had gone too far in marginalizing a large group of people who have been convicted of felonies," Mr. Travis said. "This has had profound consequences for our democracy and the participation of minorities." But some conservatives remain philosophically opposed to any wholesale loosening of voting restrictions. "If you're not willing to follow the law, then you shouldn't't claim the right to make the law for someone else," said Roger Clegg, president of the Center for Equal Opportunity, a conservative advocacy group in Washington. Mr. Clegg, who was a senior Justice Department official in the Reagan and first Bush administrations, said that those convicted of felonies should be given the vote only case by case, when they have proved to be constructive members of society. Some restrictions on voting date to the early years of the country or to the post-Civil-War period, while others were tightened during the "get tough on crime" era of the 1980's. By federal law, voter rules are mainly set by the states. As a result, even in presidential elections, former prisoners can vote in some states but not others. Only two states, Maine and Vermont, have no restrictions, even permitting inmates to vote. At the other extreme, three states, Florida, Kentucky and Virginia, still have lifetime bans on voting by felons. Nine others bar selected groups of offenders for life. New York, Connecticut and New Jersey, like most states, do not allow current inmates or parolees to vote. In a ballot initiative in Rhode Island this November, voters will decide whether to restore voting rights to prisoners on parole or probation, who far outnumber inmates. Early polls show public support for the measure. Advocates of change emphasize broad arguments about democratic process, but the racial disparities give the issue a special resonance and raise questions about the representation of minorities in politics. In 2004, one in eight black men were unable to vote because of a felony conviction, the report said, a rate many times higher than that for other groups. Felony convictions have left one in four black men barred from voting in five states: Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Virginia and Wyoming, said Ryan S. King, author of the report and a policy analyst at the Sentencing Project. But Mr. Clog argued that the voting restrictions were applied evenhandedly, and that just because they had a disproportionate impact on one group, that did not make them racially discriminatory. Though data on felon voting patterns are murky, a large majority of former prisoners are believed to lean Democratic. Even with a low turnout rate, their participation could make a difference in close races, experts say. Florida's rules, for example, might have been a factor in the 2000 presidential election. Most black voters in Florida say that the state should overturn the law that prevents a half-million people of all races from casting a ballot because they are convicted felons, a St. Petersburg Times poll shows. The survey says that nine of 10 black voters in Florida think that felons who pay their debt to society should automatically have their voting right restored. Florida is one of nine states that deny the right to vote to all convicted felons who have served their time. Felons can have their rights restored by appealing to the governor and Cabinet, often a lengthy process. Support for a change to the state law is uniformly high among men and women, Republicans and Democrats, and all age groups, according to a survey of 600 African-Americans conducted by Washington-based Schroth and Associates for the St. Petersburg Times. Florida's law has been part of the state's political landscape since the 1800s and has spurred a federal class-action lawsuit against the governor and spawned several legislative efforts to overturn it. The law disproportionately impacts blacks, who tend to vote Democratic. Indeed, some research suggests that ex-felons of all races lean toward the Democratic Party. Some experts contend a change could have a big political effect in a state that was shown during last year's presidential race to be closely divided between Republicans and Democrats. The Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law estimates that 500,000 felons in Florida are affected by the law. Of those, 139,000 are black people, according to the center. Christopher Uggen, a University of Minnesota sociologist who has studied the political consequences of felon disenfranchisement laws, contends that Gore would have won Florida if felons would have been allowed to vote last year. He also speculates that Florida's retired U.S. Sen. Connie Mack probably would not have won his close 1988 election if felons had been allowed to vote. However, lawyers for Gov. Jeb Bush's office have argued that the number of people who can't vote because of the law is much lower than the 500,000 cited by opponents. State Rep. Chris Smith, D-Fort Lauderdale, has filed two bills that would give felons their voting rights one year after they satisfy all sentences. Four similar bills are filed in the Senate. All are assigned to several committees -- a sign that they might have tough going in the GOP-controlled Legislature. But Smith said House Speaker Tom Feeney has floated a compromise that would allow ex-felons to apply to a local judge for clemency. Feeney was not available to comment. House Majority Leader Mike Fasano said he was unaware of any compromise offers, adding that he thought the state's present clemency process is adequate. The Republican caucus has not taken a stance on the bills though, Fasano said, and he expected vigorous committee discussion on them. Whether the bills make it to the floor of the Republican-dominated body depends on the committee chairs, he said. Gov. Bush's Select Election Task Force also has identified the issue as critical and referred it to the Legislature for review and possible action.

Title: Felons Ought to Retain the Right to Vote in a Democratic Society Content: I'd like to start out by making the following observations. 1) My opponent has dropped his ENTIRE case. (Value, VC, and contention.) 2) My opponent has dropped nearly all of my case. (Observations, Value, VC, and first contention.) Moving on to my opponents rebuttal. ----"First off, i would like to point out that my competitor used the U.S. as an example, and this resolution is not specific to any one democracy, nor is the ban of double jeopardy an inherent trait of democracy." This relates back to my 2nd contention. However, my opponent is misunderstanding my point. I'm stating that it is EXCESSIVE PUNISHMENT to take away felons' right to vote. The idea of the double standard was merely to enforce the idea that it is punishing felons excessively by incarcerating them while taking away their right to vote, which, as I said, destroys their right of self-determination. ---"therefore by arguing that felons should only have the right to vote after their process in the penitentiary system is finished, my competitor is validating my side of the argument." I have several responses to this: a) Link this back to my second observation, which my opponent completely ignored. It directly refutes what he said. b) I never said felons should lose the right to vote while incarcerated, I only said it was the burden of the affirmative to prove felons in society should be able to vote. Thus my opponent's logic is flawed as this alleged "argument" that I make doesn't exist. c) Even if you do not buy into those two arguments, my opponent is wrong in saying this. Simply link everything he is saying back to both my contentions, which he dropped. He is 1) destroying the right of self-determination and 2) giving excessive punishment.

Title: "No prisoner should have the vote" Content: I will be arguing against the motion that no prisoner should be allowed to vote. Some key terms; "The vote" - the right to political, democratic representation. Be warned, this debate will be fairly Anglo-centric; bear this in mind before accepting it. "Prisoner" - a person tried and found guilty of a crime, to whom prison time is conferred. "No prisoner" implies an absolute blanket ban on voting; the pro position must argue for this, but the con position is not an argument for every prisoner to have a vote. It is the view that some prisoners may be given the vote, and this right may be conditional. This first round is for acceptance. (This is my first debate in this format, so if I've missed anything out please let me know/provide it.)

Title: Prisoners getting the vote Content: I'll agree with you on that. Not every person in prison has committed a true crime. But, my main argument would be that they do not pay taxes. They also don't have an income, I understand that. But in the end of the day, every other voter pays taxes, has a legal ID, and, typically, meets other requirements needed in their state. Though they don't always get the chance to gain an income, by being in prison, they aren't exactly giving anything back to society (such as those who aren't in prison). I know that in the state of Florida, you must be a registered citizen, have a valid driver's license or state-issued ID, and also not be a convicted felon without the rights of voting to have been restored. Voting is just among one of the rights that the prisoner loses when they get convicted. While in prison, they can't legally drive, vote, smoke cigarettes (in most, if not, all prisons), nor can they drink alcohol. By giving them the right to vote, shouldn't we give them the right to do those other things, as long as they are of age?

Title: It would ruin constituencies Content: The judgment does not actually mean that prisoners have to have the vote as under the European Convention the right to vote is a very qualified right. Up until 2000 there was a blanket ban, but now people on remand before conviction or sentence can vote because they have a home address. It would be unfair that a whole prison's worth of voters could sway a council or a general election because the prison is so large it would affect the constituency size and count as a large part of the voters in the constituency and it would marginalise the votes of law abiding citizens in constituencies.

Title: In the United States of America we ought to allow prisoners to vote for candidates Content: "This is an interesting statement. I must ask the question, if it's enormously inappropriate then why are they ever allowed to vote upon being released from prison?" Prisoners are in prison for a reason. Once there time is up, so is their punishment. When the punishment is over, their rights shall be returned. "The whole idea of democracy is for everyone's voice to be heard, even if we might not trust their judgement" "Like I stated earlier. Prisoners commit the crime to society as a whole, so they don't really care for a society. Also, democracy is irrelevant, since America is not a true democracy. In a republic, we elect officials to vote for us. (Electoral college). "First of all, most prisoners are going to be released at some point (very few life in prisons in comparison). Would you suggest they gain no knowledge of politics while in prison? " I do not want to withhold info. They have access to news. But there is no real point to them voting because when you go to prison, you are typically there for a while. You don't go to prison for 3 months. If you are sent to prison, we are talking in term,s of years. "However, the election of a president can still directly affect their lives." Not in prison. I can imagine many prisoners don't care. They are not directly affected because they are always put in the lowest tax bracket. You agreed with my argument with children and handicapped people. I see no difference in children in prisoners. They both eventually gain the right to vote, and you essentially agreed to both sides in that statement. "What? Do you suggest all rights being stripped? Flawed logic." I never said anything close to this. Prisoners are not guaranteed all of their rights. Similarly to how students lose some rights. My argument of this stands because you dropped this argument. "When prisoners can vote while behind bars, that's one more reason for them to feel like they're still part of the outside world and one less reason for them to feel alienated and break the law again." Also, you failed to prove this from the last round, so this is officially invalid. You also dropped my argument where I talked about how gangs could influence the prisoner vote. You dropped my argument talking about how it is not unconstitutional for prisoners to lose a few rights, because students justifiably lose a few rights in school. You also dropped my argument talking how prisoners likely will return to prison. You dropped my rebuttal talking about how prisoners are not a part of society, mainly because prison is meant to seclude them. Thanks

Title: Ex-Cons should not be denined the vote. Content: First, it should be readily apparent that denying a convicted felon the right to vote is NOT unconstitutional; my opponent has already (and apparently without realizing it) quoted the very text from the Constitution which shows this. Repeating that quotation - the 14th Amendment - here, with the relevant text highlighted: "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Carefully note that phrase, "without due process of law." The rights enumerated in the Constitution, and specifically in the Bill of Rights, are not and never were intended to be absolute and inviolable. The fact that we imprison people in the first place (a clear violation of the "right to liberty," if that right were to be considered "absolute"), and that such imprisonment and other punishments were clearly and explicitly anticipated by the Constitution, shows this. The States can, through the due process of law, deny various rights as punishment for infractions of the law. But why deny voting rights to convicted criminals? First, this is clearly a part of the punishment prescribed for various crimes (in general, that class of crimes that we call felonies). You know going in that if you commit certain criminal acts, and are convicted of them, that you are going to be stripped of certain rights that otherwise would be yours as a citizen. In short, this is your choice - and if you value your right to vote, it is an additional incentive not to commit the crime in the first place. And from society's perspective, this makes sense. We do not grant the right to participate in government, through voting, to just anyone. You must be of a certain age, and in general you must be of reasonably sound mind. But a convicted criminal has already demonstrated one major shortcoming regarding a quality that any reasonable society should expect of its voters. Simply put, in committing a crime, you are demonstrating that you are NOT willing to abide by your society's laws in the first place - should you then expect to have a hand in the making of those laws? Our system of voting rights is based on the assumption that voters will have an interest in promoting the good of the society as a whole - why should we grant voting right to those who have demonstrated the exact opposite? It might be claimed that the permanent loss of the right to vote constitutes an unusual and extreme punishment, one which is not warranted in many cases. That's fine, and the law already provides a means through which it may be addressed. The ex-convict retains the right to petition the State, through legal channels, for their right to vote to be returned. In many states, the right to vote is automatically restored after a specified time period following completion of the convict's sentence, assuming of course that no further crime has been committed by the individual during that period. Given, then, that the franchise IS very commonly restored to ex-convicts - especially if it is important enough to them that they pursue it - what justification can there be for eliminating this part of the punishment for such demonstrably anti-social individuals?

Title: ex felons should be able to vote Content: i think ex felons should vote because we need more people voting and why should something they did a long time ago be agianst them now but i understand that ex felons most of did something very bad but they are still us citizens and all us citizen deserve to vote for their country.

Title: Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. Content: I accept my opponents value of Democracy. A key note of democracy is majority rule. Large groups get more representation and therefore have more power. Felons are not a large group in the United States and therefore should be subject to the will of the non-felons. value and criteria -Maximizing rights Felons represent 1.6% of the population. By not voting the 98.4% of the non-felon population of the United States has more rights and there for the maximization of rights occurs. 98.4% vs. 1.6% who should get the rights. (US Bureau of Justice Statistics). My value and criteria is rationality. If you stop, sit down, and think about what a felon is you will realize why they should not vote. Over half of felons are drug abusers. 49% of people in prison are there for a violent offence. They are generally less educated. These people are rapists, child molesters, drug lords, thieves, and murders. Do we really want these people to have a say about what goes on in this country. Contention one: Most say "If we allow this minority group (felons) to be disenfranchised, what is to stop us from doing it to others?" This is a simple question; the Constitution. Amendment XIV specifically says states have the right to stop criminals from voting. The other Amendments also make it impossible for other minority groups to be disenfranchised. Disenfranchisement is not an issue. Contention two: The felons don't have a right to vote in states that don't allow it, and in order for any other rights to be violated; the rights of others besides felons would have to be violated as well. In America we have constitutional safeguards against this. Everyone is guaranteed basic rights in the United States. A.Voting does not help felons re-enter society. 67.5% of all felons are sent back to prison within three years of their imprisonment (US Bureau of Justice Statistics). This rate is very consistent across all 50 states. There is no difference between states that let felons vote and states that don't. Voting has no impact on recidivism. B.States have the right to restrict voters based on their criminal records (amendment XIV, section II) Again they made the choice, they knew the consequences, and now they have their voting rights rebuked. It's part of their sentence. Contention three: If you go back to my criterion by stopping felons from voting we are not crippling it we are strengthening it. There are 5.3 million felons that cannot vote. This is 5.3 million uneducated, drug addicted, parasites on society that we don't have to worry about screwing this country up. In order to have a strong democracy you need educated, people that are going to make the best choice for their country. Felons don't meet this requirement. 1-Harm Principal/social contract It is acceptable to restrict ones liberty when they have infringed on the rights of others. Being a citizen of the United States binds you to this social contract. If you break the laws you must suffer the consequences. Losing voting rights is one of these consequences. 2-Maintain Order Because of their actions we know what criminals support. The question is do we want these morals reflected in our laws? By giving felons representation we are essentially giving them the power to make laws. This would result in a mess. What kind of laws are pedophiles going to try and push? What do you think drug addicts will want? This also can result with problems of political corruption. I am one who believes in responsibility. Everyone on this earth has responsibility and can use it. But by granting them a right they don't deserve, they are taking us for granted and we are letting them. Now prisons take such good care of their occupants, that some would prefer living in a prison because they can get pampered and taken care of. It's been said that there has even been said that some felons have purposely committed a crime just to be in prison where they feel is a better place to live. So I rest my case by saying things because I believe my ethics are correct, and that justice need be taken place if so deserved. For all these reasons I negate.

Title: Prisoners getting the vote Content: Prisoners should get the vote.

Title: In a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote Content: I affirm the resolution "in a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote" For the purposes of clarification I would like to define the following terms Democracy-government by the people Felon-any person who has committed a felony Retain-to keep All of these definitions came from the Webster's dictionary I would now like to offer the following value of Equality Equality is defined as the right of all people to have the same opportunity as everyone else in this case voting. Equality is essential because if you don't have equality in a democratic society then it isn't a true democracy because all people don't have the right to have a say in that society. To accompany my value is would like to offer the criterion of Mills Marketplace of Ideas This criterion pertains to the resolution because it states that the best or most accurate idea comes from when all people have a say in an idea. This is perfect for a democracy because it lets all people have a say in the democracy. And when the most people have a say then the best outcome happens and this is the best thing for society. Moving on to my first contention Felons wouldn't use their votes for election fraud. The argument that a felon would commit election fraud with his/her vote is an invalid argument for many reasons. First there aren't enough felons to significantly create a large scale fraud. Second they have no reason to. There is evidence to support this Harvard Law Review 1 says In their most straight forward incarnations, these two concerns have been expressed respectively, as a fear that ex-convicts might use their votes to alter the content or administration of the criminal law as a relief that the disqualification of former felons is necessary to guard against vote fraud and related election offenses. No evidence suggests that ex-felons would base their votes solely, or even partially, on candidate's positions on penal issues rather than other matters of policy and politics. Furthermore, even if ex-offenders were to base their votes on matters of criminal justice, it does not follow that their positions on these matters necessarily would be more permissive that those of the population as a whole., regardless of how they might vote on issues of crime and the administration of justice, ex-felons are unlikely to constitute more than a tiny percentage of the population, and thus are electorally insignificant. What this means is that supporters of disenfranchisement argue that, having shown a propensity to break the law felons are more likely to violate the particular prohibition against election fraud. Whether or not this characterization holds true, however a blanket exclusion of all ex-offenders and felons in order to protect society from those who would commit electoral offenses is clearly over inclusive. Other, less restrictive means of preventing vote fraud exist. This relates to my value because it states that since felons would not use their votes to alter the validity of the ballot box that they should have the same opportunity as everyone else. This brings me to my second contention Disenfranchisement works against rehabilitation. Disenfranchisement hurts felons because it takes away their right to have a say in their society. It also works against the prison systems attempts to rehabilitate the prisoners. This claim is validated by Harvard Law Review 2 which says Disenfranchisement of offenders simultaneously justifies and is justified by and idea that deviants are the source and embodiment of corruption, pollution, and moral turpitude: that they can and must be isolated, fenced out, and politically sterilized. As they are not we, their impurities are not ours. Self-congratulation of this sort may comfort, but does not heal. Disenfranchisement should be recognized and rejected as an atavistic, self-perpetuating reflex that serves no legitimate purpose. Disenfranchisement indisputably harms the stigmatized offender. Disenfranchisement also shows that people have little faith in the rehabilitation attempts of the prison systems. It shows the prisoners that society thinks that they cannot be trusted to make a decision about the way that they would want to live. There is evidence to support this Harvard Law Review 3 says The very premise of lifelong disenfranchisement, that a former offender must never again participate in the political life of the community, indicates that society has less faith in the rehabilitatative possibilities of the prison that its rhetoric might suggest. Regardless of whether the penal system can attain the goal of rehabilitation, pretending that we are doing something we are not does not advance the debate. Such pretence merely advances an illusion of enlightenment, which serves only to mask the brutal nature of the prison from those who incarcerate others. What this means is that by disenfranchising felons we are degrading them in a society and working against rehabilitation. It also shows that people have little faith in the governmental programs in the prisons as well. This relates to my value because if you begin to work against people then you begin to separate them from the equality of the society which leads me to my third contention Disenfranchisement helps support discrimination. When a felon has their right to vote revoked it leads to other discriminations against that felon. It is also shown that disenfranchisement is driven by racism so it is in fact discriminatory there is evidence to support this Harvard law review 4 says the notion that criminality springs solely from hopelessly different moral defectives blinds us to the social and political components of crime. As long as crime is conceived of as "their" problem rather than ours, amelioration of its causes will remain an impossible task. Legislators in states that disenfranchise offenders should consider carefully the meanings and effects of this exclusionary regulation. As a discriminatory practice based on irrational fears and destructive stereotypes, disenfranchisement has no place in an American community. Disenfranchisement is a symbol, and it is the wrong sort of symbol to legitimate in law. It is a symbol of rejection, not reconciliation; a symbol of difference, rather than commonality; a symbol of domination instead of equality. What this evidence proves is that Disenfranchisement separates felons from the rest of society by sending a symbol of domination over the felons. This relates to my value because when you have dominion in a society it can never fully reach its potential because someone's voice is always going to be left out but when you have equality then no one gets discriminated against and everyone becomes successful it is for all of these reasons that I urge an affirmative ballot thank you.

Title: In a democratic society felons ought to retain teh right to vote. Content: I affirm the resolution, Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. In order to clarify the resolution, I offer the following definitions. (Webster's New World Dictionary) Democracy (root of democratic) is defined as a "government by the people either directly or through elected representative." This includes "acceptance and practice of the principle of equality of right, opportunity and treatment." A Felon is defined as a person guilty of a major crime that is punishable by more than one year in prison. It is important to note that the majority of felons who are denied the right to vote are no longer in prison. My value for the round is democracy. By confining the round to a democratic society, the resolution implies that democracy should be valued. The value criterion is maximizing rights. A democracy is grounded in the fact that all citizens have equal rights under the law. When rights are violated, this degrades the democracy. The most important right in maintaining a democracy is the right to vote and participate in government. That is the fundamental principle of a democracy. As written by Steven Earl Bennett in the American Journal of Political Science, "the most fundamental criterion of a fully functioning democratic system is citizen participation." Therefore to ensure that we have a stable democracy we must maximize people's rights, especially the right to vote. Contention One: By banning felons from voting, we set the stage for others to be disenfranchised as well. Felons are a unique part of society. Most felons are part of poor minority groups. They have unique experiences and a unique point of view. If we allow this minority group to be disenfranchised, what is to stop us from doing it to others? As Alexis Tocqueuille wrote in his book Democracy in America, "Once a people begins to interfere with the voting qualification, one can be sure that sooner or later it will abolish it all together." By denying felons the vote, we make it possible for other minority groups to be disenfranchised as well. This is bad because it can multiply to violate the rights of many more people. That goes against democratic values which are to maximize rights for everyone. Contention Two: To ensure that rights are not violated, it is important to restore ex-felons the right to vote and to reintegrate them into society. Sub point A: Ex-felons are trying to rejoin society. By denying them rights, we alienate them, making them more likely to commit another felony. As outlined in the Democracy Restoration Act of 2008, "allowing people to vote after release from prison encourages participation in civic life and helps rebuild ties to the community that motivate law-abiding behavior." Without the restoration of this right, ex-felons are more likely to commit another felony, violating the rights of other. Whether it is right to life property, or some other right, this hurts a democracy. This kind of violation of rights is bad and contributes to destabilizing a democracy. Sub point B: By denying ex-felons the right to vote, we continue to violate their rights. Ex-felons have already served what courts deemed to be a just sentence and have already paid their debt. There is no reason to continue punishing them. As U.S. Senator Russ Feingold said, "For a nation that depends on the participation of its citizens, it is fundamentally un-American to deny the vote to people who are living and working as law abiding citizens. Furthermore, the more doors we close on people trying to rejoin society, the more likely it is we will drive them back to the behaviors we want them to leave behind." Ex-felons are hard working, newly law abiding citizens. By denying felons the vote, we not only violate their rights as a citizen but undermine our democracy. In order to have a good democracy, we must maximize the rights of everyone, including felons and stripping ex-felons of the right to vote does not achieve this. Contention Three: By banning felons from voting, we cripple our democracy. For a democracy to work all views must be taken into account. Felons belong to the group of lower class minorities that are least represented. If these groups do not cast many votes, they have little influence and it becomes likely their rights will be violated. In the American Journal of Political Science David Resnick writes, "Nonvoting is said to skew policy in the direction of participants because politicians and officials are under no compulsion to pay much heed to classes and groups of citizens that do not vote." Banning felons from voting quiets the voice of minorities with high percentages of felons. According to Resnick, this will make it unlikely that politicians will pay them much attention and more likely that politicians will violate their rights. This goes against what we strive for in a democracy, maximization of rights, and weakens the democracy as a whole. For all these reasons, I affirm.

Title: Ex-felons who commited minor crimes or crimes at a early age should be allowed to vote Content: I will first reply to his comment that only 2% of American population is not allowed to vote, he is saying that that isn't enough Americans worth fighting for, there are a total of 316.13 Americans in the U.S. Just 2% is a big chunk. Also what my opponent is clearly saying is that if lets say only 5 million Americans lets say, had any sort of rights violated, or needed help it doesn't matter. My opponents next argument is about prioritizing companies hiring the ex-felons rather then voting rights, I agree that getting them a job is important, so why not do both? All we have to do to allow them to vote is get a law passed or a bill or whatever may be needed to get them to vote, there is no reason why you can't prioritize both. Again in my case I specifically talk about how some felons go back to the economy and find jobs so of course that is on my side and has no impact onto he round. Here is part of the contention I posted earlier for reference. an astonishing 93% of those who were able to secure employment during the entirety of their supervised release were able to successfully reintegrate back into society and not return to prison. His main point however is that we should teach them a lesson not to break the law, and I agree with that, but I don't see how removing voting rights will make them better citizens or effect them heavily, yes they would love to vote but removing voting rights isn't as sever a punishment as going to jail or being fined. The punishments already set for a felony are more then enough to teach them a lesson. "Nineteen states "may terminate the parental rights of convicted felons. "In twenty-nine jurisdictions (includes states and the District of Columbia) being convicted of a felony is "legal ground for divorce." "In twenty-five jurisdictions, convicted felons can never hold public office. "In six states a felon can never hold public employment. "Federal law forbids felons from holding many government jobs or receiving federal contracts. "In thirty-one jurisdictions convicted felons are permanently barred from serving on a jury. "Federal law forbids all convicted felons from owning a firearm. "Forty-six jurisdictions require former felons to register with local law enforcement. "All sexual offenders must register with local law enforcement officials for at least ten years after release from prison; longer times for certain offenses. The names of those registered are made available to any member of the public. "People convicted of a drug felony can be denied all forms of federal assistance, including food stamps. Although states can opt out or narrow the focus of these penalties, only twelve states have entirely rejected them; slightly more than half have narrowed the scope of these rules. "Everyone convicted of a drug-related felony, and indeed, many former felons, can be denied access to federal housing. "The Higher Education Act of 1998 suspends their eligibility for student loans for at least a year, even for simple possession; longer, for second offenses and for selling drugs. This loss of benefits may be reinstated if the person goes through an "approved" drug treatment program. The scope and significance of these collateral consequences show that the real world of punishment is far different from the one most people imagine. In this world a felon's debt to society is rarely paid in full. For these felons the Mark of Cain is permanent. The current punishment is just like my opponent wants it, deadly, strict, and hard to resolve, he wants to add even more punishments for felons in general and keep them restricted instead of helping them develop the qualities of a proper citizen to ensure crime is less. Felons have more then enough punishments so why not give them the right to vote? Also the only reason some felons are repeat offenders is because lack of job opportunities , "Justice.gov shows that 50% of felons who could not secure any employment during the time of their supervised release (generally two-to-five years) committed a new crime or violated the terms of their release and were sent back to prison. However, an astonishing 93% of those who were able to secure employment during the entirety of their supervised release were able to successfully reintegrate back into society and not return to prison. So since some find job opportunities and become citizens they should be allowed to vote, again I agree if we provide more job opportunities for ex-felons this method will be even more effective. So the clear solution is to help ex-felons returning to the society find jobs and again not all return to jail anyway. 4. Racial disfrenchment laws are still a big problem as I pointed out "In America the majority of felons tend to be minorities. In fact according to the Department of Justice for every 15,000 felons sentenced to prison 450 were white 1,356 were Hispanic and 3,188 were black. I also pointed out that if these people were allowed to vote it would have effected as much as seven recent U.S. Senate elections and one presidential election. Conclusion: I agree that some level of punishment must be set for actions in order to ensure order and tranquility continute to be established, however I believe the current punishments are more then enough and that crimes committed at a order age, either due to the influence from their environment or stealing food because they are poor and hungry shouldn't make them lose the right to vote in the future. Sources: 1. http://www.bing.com... 2.http://www.justice.gov... 3.http://www.hughlafollette.com...

Title: Ex-felons who commited minor crimes or crimes at a early age should be allowed to vote Content: Fair points that my opponent had to say about my case. But now I will have to do the job of proving them wrong. 1. Broadness of a felon My opponent gives the usual things an ex-felon could do. Though he makes the case that after they have done there time in jail they learn there mistake. I agree with that statement, but my case is to help young kids not get into crime. What is more important the 5.83 million ex-felons, or the 74.8 million minors learning that doing drugs, and alcohol is cool. 5.83 million people need to be an example to the 74.8 million minors living in America. It is about the new generation. Focus on the right now, instead of the past. We can get them financially secure, but they have to serve as an example to our minors. 2. Taxation without representation My opponent tries to make the claim that there debt to society has been served in jail, and it should be a right for them to vote. I respect that my opponent is trying to protect the 2% of America, but I am trying to protect the 74.8 million minors that can get in trouble with the law. Lets try to decrease the 5.83 million Americans to 1 million. We should have these ex-felons as examples to the larger demographic. We need to protect the 74.8 million minors. We need to focus on the right now. We need to focus on the greater benefit of the 74.8 million than the 5.83 million Americans. 3. Ex-Felons go back to jail His argument in a way helps my case, because he is saying that this is a way felons can actually help themselves. We should give them jobs, but we shouldn't give them voting rights because they could be put up as an example. 4. Benefits of ex-felons voting My opponent said that countries do well if they let ex-felons voice there opinions. Ex-felons can voice their opinions anytime in America. Maintaining our status as a free country has nothing to do with the resolution, therefore it is invalid. My opponent also said the returning there vote can integrate the criminal system. I said earlier in this argument that they still have the power to voice there opinions. They can create awareness about how tough it is in prisons. But they should also serve as an example to the 74.8 million minors who might commit a crime. It is truly the greater benefit for our society. 5. Racial felon disenfranchisement laws/ racist voting My opponent tries to make the case that there is discrimination against minorities. I totally agree that there is discrimination against minorities when it comes to the prison system. That is why I have been trying to stress through out this whole case that the ex-felons should serve as an example to our new generation. I think, and my opponent can correct me if I am wrong, but I think he is trying to say that giving these rights back to them will fight discrimination. He also stated that these ex-felons come from poor neighborhoods. That is exactly why we should have ex-felons as an example to the poorer neighborhoods. We should teach these neighborhoods the consequences of their actions. It will serve as a greater benefit for American society.

Title: You Choose the Topic! Content: 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.

Title: Convicted Felons should be allowed to vote in all U.S. elections Content: Judge, we have to realise that giving people a second chance doesn"t hurt, and in some cases, felons are unintentional. A robbery happens usually for money to support a family and to make ends meet, and some murders are unintentional, usually done in self defense. We cannot degrade felons and snatch their voting rights from them, because that will have devastating effects on how the society views them as an individual. According to MSNBC, when felons are given voting rights,they, 93% of the time, will not commit a crime again. Now lets see how this helps felons blend back: According to Columbia Univ., when given the right to vote, felons feel as if they are like everyone else when they are giving their opinion on who should be the person who they want to govern over them. they feel like they have a say in the nation"s matters, which makes them fit in. After all, voting is a constitutional right and as citizens they should have that right regardless of their past. Judge, not only does giving felons the right to vote help them blend back into society, it also helps the SOCIETY ITSELF. Fox News said that felons usually help in services such as helping people become fit, marriage arrangers, and overall, jobs to enhance a person"s life. The reason is simple: a person wants to give back what they "stole" from the society, and basically, they are giving back to the society. Judge, our point is clear: voting rights help felons blend back comfortably, and in the end, it positively affects the society as a whole. One of the largest purposes of prison is to make sure that the crime never happens again with the same person so why would we not let these citizens vote if it prevents more crime from taking place, helps the citizens rehab to become a normal citizen, and lets them blend back into society? Also, maybe these felons broke the law because they did not support it. The felons should have a say in it because they are citizens. As citizens, they have the constitutional right to vote. They aren't making the laws because it also requires society to agree with them. It just gives them a voice that they don't have in anything else which helps them in the long run to fit back in and rehab, and prevents more crime from taking place.

Title: Linking a ban on voting to imprisonment is arbitrary. Many people who commit serious crimes are not ... Content: This is not an argument for letting all, or indeed any, prisoners vote. The imposition of a prison sentence is a good general index of the seriousness of a crime, and those who have committed serious crimes should suffer “civic death”. Where people are exceptionally not imprisoned, they should be deprived of the right to vote for the period for which they would usually have been imprisoned.

Title: "No prisoner should have the vote" Content: Consider, if you will, that you have committed minor fraud, and have received a small sentence. You spend your time in prison across the corridor from a serial killer. Each day that passes makes you a lot closer to your release than each day does for the killer, and each hardship of prison you experience will be experienced for much longer by the killer after you are released, as is right and fair. However, your sentence happens to overlap with a General Election, and both you and the murderer are equally kept from voting. Would this sound unfair? The International Declaration of Human Rights agrees that yes, this is the case. The lack of differentiation when allotting this punishment and the heavy-handed nature of the voting restriction, purely on the basis of being in prison, is discriminatory. When a recent article in the Guardian revealed that in some prisons reoffending rates top 70%, it becomes ever clearer that the most important aspect of punishment for crime is the rehabilitation that follows, in order to prevent the cycle of repeating offences and thus drastically reduce crime rates. Thus, whilst a popular view opposing giving any prisoners the vote argues that it undermines the punishment of being separated from society, I would argue that in taking the vote away from all prisoners you take away a vital, if symbolic, way of rebuilding links to organised society and participation in everyday life. The vote alone would not be entirely sufficient to prevent prisoners from reoffending, but is a simple step with other benefits in terms of rights issues. Those who see the vote being taken away as a punishment fail to make an important differentiation. Whilst to lock someone up is to further limit their freedom of actions, to take away their vote and thus their representation in parliament is to limit their voice and their freedom of speech. No crime deserves the revoking of the right to freedom of speech, no matter how severe. There may be cases for the criminally insane or mentally infirm who are unable to make a rational choice when voting to lose this right, but not for the sane of mind who have wronged. This is because the legality of actions and the morality of actions often do not overlap. Whilst the law (and, I would hope, society) believes certain actions wrong, it may be the individual’s opinion differs. Fine, lock them up, as they should not have freedom of actions if we are to keep society in order and protect everybody's rights to freedom from those who would take them away. However, their right to express these views is inalienable. Another common argument against giving the vote to prisoners claims that they would only vote in their own interests, voting for lower sentences and better conditions. The first stumbling block for this argument is that in theory everyone does. A rich person will vote for low taxes, a poor person for more welfare, so why not a prisoner for less laws and shorter prison stays? Whether this is an objectionable use of a vote or not, the right to vote this way is an option for everyone, and should not affect the right of any demographic to vote. Crucially, the number of prisoners in the UK as of 2010 was 85000, compared with the total UK population of 61.8 million – meaning prisoners would make up 0.1% of the population. The votes of prisoners will not bring into effect the collapse of society; they are a drop in the ocean of representational politics.

Title: In a Democratic Society, Felons Ought to Retain the Right to Vote Content: Though my opponent's profile says he lives in India, this debate is about felons and the right to vote in a democratic society. I am unfamiliar with Indian laws and societal expectations, as well as their standards for democracy, and under the assumption that most debat.com members are from the US I will address this issue from an American standpoint, unless my opponent can show me a reason to do otherwise. Also, standards for felonies are no longer applied in other common law countries as they have been replaced with "summary offences" and "indictable offences". In modern democracies, a felon is someone convicted of a felony. Felonies under the US Criminal Code are generally offenses that mandate a prison term of one year or more. Anything less is generally a misdemeanor or civil offense. (http://www4.law.cornell.edu...) Because of the different gravity of different crimes which may be considered felonies, it is impossible to lay out a blanket ban on voting by convicted felons. Punishment for crimes in the US and other democracies is generally considered "correction" or rehabilitation, and the goal is to re-integrate rehabilitated criminals into society. The deprivation of life, liberty, and/or property is generally considered appropriate punishment for various felonies, and an assigned timeframe is allotted that is generally considered befitting the crime. The basic use of punishment and reward is the basis of all criminal theory. Ordinary crime is not a threat to the social order, and society needs criminal behavior and the legal responses to it to function properly. (http://www.criminology.fsu.edu...) Putting aside the fact that all 50 states allow felons to vote to some degree(http://www.ncsl.org...), I personally believe that to fully integrate a rehabilitated criminal into society he/she must first believe he/she will be allowed that opportunity. Indeed, living in a democratic society, the right to vote is an essential part of full integration into a democratic society. So unless felons are executed or jailed for life, the right to vote should be an incentive of completing rehabilitation when rehabilitation is an option. Now on to my opponent's contentions... My opponent's first contention is based on retribution to prevent chaos and despair. I point to the US where, again, all 50 states and DC allow felons to vote to some degree- some states only through a pardon, and the US has not devolved into chaos and despair. The US has stiff penalties for crimes such as murder, espionage, treason, and other felonies for which a criminal's voting rights may never be restored, and it has lesser penalties for, say, possession of more than one ounce of marijuana which is a felony in most states, and constitutes an average of 1 year in prison(www.norml.org). I assure you this crime is not grievous enough for society to devolve into chaos should it continue, and a person convicted of this crime is not necessarily too "untrustworthy" to be involved in electoral politics. My opponent's second contention, unfortunately, does not make much sense to me. I cannot imagine a democratic society NOT made up of people. In a democratic society of a few or millions of people, it would be up to those people to decide how felons should be treated. The former Assistant State Attorney General for the State Elections Division of Alabama says: "Under the longstanding system, a felon may apply to regain his right to vote after serving his sentence and paying all fines and restitution that may be due. This is a sound practice. It ensures that only those criminals who have met their obligations to their victims and who have enough civic pride to apply for renewed voting rights can play a role in selecting our community, state and national leaders." (http://www.al.com...). I don't contend that felons "should have the right to vote in every circumstance and situation", and it is both unreasonable and unrealistic to take an absolute position on an issue that will have varying degrees of circumstance, ie. a murderer vs. an old lady who assists inmates with legal issues without realizing she was breaking the law (http://www.ahrc.com...). My opponent's third contention only addresses murder. Even with murder there are several degrees. My opponent affirms that one right violation allows another rights violation to exist, but in the same paragraph he states that individuals in a society may not violate others' rights in a society. This is a contradiction, but I will nonetheless address the issue. The deprivation of rights for violation of rights is part of the criminal theory. It is necessary for the proper function of society, but the deprivation of rights should (in most cases) be employed as rehabilitation. Once all faults are corrected, fines paid, and punishment completed it should be recognized as such. The continued disenfranchisement of a convicted felon who has put effort into reintegration is unjust, and goes against the fundamentals of both the correctional system and democracy itself. My opponent's fourth contention is based on semantics, but he wrote the resolution, not me. In recognition of this clever trap, let's define "ought" in the context of the resolution and the debate: ought: —used to express obligation , advisability , natural expectation , or logical consequence All points can be argued for pro successfully, but please choose one so as not to turn this into a wasted debate about semantics. Should society be "obligated"? No. My personal opinion is that a society attempting to be just will at least to some degree allow felons to vote based on established law, which would imply obligation to do so. Because it is my personal opinion, I would use my vote to "advise" society to allow felons to vote to some degree. It is a "natural expectation" of many criminologists as cited in my previous sources. It is also the "logical consequence" of laws already in place in the US. Thank you.

Title: Resolved: In a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote. Content: Thank you for your courtesy and for a good debate. Like promised, I shall try and summarize this debate using the famed "They say... I say" format. I shall paraphrase my opponent's arguments in their strongest formulations. ------- HE SAYS, I SAY---------- My opponent says that a democratic society that deprives any of its members of the right to vote is not a democratic society. I say that democratic societies still retain their essential character even if they remove some voting rights, as in the case of children, the insane and the jailed. HE says that all citizens are equal and equally deserve the fundamental rights of a society. I say that citizens are created equal but distinguish themselves with their actions. He says that the loss of the voting rights of millions of felons is a grievous loss. I say giving the benefit of the doubt to the felons of the society rather than to the law-abiding members is a grievous loss. He says felons already fulfill their debt to society through jail time. I say that felons fittingly lose their right to the social laws that they flouted, just as drunk drivers lose their driving licenses. He says that the felon's past actions are simply a "scar in the past", and have no effect on his voting decisions. I say that actions are an indicator of judgement and that the felon's actions are like the grade F on the student's transcript that denies him many job opportunities. He says that a felon, like a non-felon, would have to choose either candidate A or B. I say the political reality is that out of candidates A....Z, the drug dealer can likely pick out someone who supports the legalization of harmful drugs. He says that we should assume felons possess the judgement required to vote. I say we should assume that felons lack the judgement to vote, until they prove otherwise. He quotes J.S.Mill. I do not quote J.S.Mill. He says we must give felons the chance to prove they're reformed. I agree, which is why I proposed the Pardons Commission in Round 1. ---------- Reader, as you vote, keep in mind that Pro, despite my explicit request, has failed to provide any concrete policy implications of his position. I have already demonstrated what my position would entail practically, giving the example of Mississippi, but you lack any idea how Pro's positions could be implemented. A vote for Pro would be a vote for something you do not understand concretely. To recap: Even in democratic societies, the right to vote is alienable. Felons should lose their right to vote as a form of punishment and to benefit society.

Title: Depriving prisoners their vote exceeds judge's punishment Content: Voting Rights of Prisoners. Australian Democrats Action Plan. - "As part of their citizenship, convicted persons in detention should be entitled to vote. To deny them this is to impose an additional penalty on top of that judged appropriate by the court."

Title: Allowing prisoners to vote Content: Issue of PlagiarismThe entire R2 was pretty much copy and pasted. Regardless of the fact that Pro admitted this and provided links to the places he pasted from, it is still a shock that not a single argument of Pro's was his/her own.My Rebuttal"People need to stop thinking about themselves, thus prisoners should have the right to vote!" This is a baseless assertion that actually goes against the entire philosophy of democracy. [http://dictionary.reference.com...] In a democracy, where people vote on certain matters to reach a conclusion based on what the majority wants, it is supposed to be every person looking out for themselves (or what they believe to be best) and what the majority wants will inevitably become the conclusion."Prisoners are still members of our society."A prisoner, in the context of this debate, one in custody for doing a crime that relinquished their rights to be a citizen (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...). Thus, they are not functioning as members of society until they are freed."Give me one good reason why prisoners shouldn't be able to vote?"If you have proven that you fail to understand the law by breaking it, or that you care so little that you'd be willing to do so then you have no right to be voting on who runs the show regarding it."So why shouldn't they decide on their future when they come out?"This is debate is about convicts only. Ex-Cons were never mentioned in R1 or the resolution.The majority of your remaining debating is aobut Ex-convicts... This is not the debate at all.In actual fact unless you make a single original argument of your own, I have won this debate since I'm the only one actually debating my own thoughts.

Title: In a democractic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote Content: To my opponent, thank you, and good luck in the final round [Overview] Some of my opponents 'crosschecks' appear to be sketchy, so I will try my best to depict what he attempts to argue. Also, you can ignore my opponents continuation of his argument on the comment section, for that his obviously against the rules and for good reason [My case-Observations] Observation I: America --> he accepted it, end of story Observation II: Felons/ Ex-felons Pretty much, my opponent argues that felons are put back into society, and therefore I have to extend this to felons that are in society --> Upon re-entry into society, felons are no longer considered a felon by society. If society still recognized them as a felon, they would still be in jail serving their felony. Because society has realized that their debt was paid off, they are now considered an ex-felon --> Because ex-felons are not implied by the resolution, anything pertaining to an ex-felon is inherently unresolutional [My case-Contentions] Contention I: Retribution My opponent argues my whole contention because I made an argument on how he was implying things that were not relevant to the resolution --> My opponent says that we have to look to the time frame from when felons get out. This is wrong because you are inferring something that is not implied by the resolution. For example, he says that all felons are eventually released (which I proved wrong; capital punishment, death in prison, life in jail, etc.) But, because he is looking post-resolution, why can't you look pre-resolution? I was simply using my opponents logic against him. If he is going to infer thinks that are not implied, I then am able to infer things that are not implied. Pre-resolution means giving babies the right to vote, which, in my opinion, is extremely dangerous and jeopardizes the whole democracy Contention II: Legal Consistency He argues that we do not have a legal system and that I value the right to vote over basic rights. --> The whole point of my argument was the fact that we do not have a legally consistent system, and that we must strive towards one, which include disenfranchisement during incarceration --> I do not value the right to vote over the right to speech. All positive rights are equal. I say that for a neutral arbiter to uphold standard principles of fairness to its constituents, the government must take away the right to vote because more intrinsic rights are withheld through incarceration Contention III: Double Standard My opponent says that I am 'turning the right to vote into a privilege' --> This is wrong. I, more than my opponent, value the right to vote. It is exactly why I value it that I take it away from undeserving people. By rewarding political rights and say in the government in incarceration, my opponent is condoning violent acts and setting a double standard to that of law-abiding citizens by making the law-breakers into the law-makers [My case-Value/Value Criteria] Value: Justice --> my opponent failed to attack my value, and so it can thus be extended Value Criteria: Maximization of Fairness --> Once again, he dropped his attack on my VC [His Case- Observations, Contentions, Value, Value Criterion] --> he dropped ALL of them. If you do not believe me, check his last post. All my arguments from the previous post are therefore extended [Voting Issues] (1) My opponent dropped his attack on my first observation, my value premise, and my value criteria (2) I defended my second observation and my contentions above (3) He dropped his WHOLE CASE on the last rebuttal. This includes his value, which his whole case is built upon. In LD rules, he forfeits his case (4) Because he has forfeited his case and did not present one, he has not reached his negative burden, which is to prove the resolution categorically false Thank you

Title: Felons Ought to Retain the Right to Vote in a Democratic Society Content: I affirm: Felons ought to retain the right to vote in a democratic society. Definitions: Democratic society: society where the government is decided by the people, either directly or through representatives Felon: one who has committed a felony Retain: to keep in use. Observations: 1) The resolution states felon. All ex-felons are essentially felons as they have been convicted of a felony and therefore the negative must prove that all felons should lose the right to vote. 2) The definition of "felon" states one who "has" committed a felony. This indicates past events and thus it is the burden of the affirmative to prove that felons in society should retain the right to vote. My value for this debate is A Democratic Society, which is the inherent value indicated by the resolution. The resolution specifically states a democratic society, thus is should be the highest value. The value of a democratic society is upheld by the value criterion of protection of rights Since in a democratic society the government exists solely for the people, then therefore it is only logical that a democratic society's government ought to protect its citizens' rights. Contention 1) Right of self-determination. This is the right to shape the conditions of one's own existence and pursue one's own happiness. Underneath the classic inalienable rights, a democratic government ought to ensure people have this right, otherwise the government would not be just. Without the right to vote one has no say in government and control of the state that they are forced to live under and abide by the laws of. Therefore, they cannot possibly control their own life when they have no say in the government that controls their life. Additionally, granting felons the right to vote infringes neither on anyone's right to vote or right of self-determination. Contention2) The negative is punishing the person's crime already through incarceration, yet at the same time taking away their right to vote. In terms of felon disenfranchisement, the government is punishing twice; once in jail, and once out of jail. This is known as double jeopardy, or punishing a crime twice. The 5th Amendment states "nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." Also, we do not give people a lifelong ban on marriage or freedom of speech, so why would we give them a lifelong ban on voting? It is excessive punishment to incarcerate someone and at the same time take away all their political influence and right of self-determination. ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((REFUTE))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) --Value: Social Contract- This is not specifically stated by the resolution, however mine is and thus should be looked at above his. ---VC- Societal Welfare Link this back to my VC. It is not possible to uphold societal welfare unless you protect of the citizens' rights and thus if you are even to look at his VC you must look at my VC first. Additionally he provides no link between this and his Value and C1. --Contention 1: "By breaking the social contract, citizens have forfeited their right to vote. By granting any felon the right to vote would contradict the purpose of the social contract." However, a) When a felon commits a crime, yes they break the social contract, which is why they are incarcerated. However as I show in my second contention it is unjust to punish them additionally by taking their right to vote away. b) Also, it is feudal to continually deny felons a place in the social contract. Once a felon exits prison, although still a felon they should then re-enter the social contract. Should we not allow them a chance to become one of society once more?

Title: in a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote Content: I will first address the affirmation and then lead into extensions and clarification on the neg. As it pertains my opponents observation, it is flawed for the following reason My opponent claims that every citizen has inalienable right, yet what you need consider is that voting does not apply. clearly every citizen doesn't have the right to vote or else four year olds and people of a mental iq 0f 20 could. Resulting in extremely inaccurate and pointless results. Sense there is such a requirement one must look to voting as a privilege rather then a right. Now onto the con1 of oppression you need to understand again that voting is a privilege not a right. Con2 redemption you need to see that felons don't need voting as a form of redemption just the mere fact that they have been released from prison gives them a chance to redeem themselves. defeating the entirety of con two now briefly to go over my case you need to extend my v and vc as being paramount for we need consider the victims rights in the situation. Equality as presented by the affirmative cant even be achieved with out looking to the opposition as well as the fact that natural rights as a vc doesn't apply as well. My def were not attacked therefore they still stand and will be used throughout the round which essentially in doing so agrees to the negative position in regards to the resolution interpretation. My con still stand as well for rehabilitation hardly has a great enough effect to make a difference, through examples such as background checks, not being able to bare arms, and not serve on jury. (all points opponent fails to address). As well as my con 2 as well as 3 for although its not mandated in the resolution its implicate why would you want kids to vote no society would ever allow people that are not even capable of spelling there name the PRIVELEGE to vote thank you

Title: Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. Content: When you go against society, and commit a felony, you lose this societies trust. We don't let children vote, or the mentally incompetent vote, because we cannot trust there decisions. The same comes with felons. We cannot trust them, because of their poor judgment to commit a felony, therefore they cannot vote. People who commit serious crimes have shown that they are not trustworthy. When they decided they were going to go against society, they also decided they are going to lose their right to vote. Value: Justice It is not fair to give an equal voice in society to someone who has been a law abiding citizen, and a felon who has gone against society all together. When someone commits a felony, they should lose there right to vote. If a person wants a say in a Democracy, and wants to be able to vote in a Democracy, they must not go against it and commit a felony. Now why would we, as citizens, as non-felon citizens, want felons helping to pick our representatives? If you're a convicted felon, convicted of a violent crime, you have bad judgment. Why would we want people with that judgment picking our representatives? Criterion: just deserts Just deserts is basically giving people what they deserve. It is doing wrong and taking action for your wrong doing. In this round, you will see that people don't deserve the right to vote after they have committed a felony. My first contention is that it in not fair or equal to give a felon who has gone against a democratic society and a law abiding citizen equal voting rights. My second contention is felons being used by candidates running for office. My third contention is the public opinion rejecting felon voting rights. Contention 1: By committing a very serious crime, ex-felons demonstrate disrespect for the law. Therefore, they should have no input in determining who writes these laws. Felons shouldn't have the same voting rights as regular, law abiding, hard working Americans. In 2000 the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's interpretation that our constitution does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote. This means it is the state legislature's power to decide who is qualified. If you are a citizen over 18 you are automatically qualified. If you are considered mentally incompetent, or commit a felony you are disqualified. This is about being disqualified from voting. The same comes with gun rights, if someone abuses guns; we take that right away from them. So if a felon abuses a society, the society takes away the felon's right to vote. The American citizens who make up the democratic society are the people who should be the ones deciding who there leader is going to be, not the felons that have become outcasts of this society by going against it. The felon made their choice when they decided to go against society. Contention 2: There are currently 5.3 million felons in the United States who have lost there right to vote. Say these 5.3 million felons could vote and one of the candidates was going to be extremely less harsh against criminals. These extra 5.3 million votes would almost surely give a candidate a victory. Do we, law abiding American citizens want our representatives to be decided on by felons? No. If you are a convicted felon, convicted of a violent crime, you obviously have bad judgment, so why should a society let you use your judgment to pick out the better candidate? The voting is not only voting for a presidential candidate, but also the local elections. In a city in California, called signal hill, the vote for mayor came down to one vote. In a school board election in Alaska, it was a dead even tie, bringing it to a coin flip. If there would have been one more person voting, a felon, they would have decided who was going to win. Do we really want felons deciding who a mayor or a school board member is? Contention 3: Much of the American public supports the disenfranchisement if felons. To be exact 81.7% of Americans believe that felons should lose their right to vote. Less than one-tenth of people surveyed believed that felons should keep there right to vote. These people believe that felons should lose their right to vote even after serving prison time because they still cannot be trusted. According to the Florida Department of Correction, over 40% of offenders commit another crime within 3 years of there release; and for those under 18 this number skyrockets to 73%. Furthermore a 2003 Department of Justice report found that more than 70 percent of arrestees tested positive for drugs. The American public has spoken, and the outcome was that most do not want felons to be able to have any part in voting. A democracy is a government made by a society's people. So if the American people think that felons should not be able to vote by this much of a margin, felons should not be allowed suffrage. In my first contention I proved that felons don't deserve equal rights because the have gone against the law, and in my second contention I showed that felons could get used by candidates, and I gave facts about them not being trustworthy. In my third contention I spoke about how the American public doesn't want felons voting, and they are the democracy. With the evidence I have brought up and the case I have given I would urge your ballot toward the negative side.

Title: Convicted Felons should be allowed to vote in all U.S. elections Content: Firstly, and fundamentally, we must recognize that these people have decided to not follow the rules and regulations of society. By breaking these rules they have shown they do not want to function in society. If this is the case, why should they be able to vote, an active part in our society? If they have broken the rules set by the people we have elected, they clearly don't show enough respect to be allowed to elect people. After a criminal has served the sentence given to them, they are now an active part of society, and should be allowed to take part in all areas of it, voting included. But while they are not an active member of our society, they don't deserve the right to take part in things such as voting, they have made their choice and that is the consequence. People that have broken the laws set don't get a say in the laws we make. Perhaps they want to vote someone in who will change the law that they have broken, because they don't agree with it? Fine, that is their choice, but only after they have been punished for the law they broke. The U.S. prison population is very excessive due to an unnecessary war on drugs (sorry for the digression), so the prison population is just such a large factor that allowing it to vote would not be beneficial at all to our society. Don't allow people that have broken our laws to make them.

Title: In a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote Content: Thanks to my opponent for picking up this debate and yes lets make this fun So to begin this round i would first like to rebuild my own case and move on to attack my opponent First i will agree with his counter definitions My opponent didnt attack my value or standard so you can extend both these and for that reason there is no doubt about voting aff because it means he agrees with my value of equality which says that felons should have equal rights as all citizens so this alone proves that he agrees that felons should have the same rights as felons. Extend my standard of Mills Marketplace of ideas which also basically states that when you have the most ammount of people contibuting to an idea then the best answer arrises. Both of these reasons prove you should vote aff He attacked my contention 1 by saying that if a vote came down to 1 vote and that deciding voter was a felon that he wouldnt want the felon to decide. Harvard Law review 1 clearly stated that "...even if ex-offenders were to base their votes on matters of criminal justice, it does not follow that their positions on these matters necessarily would be more permissive than those of he population as a whole..." What this proves is that although felons may have made a wrong choice that they may not have an opinion that is different than the general population. He attacks my second contention by saying disenfranchisement has nothing to do with rehabilitation. I would like to offer evidence against this, Harvard Law Review (counter 1) Fifteen American states disenfranchise ex-felons for life. This practice, although constitutionally permissible , is an anomaly in two respects. First, it defies the trend over the past 150 years tward expansion of the franchise exempified by courts' adn legislatures' abandonment of voting restrictions based on property, race, sex, and age. Seccond, it runs counter to the modern notion, still widely expressed if not always believed, that ex-convicts can and should be reintegrated into the communityas full members of society. What this proves is that disenfranchisement works against progression in this instance rehabilitation. He doesnt attack my third contention Disenfranchisement helps support discrimination and this is key because it shows that he agrees to this and this totally destroys the basis of disenfranchisement because it works against society by discriminating against members of the society. It is for all of these reasons i urge an affirmative ballot Now to attack my opponents case He offers the value of justice and says that it is defined as "giving someone what he or she is due" I pose the question "Who determines what deserved punishment is?" clearly whatever answer is given is still going to be contoversial to someone in a society so my value of equality fits the situation much better. I attack his Criterion by saying that he is harming the wefare of soceity by taking away voices in a society. When you do this then not all people have a say in the democracy and so this undermines the whole purpose of the democracy. My criterion is much better because it allows all people to have a say in society. Contention 1. He implys that since a felon has made one bad decision that this is a constant trend with felons. I have to say otherwise because that is a politically incorrect extreme. He also doesnt offer why or how this relates to his value or criterion. I would like to offer counter evidince aginst his claim Harvard Law review (counter 2) Disen. is not driven by pragmatic realities or theoretical principles but rather by an atavistic and dee-rooted social need to define the boundaries of the community by stigmatizing some persons as outsiders. As a symbolic act tat perpetuates and reflects a perception of criminality as an evil, alien force, disen. manifests a misguided desire to label as "others" those who commit crimes, in order that those who are not so chracterized may gain an increased sense of their own esteem as "good" Members of the community and deny responsibility for the creation or elimination of criminal behavior. Contention 2 He basically offers Lockes social contract to define punishment and crimes Harvard Law review (C3) It is hardly likely that free and informed individuals would enter into a contract in which a single failure to execute payment by one party would constitute a forfeiture of all goods previously obtained under the contract. Liberal theorists posit an individual who exists prior to and seprabel from the attachments and aspirations that she chooses. In the liveral frame work, justice consists of respecting the individual's dignity and capacity to reason, regardless of his/her choices or ends. Thus, real justice, "must permit inequalities that can be traced to the choices people have made about what kind of work to do, what kinds of risks to take, and what kind of life to lead. It is for all these reasons that i must urge an affirmative ballot and now turn it over to my opponent Thanks again to my opponent for picking up this debate and thanks to all the people who vote on this. Good luck and i hope this makes us both better

Title: Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. Content: I stand in affirmation, "Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote." I offer the following definitions for clarification of the affirmed resolution: ï¿½Democracy- Government by the governed. Within this I must state that felons are part of "the governed". ï¿½Felon- Someone who commits a felony; A Felony is a level of crime that is higher in comparison than a forfeiture or a misdemeanor. Repeated crimes can rise to the level of felony offenses, such as repeated DUI's ï¿½Ought- Used to indicate advisability or prudence. ï¿½Retain- To keep or hold in a particular place, condition, or position. ï¿½The right to vote- a formal expression of preference for a candidate for office or for a proposed resolution of an issue. This right is inextricable in a democratic society to retain full citizenship. ï¿½The value of this round must be equality of opportunity which refers to the fact that all citizens MUST be equal citizens under the eyes of the law. Thus you can construe that my definition of equality is referring to equality of citizenship within a society. In this resolutional standpoint opportunity must be pertaining to the right to vote. The optimal criterion for achieving equality for this round is consistency which is Correspondence among related aspects; compatibility. Thus meaning that for equality to be reached, all citizens must be treated consistently as citizens in the eyes of the law - no one can become "more of a citizen" or "less of a citizen". By negating the resolution certain citizens are not treated consistently thus you are not treating all citizens as equals. The affirmative sole burden is to prove that the consistent treatment of the right to vote functions under equality of opportunity. Thus, upholding democracy in the resolution. While the negative's sole burden is to show consistency in equality of opportunity because it's a prerequisite to democracy, and if he or she cannot than his or her case is non-topical because it cannot uphold democracy and cannot be looked to. Observation 1: Democracy is government by the governed. Certainly convicted felons are part of the governed. When felons are not treated equally and consistently, this contradicts the concept of democracy because the governed are disallowed participation within a democratic societyï¿½ Observation 2: Some may argue that no true democracy exist. This should carry no weight in a round for two reasons. A) In the resolution itself their clames to be a democracy so If there were no true democracy than we could not be debating this topic at all. B) This is a great thought or opinion but take this example: If the president of the United States has a bill on his desk that has the exact wording of the resolution he cannot just throw that bill away because there is no democracy, in fact, by taking any action at all he would be acknowledging the fact that there is a democracy because he made a decision. Observation 3: Some may say that a negative position is that the negative can give the right to vote back to felons once they have been released from prison, yet this is entirely untrue. No where in the resolution does it say "felons released" or "felons imprisoned". Thus, any negative argument that this can win for the negative should be disregarded or turned for the affirmative because it is still winning for the affirmative. Contention 1: Disenfranchisement destroys a felon's status as an equal citizen. SubPoint A: The right to vote is a fundamental right, and as such it is central to the meaning of citizenship. Furthermore, the fundamental importance of the right to vote is not determined by its actual exercise, but merely by its possession. Possessing the right to vote is of paramount importance as it is a tool by which an individual engages in active participation - S. David Mitchell furthers "the right to vote serves as the embodiment of political empowerment, and it is essential to the full privilege of effective citizenship." The right to vote, therefore, can be construed not only as a means for an individual to exercise political power, but also as a necessary requirement in being a full citizen. Therefore, since the right to vote has been taken away from felons, they are no longer treated consistently and therefore are not equals. The possession of the right to vote, or more aptly the opportunity to participate in the political process, serves as an indicator of a person's legal status as a member of the polity, but nothing more. Conversely, the loss or infringement of that right would indicate both a repudiation of membership in the polity and a lack of full citizenship. The right to vote is a political right that allows an individual to be an active participant in the government and is exercised cyclically; it is not the determining factor of citizenship. Citizenship in fact embodies a full range of rights including, but not limited to, the possession or exercise of the right to vote. The right to vote is consistent for all citizens which helps them become equal in their society. When a felon is disenfranchised, they become non-citizens, and even when a society's laws are broken, one may forfeit liberty but must not become non-entities. To disenfranchise any group, even those that have violated the laws a democracy has established, is to render them powerless, and any hope of rehabilitation becomes revenge. When a democracy turns on its own citizens and seeks revenge, it clearly is no longer legitimate, and is a democracy in name only. ï¿½Contention 2: Disenfranchisement creates negative consequences for felons in social and economic ways. The deprivations that ex-felons encounter extend beyond the scope of the political sphere. The right to vote is integral to a citizen's sense of belonging and undeniably holds a place of critical importance in the United States for both its symbolic and practical value; it serves as a marker of inclusion for formerly excluded groups, i.e., African-Americans, women, and those under the age of eighteen. For ex-felons the right to vote is merely one of many rights denied to them in but one of several spheres of their lives. Convicted felons are denied a host of rights that govern the social and legal spheres of their life; many of these rights have more pressing importance than the opportunity to cast a ballot. To examine how felon exclusion laws infringe upon the full citizenship of both the individual ex-felon and the community, to which the ex-felon belongs, a multi-part conceptualization of citizenship will be used. The leading contemporary scholar to consider such a multi-part conceptualization of citizenship is T.H. Marshall, a British sociologist; and, it is Marshall's formulation of citizenship that frames this argument. Marshall posited that citizenship is comprised of three distinct, yet interdependent, elements: the civil, meaning individual freedom; the political, referring to the franchise; and the social, addressing an individual's economic life. The political element, according to Marshall, consists of the "right to participate in the exercise of political power." This element is comprised not only of the right to vote, but also includes the right to pursue public office; political power is manifested in the voice of the people and through the machinations of those chosen to serve as proxies of the people. The rights most commonly associated with the civil element are those rights that are "necessary for individual freedom," and in the context of the United States are embodied in the Bill of Rights. So since I show you that the disenfranchisement of felons is inconsistent with the rest of the members of society because it makes them unequal which is unlawful because in the eyes of the law all citizens are equally citizens, I strongly urge you to vote affirmative.

Title: ex felons should be able to vote Content: I'm just going to respond to my opponents speech. Unless he can substantiate his claims, I just need to rebut his claims since they're baseless. My opponent has the full burden of proof. I'll provide one source, and I will have destroyed my opponent's opening statements. My opponent opens with his opinion. Opinions can't be substantiated. He says we need more people voting, but somehow it doesn't make sense that felons should be the ones filling the polls instead of law abiding citizens. The proper solution is to get more law abiding citizens to vote. He assumes that all felons committed their crime a long time ago. That's an assumption used as a blanket statement. Blanket statements only need one example to be destroyed, and here I can provide a standard that breaks his statement. The minimum punishment for a felony is 48 hours [1]. He says that they're still citizens so they should vote. Something about committing a felony is that they're forfeiting certain rights by damaging the American public. Voting is one of those rights. I await a response. ------------------------------------------- Source: [1] http://www.cga.ct.gov...

Title: Prisoners right to vote Content: Denying felons a vote sends a strong message, deters crime

Title: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. Content: Con says “If I understand what you just posted it seems as if you would like all felons to have the right vote including the ones who have not yet finished serving their sentences. ” Yes, that is the case. Con says “You also seem to think that Felons in America only lose their right to vote. ” That is not what I think at all, just not relevant to the debate topic at hand. Let’s not start this off with a straw man fallacy. .. . Con says “Freedom, liberty and self determination are always a better course than Totalitarianism. ” I agree which is why I am in favor of the resolution. Arguments: We live in a society that accepts the notion of unalienable rights. As a society we accept that the main duty of a government is to secure such rights. Such a government receives their power from the consent of the governed. In our society this is done through voting. A: Unalienable Rights “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. ” (Declaration of Independence) Unalienable: “impossible to take away or give up” (1) We live in a society that accepts the concept that some rights are unalienable B: The Duty of Government “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men” (Declaration of Independence) “Locke believed that natural rights were inalienable, and that the rule of God therefore superseded government authority;” (2) We live in a society that requires of its government the protection and security of such rights C: The Power of the People “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”(Declaration of Independence) “Rousseau believed that democracy (self-rule) was the best way of ensuring the general welfare while maintaining individual freedom under the rule of law. ”(2) We live in a society that dictates that the power of government come from the consent of the governed. D: The whole picture We live in a society that accepts… 1: All people born equal with rights 2: Government’s function is to secure unalienable rights 3: Government receives power through the consent of the governed via voting What happens when we take away the right to vote? 1: Government cannot receive power through consent of the governed if the governed cannot vote. 2: Without consent or power the government cannot secure unalienable rights Conclusion: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”( Declaration of Independence) If the right to vote is taken away, our entire system of government cannot live up to its primary purpose. In the interest of our government filling its purpose, or in other words, securing the unalienable rights afforded to all men, it is only reasonable to conclude that Felons should have voting rights in the modern U. S. (1) . http://www.merriam-webster.com... (2) . http://en.wikipedia.org...

Title: Resolved: In a democratic society felons ought to retain the right to vote. Content: "The main purposes of punishment are incapacitation and rehabilitation. Taking away the right to vote doesn't seem to accomplish either of these. It could even be detrimental, as ex-felons could see themselves as outcasts in society, causing feelings of resentment"~ Bill Clinton """I will argue that by default, felons should not have voting rights, except in some cases where they have proven themselves reformed.""" Woah woah woah.... If you assume this position then I will assume the position that felons should retain their voting rights, except in extreme cases. It's either you say they can't ever and I say they always can, or you say they can't unless extreme circumstances and I say they can unless extreme circumstances. There is no mixing of the two in an attempt to skew the debate towards your side. If you don't mind, I'd like you to choose which one you'd like to debate, either is ok with me. Now Lets move onto the contentions that you've made. I've broken them down into numbers for later clarification 1) Voting is/is not inalienable 2) Disenfranchisement is/is not suitable punishment 3) Felon disenfranchisement is essential for the preservation of integrity. For the opening of my first point, I'd like to directly quote you. """First, I will mention that voting is NOT an inalienable right. In a solitary state, a human does not possess any quality that entails the right to vote. Rights to life, liberty etc. might be inalienable and follow from human nature, but the right to vote is alienable and is contingent upon society. Remember Locke's Social Contract theory?""" 1) Voting may very well not be inalienable in most societies such as monarchies and dictatorships, but in a democratic society, yes, it is inalienable. A way you can look at this is, take away what you're arguing is inalienable or not and see if the sugject being argued upon, is the same. What is a democratic society without voting? Or Better yet, is a democratic society a democratic society without the right to vote? Of course not, in seeing this, you see that it is essential top have the right to vote if you're going to have an actual democratic society. Lets open the second voting issue with a quote from you as well. """A serious crime deserves a serious punishment. Being stripped of voting rights is a fitting punishment because it emphasizes that voting, which is the basis of a democratic society, is a right that is contingent on keeping the Social Contract.""" 2) A serious punishment for a serious crime is the serious sentance that follows. Voting disenfranchisement generally has NOTHING to do with the crime felons commit. It is an extra unwarranted infringement upon a felon's rights. Laws are measured by how well they protect the public and how well they deter crime. How well disenfranchisement protects the public will be addressed in my next voting issue, so lets take a look at the second criteria for effective laws. How well it deters crime. While committing a crime, criminals aren't thinking in the back of their head "Oh man, I hope they don't take away my voting rights." It isn't in their minds AT ALL! People aren't afraid of losing voting rights, they're afraid of being away from loved ones for long periods of time. It basically, IS JUST THERE. Now, just being there isn't bad, if it's not doing anything. However, it is taking away million's of people's right to vote! Taking away voting rights is an infringement and cannot be justified! Committing a felony and voting are pretty much separate entities. It seems, for lack of a better description, kind of random for a society to say, "You robbed a house, so... now you can't vote." Like before, here are your words to spark yet another problem with your stance. """The integrity of voting: Ask yourself: would you want your policemen, your judges or your politicians to be elected by those who have committed atrocities such as rape? In many cases, these felons' ideal of society differs from the commoner's ideal, and we must accept this. Given their inappropriate ideals and motivations, felons should lack the right to vote.""" 3) Now this points out 2 majors problems. So I will attack them differently. A- This problem being that you don't want felons voting because of the fact that they are felons and B- The fact that you have a problem with anyone voting who has ideals that differ from that of the "societal norm" First off, with A. A- You stating " Ask yourself: would you want your policemen, your judges or your politicians to be elected by those who have committed atrocities such as rape?" Is a pointless statement. There are too many assumptions in this sentance. First off, you're assuming taht the convicted rapist is not sorry and is still malicious. Secondly, you're under the misconceived notion that someone who has a history of rape, can vote for someone who will rape america. A killer, thief, or rapist can't vote for someone who will pass a law that will kill, steal from, or rape the american or democratic people. You've stated that voting requires that you have to reach a certain minimum which felons don't reach, but you fail to realize that laws have to reach the certain minimum. There is no harm that can come from a rapist, murderer, or thief voting because they can only vote on something that's productive for the society. After all, 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. But in many places, the assumption is that they can't be trusted to help choose our leaders [...] If we thought criminals could never be reformed, we wouldn't let them out of prison in the first place. Some basic principles of a democracy are that every citizen is given a say in society. But felons are citizens, are they not? And since they are thus forced to live and operate under a governments jurisdiction, shouldn't they have a say in decisions affecting them? Plus, Even non-felons are capable of bad judgment. If we are disenfranchising felons simply because of a bad decision and/or bad decision-making skills, there are plenty of other people who shouldn't be allowed to vote. But who can set that standard of good decision versus bad decision in any absolute form regarding elections? B- The fact that you don't want people with different opinions to vote, is outragious! The whole purpose of voting is to weigh all opinions! A true democracy is the expression of EVERY opinion and the weighing of each one in comparison to one's own until the best possible opinion is formulated. Only then can an opinion be validated and used in action. Voting applies directly, particularly for felons who it can be assumed will have deviant opinions, because if votes are the ultimate mode of expression and change in a democratic society, ALL opinions of anyone governed by the law created in the society is valued highly, because of the previously listed impacts. It can even work on a societal level in the sense that, the vote will be weighed and the best opinion will be chosen - the majority opinion. The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. I go so far as to say, that not allowing felons to vote is harming a democratic society, because the society is not weighing all opinions, and because people will not have the opportunity to consider their opinions openly. I am anxious for my oponents arguments

Title: Depriving prisoners of a vote is simply mean spirited. Content: Surely, we should punish criminals. But, depriving prisoners of the right to vote goes beyond reasonable punishment (physical imprisonment itself is very hard on a person) and into the realm of mean spiritedness. Particularly in societies where rehabilitation is an objective, such mean spiritedness is counter-productive.

Title: Current prisoners should have the right to vote. Content: I will now defend against my opponent's rebuttals to my round 2 arguments:RE: There are people in prison for crimes that majority think shouldn't be a crime, why should they be denied the right to vote? Ah, I had a feeling that number might have been too high and I should have double-checked it. Still, 40,000 is significant enough. I admit it most likely won't influence the vote on marijuana legalization, but you're still denying people the right to vote based on a law that most believe shouldn't even be a law. Perhaps the solution is actually some middle-ground stance, and we're both wrong in arguing for what we are in this debate: Maybe it should be that violent offenders are denied the right to vote, while non-violent offenders in prison are allowed the right to vote. After all, as I pointed out, most people have a higher opinion of those who are non-violent offenders in prison and believe their punishment should be lightened. I don't expect my opponent to compromise and agree that non-violent offenders in prison should be allowed the right to vote. However, if you were to agree to that, I think the proper thing for voters to do would be to make things a tie between us for this debate. I won't say I'm conceding, but if my opponent agrees to the proposition of allowing non-violent offenders in prison the right to vote, I would concede to that point, but only in that event. I will still offer arguments otherwise for the original stance I agreed to from the beginning: which is that all prisoners should be given the right to vote. Just keep in mind that's an option that I agree to if you feel you might lose the debate and don't want to. I'm fine with us compromising a stance on allowing non-violent offenders the right to vote and violent offenders would have it taken away. In a way, it would make sense because violent offenders should have a worse punishment, they do already, but this would be a means of lightening up the punishment for non-violent offenders. Moving on. .. RE: If society is the one who decides the laws, certain laws may never be removed because you're removing the suffrage of people who would want to get rid of that law. I want to specifically quote my opponent on this point: "Also, when laws are passed, most citizens who disagree with it would still follow the law until the law is changed or abolished. This is what it means to be a law-abiding citizen. " At the same time, however, there are laws that many people will see as unjust. Civil disobedience is often justified against these laws. Would you, for example, call Rosa Parks a law breaker for doing what she did? In a way, I suppose she was, but I think you could still consider someone a law-abiding citizen even if they break laws that are unjust. I would consider those who only break just laws to not be law-abiding citizens. RE: The right to vote is a very important right, and it would need a compelling reason to take it away from an individual. My opponent didnt' really offer a compelling reason why the right to vote, specifically, should be taken away from the person here though. They did talk about how some rights in general will be taken away, but I don't believe this suffices for why specifically the right to vote. RE: There can be people in prison innocent of the crime, should they have their right to vote taken away? Yes, I believe this comes down to subjective opinion, nonetheless I can still offer reasons why it would make sense to allow prisoners to vote due to this problem I pointed out. Is it not punishment enough to be taken away from your family, to potentially have to go through fights with inmates, to no longer be able to improve you lot in life, and no longer able to do what you enjoy? I consider each of those things to be major punishments, why do we need to add taking away the right to vote to all of that? You do say that a couple million people could have impacts on elections. However, I argue they would only have an impact on an election that is very close, within 2 million votes of one another. Not to mention, I don't think the voting rate for prisoners is 100%. It's not even 100% for the general population. I would guess it would be half as much, so maybe 1 million prisoners would vote. For the policies that would release the prisoners, there are far more law-abiding citizens who outnumber the prisoners, and I don't think they would be able to vote their way out of prison, so to speak. They may have influence over other policies, but is that such a big problem? I think the chance of having potentially a candidate chosen because of the prison vote, is therefore, ok so that we can have the innocent people in prison vote if they so chose. It just doesn't seem to be a big enough impact problem to allow prisoners to vote in my opinion. Again, 1 million people can't beat the tens of millions of law-abiding citizens. They can't just vote their way out of prison. ConclusionI believe, as I mentioned, since there are people in prison for laws that most people think shouldn't even be a law, and that there are innocent people in prison, additionally since crime is partially a subjective idea, as my opponent also conceded, that this means there is not sufficient reason to deny the right to vote to prisoners.

Title: Released Felons Should Be Allowed To Vote. Content: Thank you, Caseyuer, for posting this debate. I feel this is a topic that I can argue persuasively and, at the very least, a pleasure to compete with another new member. I would flip your statements on you. Felony disenfranchisement is a necessary evil to provide us with a just society. Roger Clegg, of the General Counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity wrote, "We don't let children vote, for instance, or noncitizens, or the mentally incompetent. Why? Because we don't trust them and their judgement. [. .. ] so the question is, do criminals belong in that category? And I think the answer is clearly yes. People who commit serious crimes have shown that they are not trustworthy. " While there might exist special circumstances that might be deemed unjust; there are just as many examples of felons who express a pathological hatred for justice. . http://www.youtube.com... The episode I provide, produced by gonzo documentarian Louis Theroux, gives insight into the thought processes of prisoners who are currently moving through the justice system. Technically, the people contained have the right to vote. Already, a majority of them have a sense of sudo-honor, a vigor for throwing "piss-bombs" and public masturbation (usually pointed at female guards). Members of the public can reasonably come to the conclusion that these people would not vote in favor of the public good. Instead, they would vote, lobby and manipulate our judicial and election system to their own corrupt means. And these inmates depicted are FIRST time offenders. You point out that former felons could possibly be in these circumstances because society has not given them the opportunity to give their opinions. While this sounds like a good point, you could also say the reverse. In that if you give them the capacity to vote their opinions to the legislative branch, you would have a chunk of society who would be in a state of permanent dissent. That, being said, I hold a similar premise to the voters of Massachusetts in 2000. In one of the most liberal states in the country, they collectively voted to bar inmates from voting. This showed, even in liberal circles, that public opinion is against serious lawbreakers from electing representatives. My final point regards the constitutionality of barring voting rights. I acknowledge that the eighth amendment bars excessive sanctions and demands that punishment be to the scale of the crime. However, this amendment is ultimately refuted by the following particulars of the constitution: *Article 1, Sec. 4; *Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment, and *Section Two of the Fifteenth Amendment. Overall, this legislation provide states the right to strip criminals of their voting rights. So, because of the examples I've provided, Felony disenfranchisement falls under the category of just punishment.

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

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

Title: Prisoners right to vote Content: Prisoners have a right to express interests through voting

Title: In most cases, the punishment doesn't fit the crime Content: There is a strong principle in the criminal justice system that the punishment should fit the crime - the more severe the crime, the more sever the punishment. At the moment, anyone who is serving a custodial sentence at the time of an election is unable to take part, regardless of the crime for which they were sentenced, or for how long they have been sentenced to prison.