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

positive: In a Democratic Society, Felons Ought to Retain the Right to Vote 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.

positive: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote NEGATIVE I negate: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote For the sake of clarity, I would like to define some key terms: (1) Democracy: a government by the people in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by their elected officials (2) Felon: a person convicted of a serious criminal offense punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year I offer the following observations of the resolution: (1) Because America is a democracy, a society, and should not allow felons the privilege of voting, the United States complies with all restrictions in the resolution, thus implied by the resolution (2) The resolution clearly states "felons" versus "ex-felons". The United Nations defines an ex-felon as somebody who has completed their sentence, and a felon, as stated in the resolution, as somebody currently serving their sentence. Therefore, my opponent must prove how letting felons vote in prison is upholding a just democracy Value: Justice Value Criterion: Maximization of Fairness The Negative values justice. Justice is implied by the resolution because it deals with the punishment of felons. In order for a society to be democratic, all punishment must be fair and just. If punishment is not fair and just, a democracy cannot prosper. In this debate, I will show why this punishment is perfectly just. I will show my value of justice through the maximization of fairness. Democracy is a majority rule. Currently, the United States is comprised of over 98% of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens, versus the less than 2% of society that are murders and rapists. 98 to 2, who should get the rights? To prove my point, I make the following arguments (1) Retribution. Retribution is giving punishment that is deserved, or punishment that fits the crime. When somebody commits a felony, say rape, they treat their victim as a moral non-entity. An entity is a human being, so treating somebody as a non-entity is treating somebody less than human. So, the government has an obligation to punish this criminal. Does the government then in turn rape the felon? Of course not. This would be treating the felon as a moral non-entity, just as he did to his victim. This is cruel and unusual punishment that would make the government no better than the felon. But, the government still has to punish the felon. What is the government to do? The government must treat the felon as a political non-entity, in order to punish the criminal, yet not be cruel and unusual. Treating a felon as a political non-entity includes revoking the privilege of voting. 2) Legal Consistency. When felons are incarcerated, they are essentially removed from society – both for the punishment of the criminal and for the safety of the rest of society. In their removal from society, they lose certain rights that they would normally possess; they lose their social rights and the freedom of activity, occupational rights and the freedom to engage in the workforce, parental rights and the freedom to raise children, etc. Why, then, should criminals be allowed to maintain their political rights and the freedom to vote? There are many rights which are more basic taken away from the individual during his imprisonment; if we are to uphold some level of legal consistence and be uniform and fair in the level of punishment afforded to prisoners, then there is no reason why we should afford felons the privilege of voting and every reason not to. 3) Double Standard. By affirming the resolution, you are essentially condoning violent acts, which, as a democratic society, we are morally obliged not to do. By affirming the resolution, you are giving felons superior rights. You are not only treating felons as equal, but you are giving them rights that make them superior to normal, tax-paying, law-abiding citizens. You make the law-breakers into the law-makers. By affirming the resolution, you are saying that people who brake the law in the most brazen way, by committing a felony, would be better than a law-abiding citizen because they broke the law and still have the same amount of rights. As you can see, this is simply wrong. Thank you, and it is for those reasons that I negate the resolution

positive: In a democractic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote NEGATIVE I negate: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote [Definitions] (1) Democracy: a government by the people in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by their elected officials (2) Felon: a person convicted of a serious criminal offense punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year (3) Retain: to keep in possession or use [Observations] (1) Because America is a democracy, a society, and should not allow felons the privilege of voting, the United States complies with all restrictions in the resolution, thus implied by the resolution (2) The resolution clearly states "felons" versus "ex-felons". An ex-felon is somebody who has completed their sentence, and a felon, as stated in the resolution, is somebody currently serving their sentence. Therefore, my opponent must prove how letting felons vote in prison is upholding a just democracy [Value/Value Criterion] Value: Justice Value Criterion: Maximization of Fairness The Negative values justice. Justice is implied by the resolution because it deals with the punishment of felons. In order for a society to be democratic, all punishment must be fair and just. If punishment is not fair and just, a democracy cannot prosper. In this debate, I will show why this punishment is perfectly just. I will show my value of justice through the maximization of fairness. Democracy is a majority rule. Currently, the United States is comprised of over 98% of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens, versus the less than 2% of society that are murders and rapists. 98 to 2, who should get the rights? To prove my point, I make the following arguments (1) Retribution. Retribution is giving punishment that is deserved, or punishment that fits the crime. When somebody commits a felony, say rape, they treat their victim as a moral non-entity. An entity is a human being, so treating somebody as a non-entity is treating somebody less than human. So, the government has an obligation to punish this criminal. Does the government then in turn rape the felon? Of course not. This would be treating the felon as a moral non-entity, just as he did to his victim. This is cruel and unusual punishment that would make the government no better than the felon. But, the government still has to punish the felon. What is the government to do? The government must treat the felon as a political non-entity, in order to punish the criminal, yet not be cruel and unusual. Treating a felon as a political non-entity includes revoking the privilege of voting. 2) Legal Consistency. When felons are incarcerated, they are essentially removed from society – both for the punishment of the criminal and for the safety of the rest of society. In their removal from society, they lose certain rights that they would normally possess; they lose their social rights and the freedom of activity, occupational rights and the freedom to engage in the workforce, parental rights and the freedom to raise children, etc. Why, then, should criminals be allowed to maintain their political rights and the freedom to vote? There are many rights which are more basic taken away from the individual during his imprisonment; if we are to uphold some level of legal consistence and be uniform and fair in the level of punishment afforded to prisoners, then there is no reason why we should afford felons the privilege of voting and every reason not to. 3) Double Standard. By affirming the resolution, you are essentially condoning violent acts, which, as a democratic society, we are morally obliged not to do. By affirming the resolution, you are giving felons superior rights. You are not only treating felons as equal, but you are giving them rights that make them superior to normal, tax-paying, law-abiding citizens. You make the law-breakers into the law-makers. By affirming the resolution, you are saying that people who brake the law in the most brazen way, by committing a felony, would be better than a law-abiding citizen because they broke the law and still have the same amount of rights. As you can see, this is simply wrong. Thank you, and it is for those reasons that I negate the resolution [Rebuttal] Value: Equality I have 3 responses --> equality (of rights) is impossible during incarceration. If felons were to be equal (in rights), then there would be no punishment. For example, the government puts you in jail. Right there, the government automatically takes away your right to liberty, pursuit of hapiness, and countless other rights -->My opponent is dejustifying all forms of punishment. If incarceration is unjust in and of itself, than there is no way for society to punish criminals --> This creates a 'double standard' (3rd contention) VC: Democracy I have 2 responses --> Democracy, as a form of government, must exhibit the ability to protect society. My opponent then must prove how dejustifying all punishment would help protect society --> Maximization of Fairness better upholds justice. For a government to be just, it must exhibit fairness to its consitituents. However, a democracy is not always just, and a just government is not always a democracy [Contentions] (1) Enfranchising felons is directly proportional to the increase of democracy My opponent is saying that letting these parasites of society vote will have more democracy I have two responses --> you cannot have 'more democracy' --> you can have more people participate in democracy, say children, but this would not uphold my value and value criteria (1a) Felon Disenfranchisement hurts democratic values and rights I have 2 responses --> democratic values include protecting society by way of just punishment. I have already proven how I have met that burden. Let's also not forget how they became a felon: by committing a felony. A felony inherently hurts society, and therefore government --> he brings in race towards the end. This is not resolutional. Because the court of law deals with punishment, you are essentially saying that the court is racist and corrupt. Because the court is racist and corrupt, then any punishment given by the court is corrupt, thus dejustifying all forms of punishment (1b) Restoration of the right to vote enables rehabilitation and reintegration into (a) democratic society I have two responses --> If you agree with my opponents logic, then the opposite (disenfranchising) felons automatically destroys the opportunity to rehabilitate them. Yet, this is false. Many people can become a member of society without having the right to vote. Look no further than Ted Stevens, the Alaskan senator who was found guilty of a felony, yet he serves the best nation in the world --> Once a felon re-enters society, they are considered an ex-felon by society, therefore, anything dealing with an ex-felon is not resolutional (In a democratic society, FELONS....) Cont 2: Allowing felons to vote, once released, is consistent with the return of other rights --> not necessarily. For example, the government revokes the right to bear arms, the right to serve on a jury, the right to privacy, ect. --> Once again, when a felon re-enters society, they are considered an ex-felon by said society, therefore not resolutional and or pertaining to the resolution Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, and that is why I negate the resolution

positive: In a democractic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. When looking at the basis of the resolution, we read in the first prepositional phrase "in a democratic society," therefore the resolution assumes that felon disenfranchisement is taking place in a democratic framework. Even if some people would view those preferences as "bad" society, a procedural view of democracy would hold that there is no legitimate basis for any preferences to be rejected and equality of all is the implied value. To define key terms: Felons - A person convicted of a serious criminal offense punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year. Democracy (root of democratic) - Of, characterized by, or advocating democracy, Of or for the people in general; popular, Believing in or practicing social equality The value for this round will be equality, and my criterion will be democracy. This means that whoever allows for the equality by the ways of democracy, will win this round. This is a fair value and criterion because the resolution is talking about what is best for a democratic society, ergo my criterion; and equality is essential to a democracy, ergo my value. Moreso, a democracy is defined as in having or practicing social equality and inversely, without equality, a full democracy cannot be established. CONTENTION ONE: ENFRANCHISING FELONS IS DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO THE INCREASE OF DEMOCRACY A. FELON DISENFRANCHISEMENT HURTS DEMOCRATIC VALUES AND RIGHTS Mauer, Marc, assistant director of The Sentencing Project, "Felon Disenfranchisement: A Policy Whose Time Has Passed?" American Bar Association, http://www.abanet.org..., accessed September 9, 2008 Regarding individuals who complete their sentence, it is difficult to develop a compelling argument for the denial of voting rights. Americans long have professed that once you "pay your debt to society," you are free to rejoin the community. But a felony conviction may continues to deny these rights of citizenship decades after a sentence has been completed, even for a one-time, nonviolent offense. (Regrettably, policymakers in recent years enacted a series of collateral consequences of conviction, many tied specifically to drug offenses, that also extend after sentence. These include bans on receiving welfare assistance, living in public housing, and obtaining financial aid for higher education.) But serious questions can be raised as well regarding the loss of fundamental rights for people currently serving a felony sentence, whether in prison or on probation or parole. Our legal system generally makes a distinction between punishment-the loss of liberty whether in prison or on probation-and the loss of rights. The only exceptions generally conceded by law and policy are those exercises of speech that might conflict with public safety concerns. If we think of voting more broadly, as a fundamental expression of speech, then disenfranchisement becomes an even greater challenge for a democratic society. Suppose, for example, a legislator proposed a bill to make it unlawful for a probationer to write a letter to the editor or to participate in a protest rally. Surely few policymakers or citizens would find this an appropriate consequence of a conviction. Yet in the twenty-nine states that currently prohibit probationers from voting, such restrictions on political expression are firmly in place. The traditional goals of sentencing also leave little justification for disenfranchisement and most other collateral consequences of conviction. Other than serving a retributive function, disenfranchisement certainly does not meet the goals of incapacitation or deterrence. Individuals who are not already deterred from crime by the threat of incarceration are unlikely to be swayed by the prospect of losing their right to vote. Placing a character test on voting eligibility also is reminiscent of past practices that run counter to modern notions of democratic procedure. Once we begin to impose character requirements, voting slips back from being a right for all Americans to a privilege granted by the powerful. The racial impact of disenfranchisement policies is sometimes justified as an inevitable if unfortunate aspect of a race-neutral criminal justice system: if members of a particular racial or ethnic group are more involved in crime, the consequent disproportionate loss of voting rights is merely a result of their activity. Such an argument, though, ignores the compelling evidence of discriminatory racial dynamics in the criminal justice system-racial profiling by law enforcement agencies, the racially disparate prosecution of the war on drugs, and glaring inequities in adequacy of counsel as a function of both race and class. Affirming the resolution allows for reenfranchisement, which changes how felons function in the electoral system. B. RESTORATION OF THE RIGHT TO VOTE ENABLES REHABILITATION AND REINTEGRATION INTO DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY Mauer, Marc, assistant director of The Sentencing Project, "Felon Disenfranchisement: A Policy Whose Time Has Passed?" American Bar Association, http://www.abanet.org..., accessed September 9, 2008 In a more positive vein, the restoration of voting rights can be seen as being in harmony with the rehabilitative goal of sentencing. If an objective of sentencing is to encourage offenders to become less antisocial, then it is in society's interest to engage offenders in productive relationships with the community. Voting is clearly one means of doing so. Such a rationale is employed by the many nations (and the states of Maine and Vermont) that do not relate voting rights to criminal punishment and permit even prisoners to vote. By the standards of most democratic nations, American disenfranchisement policies are extreme, as is our excessive use of imprisonment. No other democratic nation disenfranchises former offenders for life; some countries deny voting rights to citizens after they have completed a prison sentence, but this generally is for a limited period of time and for specific offenses. During the past decade, constitutional courts in Canada, Israel, and South Africa have affirmed the fundamental right of all citizens, including prisoners, to be part of the electorate. The Israeli case is particularly intriguing because it resulted from a challenge to the voting rights of Yigal Amir, the man convicted of killing former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Reintegration is a key step to achieve a truly democratic society, which increases the legitimacy of democracy. Democracy impacts to providing the most social justice through the protection of rights, both on a domestic and international scale. CONTENTION 2: Allowing felons to vote, once released, is consistent with the return of other rights. Jeffrey Reiman, "Liberal and Republican Arguments against the Disenfranchisement of Felons," Criminal Justice Ethics, 2005 Technically, disenfranchisement is not considered part of an offender's sentence but only a "collateral consequence" of conviction. Consequently, one rarely sees judges defending disenfranchisement as punishment. With regard to imprisoned felons, the argument implied in this rhetorical question has some force. Because the idea of Felon Disenfranchisement does not promote the best for society in the form of the preservation of democracy and the creation of justice, the reverse must also be true. If Felons were re-enfranchised It would strengthen the democratic process and would be the most just solution because it preserves democracy by means of marketable ideas being expressed.

positive: The state is hypocritical in taxing prisoners but not giving them a vote. Prisoners are not treated as “civically dead” when it benefits the State: they are liable for taxation on any earnings and savings that they have. There should be no taxation without representation.

positive: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. 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...

positive: Citizens recieving government benefits should not be allowed to vote We must first realize that voting isn’t and never was a blanket right granted to everyone inside the U.S. border.Very true... Mostly..._____________________________________________________________________________________Now, if there are restrictions on other “rights” like free speech and the 2nd Amendment pertaining to guns why can’t there also be a restriction on the “right” to vote?It is very simple. Rights are restricted for protection.The reason why the Freedom of Speech is limited is because yelling "fire" inside a crowded theater can cause death, injuries etc.The reason why the Freedom to Own Guns is limited is because owning weaponized anthrax can cause death, injuries, etc.Someone voting for future security is not causing death, injuries, etc._____________________________________________________________________________________An able bodied person who receives benefits and is able to vote is like a child being able to vote their own rules and allowances. No parent would agree to that and it’s illogical.If it is true that these citizens shouldn't be able to vote because they would vote for "candy for breakfast", then should anyone be able to vote?The rich would not be able to vote because they would vote for the person who would give them tax-cuts.The unemployed would not be able to vote because they would vote for the person who would create more opportunities for jobs, possibly in exspense of other aspects of the economy.The disabled would not be able to vote because they would vote for the person who would give them the most unemployed benifits.The normal person would not be able to vote because they would vote for the person who has similar sets of values._____________________________________________________________________________________or not working at all (welfare).What if these people legitamently couldn't get a job?_____________________________________________________________________________________What is happening today is that the Democrat party is bribing people for votes with someone else’s money.It could be said that what we have today is actually the Repulican party and the Tea-Party bribing people for their votes with someone else's money.____________________________________________________________________________It boils down to, “vote for me if you want more welfare, more Medicaid, more unemployment benefits, more food stamps, more W.I.C. money, free birth control, free healthcare, free college education, etc.”What if you need welfare, Medicaid, foodstamps, or W.I.C money? What if you cannot afford food, medical care, birth control, healthcare, or college tuition? Essentially the non-producers are voting to redistribute the money from the producers to themselves. This entitlement mentality, this political ideology, is crippling America.While this mentality DID help creaate a problem, you are mistaken if you think it is the soul cause. The big financial problems started in 2008, under a REPUBLICAN leader. It is safe to say, we did not have those benifits that we have today. How, then, did we fall into that rutt? The answer is simple: it isn't nearly as damaging as you believe._____________________________________________________________________________________This is exactly what our founders feared.They feared a lot of things that have happened. They would despise the 3 wars, the ending of slavery, and disability benifits. The Founding Fathers are irrelevant.____________________________________________________________________________Why should someone have the ability to tell me that I have to give them my money?The voters don't control what happens to your taxes. We are not a democracy. The Congress, Senate, Supreme Court, and the President decides what they do with your taxes.Once again, should anyone be able to vote? Remember, everyone votes in their best interest.____________________________________________________________________________ This would be like me walking into a bank and holding a vote to redistribute the money in the vault to everyone who voted for it. That is not accurate. This is like people giving the bank money, then some of those people voting if they want the money. Depending on how the votes go, the people who owns the bank votes. They decide who gets money, who loses it, what we do with it, who pays more, etc._____________________________________________________________________________________So far, my opponent has not shown why anyone should be able to vote.So far, my opponent has not shown why only those with benifits should be unable to vote.I have shown that everyone votes in their own best interests.I have shown that those on benifits do not directly choose to get moree benifits.Back to Pro.

positive: Police could influence their votes This could happen at any given polling station but it doesn't. These measures are being introduced as the European Court of Human Rights considers a blanket ban on voting for prisoners as a breach of human rights. It is likely therefore that the Government will introduce many procedural safeguards to ensure that the voting rights are exercised in a similar fashion to the ones outside of prison. Only then will they be fully meeting the expectations of the Human Rights Court which they do not wish to contravene.

positive: The views and needs of prisoners are currently not represented. Issues such as prison overcrowding a... In practice, few prisoners earn enough to be liable for taxation. In any case, the right to vote does not follow from the obligation to pay tax. In many countries, people start earning money and paying tax before they are old enough to vote (particularly if they leave school as soon as they are allowed to do so). This implies that the right to vote is given to those who can be expected to use it responsibly. Those convicted of serious enough crimes to be imprisoned have shown that they have no respect for society. They therefore cannot be trusted to vote responsibly in the interests of society; many would probably simply vote for candidates promising lighter sentences for criminals. Prisoners’ interests are already represented by NGOs and statutory prison inspection bodies, which ensure that they are not ill-treated. They do not deserve any further representation.

positive: Allowing prisoners to vote Here are some links to the rules. It is for ld of Lincoln-Douglas debate. http://www.nflonline.org... http://www.neisd.net.... (Page 9) 1: First let us see what everyday people have to say. -"People need to stop thinking about themselves Of course prisoners should have the right to vote! A convicted criminal or not, they are still members of our society. To say they no longer deserve a voice is not only inconsiderate but selfish. Give me one good reason why prisoners shouldn't be able to vote? I guarantee ever answer will be an selfish excuse. Just because their opinion may not align with yours, doesn't mean that it should be stripped from them. Prisoners are put under the protection of the government and therefore have the full right to be able to have a say on who protects them." -"YES They Should!!!!!! Some are good they just made a mistake, so why shouldn't they decide on their future when they come out?If they don't vote it would be very unfair. After all, they are human no matter what they have done they are still citizens. They have human rights and two wrongs doesn't make a right! If you do let them vote, when they come out they will probably not commit to a crime or break the law because they respect their prime minister! They have their rights and we have ours too! They should because its like saying you cant play this board game because you cheated in one 10 years ago!" -"YES In regards to the person's statement saying "they broke the law, therefore they don't deserve the law" argument... if that is the case, do you suggest that we don't provide them with lawyers, judges, jury, etc. in which to try and convict them? Your argument suggests that we should simply throw people in jail, swallow the key, and let them rot. This, while these people may violated human rights and law, deserve the equal right to be judged under our culturally unique system of law... and pay for their crimes dearly." Read more of what others have to say @ http://www.debate.org... 2: Here are top 10 reasons why inmates should be allowed to vote. A: "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." B: "In many states, felony disenfranchisement laws are still on the books. And the current scope of these policies is not only too significant to ignore " it is also too unjust to tolerate... And 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. In three states " Florida, Kentucky, and Virginia " that ratio climbs to one in five." C:"There are three potential constitutional bases for Congress's authority to enfranchise non-incarcerated offenders for federal elections : - Congress's supervisory power over federal elections, rooted in Article 1, Sec. 4; - Congress's enforcement power under Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment, and - Congress's enforcement power under Section Two of the Fifteenth Amendment." D: "It is plain to anyone reading the Voting Rights Act that it applies to all 'voting qualification[s].' And it is equally plain that [New York Election Law] " 5-106 [which denies the vote to incarcerated felons and felons on parole] disqualifies a group of people from voting. These two propositions should constitute the entirety of our analysis. Section 2 of the Act by its unambiguous terms subjects felony disenfranchisement and all other voting qualifications to its coverage. The duty of a judge is to follow the law, not to question its plain terms. I do not believe that Congress wishes us to disregard the plain language of any statute or to invent exceptions to the statutes it has created. The majority's 'wealth of persuasive evidence' that Congress intended felony disenfranchisement laws to be immune from scrutiny... includes not a single legislator actually saying so. But even if Congress had doubts about the wisdom of subjecting felony disenfranchisement laws to the results test of " 2, I trust that Congress would prefer to make any needed changes itself, rather than have courts do so for it." E: "The Eighth Amendment 'succinctly prohibits 'excessive' sanctions,' and demands that 'punishment for crime should be graduated and proportioned to the offense'... Thus, the states that continue to exclude all felons permanently are outliers, both within the United States and in the world." F: "[T]he argument that allowing prisoners to vote would be costly and impractical is ethically unjustifiable. Similarly, the fact that prisoners lose many freedoms does not imply they should lose all their civil rights. Denying prisoners the right to vote is likely to undermine respect for the rule of law... Allowing prisoners to vote, by contrast, may strengthen their social ties and commitment to the common good, thus promoting legally responsible participation in civil society." G: "I believe that the commission of a crime must have a tough and just consequence... 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..." H: "People should not be barred from voting solely because they are unable to pay back their fines, fees and interest. If we truly want people convicted of felonies to re-engage with society, become rehabilitated, and feel a part of a broader community (thus creating incentives not to recidivate) then our State should do everything possible to re-incorporate these individuals into mainstream society. In terms of being a just and even handed society, it is not fair if thousands of people are unable to re-gain their voting rights because they are poor... People who are wealthy or have access to money are able to repay their financial debts and poor people (the vast majority of people who have felony convictions) are not. This is an unjust system." I: "Despite its initial attractiveness, the use of social contract theory to defend felon disenfranchisement is in fact specious. Under a regime of disenfranchisement, an individual who breaches the social contract continues to be bound by the terms of the contract even after being stripped of the ability to take part in political decisions. However, contract doctrine does not allow an injured party to force the breacher to perform its contractual duties without the injured party performing its own. The contract can be terminated or the injured party can accept the performance, but the injured party cannot simply pick and choose which terms will remain and which will not... Social contract theory and the objectives of punishment fail to provide a satisfactory explanation for the denial of one of the most fundamental rights to millions of citizens." J:"[In New York] ex-felons who are registered overwhelmingly register as Democrats. Of those discharge records that match to at least one voter file record, 61.5 percent match only to Democratic voter records. In contrast, 25.5 percent match only to voter records with no affiliation or an affiliation with a minor party, while 9 percent match only to Republican voter records... ...[R]egistered ex-felons in New Mexico tend to be overwhelmingly Democrat: 51.9 percent match to only registered Democrats, 18.9 percent match to only registered Republicans, 21.7 percent match to only individuals registered neither as Democrats nor Republicans, and 7.5 percent match to multiple individuals who affiliate with different parties..." http://felonvoting.procon.org... 3: Many countries restrict the right of those sentenced to imprisonment to vote in elections. For example, convicted prisoners are automatically banned from voting in Armenia, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Luxemburg, Romania, Russia and the United Kingdom. In Australia, prisoners are only entitled to vote if they are serving a sentence of less than three years. Eighteen European states, including Spain, the Netherlands and the Republic of Ireland, place no formal prohibition on prisoners voting. In practice http://wwww.idebate.org... 4: During 2002 Canada gave prisoners the right to vote. On January 4, 2010, a federal appeals court ruled that Washington State prisoners should be allowed to vote to ensure that racial minorities are protected under the Voting Rights Act, as African Americans make up 3% of Washington's general population, but are 28% of its prison population. The lawsuit that was ruled on contended that as non whites make up a large percentage of the prison population, the State law prohibiting inmates and parolees from voting is illegal as it dilutes the electoral clout of minorities. The Sentencing Project estimates that due to their legal status, 5.3 million Americans who would otherwise be entitled to vote do not have that right. laws barring prisoners and parolees from voting violate the Voting Rights Act. http://www.change.org... Comment,?, or concern?

positive: You Choose the Topic! 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.

positive: Should Teenager be allowed to vote The reason i say yes is because teens can work and pay taxes as young as 15, And I don't think it is correct to pay taxes to a government that denies one the right to vote. Also, Many issues affect children, And I believe the First Amendment rights to free speech and redress of grievances do not only apply to adults. No one is saying younger people should vote, But 15 or 16 is reasonable enough. For the record, I am 37, But I am also a children's rights supporter. I believe children have rights, And if they are citizen's old enough to work and pay taxes, They have the right to vote. I see taxation without representation as a form of slavery. We are supposed to be the land of the free, Not the home of the enslaved. Peace.

positive: You Choose the Topic! 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.

positive: prisoners and should they be able to vote 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

positive: Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. 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...

positive: Children should be allowed to vote I believe that any citizen who wants to vote should be allowed to, including children who are old enough to read a candidate's name. Because the principle of a democracy is one-person-one-vote, if children are to be excluded the burden of proof rests on my opponent. Excluding children undermines democracy, because children are a social class like any other, with their own needs and interests. If they are not represented they will be exploited, and they are exploited immensely. Issues like education, adoption, foster care, after-school programs, curfew, and many more affect children more than any other group, and yet they are the only group that has no say. It is easy for adults in these fields to say they have children's best interests at heart, but they are never required to prove this is so, and they could just as easily be mistaken about what children really want and need. I will anticipate one counterargument, that children shouldn't be allowed to vote because they are ignorant. I would say that a large majority of voting adults are ignorant, and we let them vote anyway, while a good number of children are well informed and yet not allowed to vote. Furthermore, children are usually better informed on child-related topics such as education, etc. than the average adult. If we are to justify excluding children, we must have a better reason than ignorance.

positive: Ex-felons who commited minor crimes or crimes at a early age should be allowed to vote Crime-an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law. Utilitarianism- The greatest benefit for the greatest number of people A lot of people would think that I am being close minded in believing that ex-felons should not be allowed to vote. Well I am here today to prove that I am not. These children need to bear the punishment of their actions. Better not, they need to be the face of the consequence of crime. I think we can all agree that crime is a horrible, unethical thing to do in a society. But we need to convince these children of it too. These children should know that there privileges will be taken away, and there voting rights will be taken away. I am looking at it from a utilitarian view. This will be the greater benefit for the new generations.

positive: ex felons should be able to vote 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.

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

positive: In the United States of America we ought to allow prisoners to vote for candidates In a society based on republicanism, we elect officials to vote for us. This is know as the electoral college. These candidates are essentially elected to vote vote for us. It would be enormously inappropriate to elect officials through people who have broken the system. When someone commits a crime, yes the action is committed to the victim, but the crime is also reflected upon in the society. 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? Next, why do we not allow children to vote? We don't allow children to vote because we do not trust their judgement. Why are the mentally incompetent not allowed to vote? We don't allow the mentally incompetent to vote because we do not trust their judgement. Why do we not allow prisoners to vote? We don't allow prisoners to vote because we do not trust their judgement. Also, why would prisoners care who's in office? If i'm in prison serving 35 years for murder, the president of the united states is irrelevant. As long as there are 3 square meals a day, a prisoner has no real reason to have a legitimate vote. Also, as we are all aware, prisons are notorious for gangs. Who's to say a gang who is already inside the prison would not give a reward to prisoners for voting for their selected candidate? You talk about how it's essentially unconstitutional that prisoners lose rights. If it's so bad the CONVICTED felons lose freedoms, then why hasn't America stopped and paid attention to the students who are not guaranteed 100% of their rights. Under your argument, why should murderers, thieves, and rapists have more rights than students? 52% of released prisoners return. Prison as of right now is not about fixing people. It's about punishment. If prisoners want the right to vote so bad, they should not break the law. We cannot forget that prison is not supposed to equate to the outside world of freedom. "we have to make them feel like they're an essential part of the community before letting them free. " Prisoners are not a part of the community. That's why they are secluded in jailhouses. "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." If you can give me statistics, this argument stands. Otherwise, it's irrelevant. Thanks http://www.crimeinamerica.net... http://en.wikipedia.org...

positive: Non-citizens, under certain circumstances, should be allowed to vote in the US Hello slave: I'll take you on. I hope I live up to the standards I've seen in other debates. 1) They live in the United States and are trying to establish permanent residency here 2) The government has jurisdiction over them. First off, I believe in EXPANDING our voter pool, not in reducing it. Plus, I don't disagree with what you said above. But, those statements are TRUE even for citizens, and WE don't have a right to vote. Let's make voting for citizens a right FIRST, and then we can consider spreading it around to others.. That's all I got. excon

positive: Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections. 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 :)

positive: Resolved: In the United States, Felons should be allowed to vote upon release from prison. 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...

negative: Women should be allowed to vote So far, you haven't posted an argument. Why would anyone vote con? Vote Pro. I never forfeited.

negative: In a Democratic Society, Felons Ought to Retain the Right to Vote I don't unerstand what my oppenent did. He reposted his original argument exactly (his 1st and 2nd round posts are identical) Please respond to my objection I put foward in round 1, and please respond to my side of the argument. Thank you

negative: should prisons be strict prisons should be stricter vs. prisons should stay the same

negative: Quiz before Vote Americans have a responsibility to know the topics or people that they are voting for. Also laws are confusing and people have voted incorrectly before because they misunderstood what they were voting for, or against. To make sure that Americans understand what/who they are voting for, they should be required to pass a short quiz on the issues before voting. If they fail then they can be given information written by both sides and if needed can have someone read them this information. Then they will be allowed to vote. It would be important to set up safeguards against people being swayed one way or another if they needed assistance understanding. It is important that each American have a voice and that there voice is accurately translated through our voting system.

negative: Compulsory voting Compulsory voting expands government, limits freedom.

negative: Resolved: In the United States, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to be tried as adults Heyy! For whoever accepts this debate! I just want you to know that I'm more interested in critics then actually debating. I honeslty do not care who wins this, I just want to see if anyone out there sees flaws or contradictions I don't. Also, even if you don't to critic it in the debate, please feel free to comment on whatever you think is wrong or question. Thanks Guys! "Justice has to be done and all people should be treated equally." Nicky Maxwell's quote sums up the Justice in all its character. Although justice may seem hard at times, it is something that has to be done and is why I stand in Affirmation of the resolution Resolved: In the United States, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to be treated as adults in the criminal justice system. The Value of this round is justice because the resolution is asking us to argue which system the juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to go in order to pay their just dues to society. Justice in this round is going to focus on the best way for a juvenile to serve their just due to society and what is in the best interest for a juvenile when it comes down to which system they are charged in. I offer the following observations for the round. Observation One: To clarify , we are not talking about all juveniles or all delinquent crimes in general; we are talking about the juveniles who have committed violent felonies which is defined as or any criminal offense that involves the threat or use of violence during its commission such as a Murder or Assault crimes. My second Observation is that the Definition of Juvenile is anyone between the ages of 13 and 18. The age 13 was chosen because that is the youngest known age of a juvenile who was sentenced to life in prison without parole. - As there is no action without reaction, there shouldn't a crime without punishment afterwards. Even juveniles are subject to laws and are obliged to behave accordingly. Should they fail to do so, it would be unjust to let them - almost freely - get away with it.   Contention One: Juveniles need to be tried in Adult courts to uphold the basic forms of justice. Sub-Point A: Unjust Sentencing for juveniles encourages discrimination The most fundamental principle of justice—one that has been widely accepted since it was first defined by Aristotle more than two thousand years ago—is the principle that "equals should be treated equally and un-equals unequally." In its contemporary form, this principle is sometimes expressed as follows: "Individuals should be treated the same, unless they differ in ways that are relevant to the situation in which they are involved." Now, we can apply Aristotle's same logic to the Resolution. If we have a child of the age of 14 who has killed a man and someone the age of 20 who has killed a man, they both should be tried and sentenced in the same fashion. But in our society, we see it fit to allow the child to endure a different form a punishment simply because he is of a lower age, thus encouraging injustice and discrimination. What we must see is that murder is murder, no matter who has committed it. The only relevant differences in a case of murder or rape would be how or where the action took place not the age or gender of the offender. Because Things such as murder and assault are violent felonies, we as a society need to hold these crimes to the upmost justice because they can be some of the most gruesome crimes to take place. Having a juvenile commit these crimes should make us think of it no more or no less because age is not a primary factor in the conviction of a crime and why a juvenile should be held accountable for their actions in an adult court system, where these violent felonies are typically solved for. Sub-Point B: Juveniles are given more opportunities for justice when charged as adults. The Juvenile and Criminal justice system both differ in various ways. One way they differ is the rights at trails in the different systems. The rights of a juvenile In the Juvenile justice include the right to an attorney, speedy trail, to confront witness, to cross examine witnesses, to introduce evidence and not to testify. Although this may seem like juveniles are protected in courts with these right, it's an unfair justice to them especially dealing with violent felonies. In juvenile courts, you are denied the right to a jury trial and bail. The only person that gets to decide your case is the judge. And although evidence is allowed to be presented, there is only one person who gets to decide your case. Now let's examine a juvenile in Adult system. When a juvenile is charged or transferred over to an adult court for trial, they are automatically given the rights of an adult. They can post bail, have a public trail, and still have all the rights they did before. Also, a defense attorney will have more time to properly review their case and have a stronger case against the prosecution. They will be able to build their defense stronger because according to the rules in which a juvenile can be contained before their trial, they can only be contained for 1-3 days, while in a adult court, they are contained until it's time for their case on the calendar. Another area we can look too in the adult system is the fact that a full jury gets to decides their case, not one judge who has been working on cases all day long. This is especially important in Violent Felony cases where evidence needs to be looked upon and questioned over and over again to make sure that beyond a reasonable doubt the juvenile is guilty. Adult court systems give the juvenile a better chance at proving themselves innocent or guilty and giving them more rights to a trail, this is defiantly important in violent felony cases because of the seriousness of the crimes. These factors also give the juvenile more justice when it comes to their violent felony because the chances of them being represented better are increased. Sub-Point C: Adult charges for juveniles proves to be affective. Studies done by the Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice and Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, have approached the question of whether or not the criminal justice system is the best place for juveniles to be charged in. They approached the question from different perspectives but have come upon the same conclusion: Youth who are subjected to the more punitive adult court system showed higher rates of recidivism and reoffended more quickly than those youth components that have gone through rehabilitative centers within the criminal justice system. This proves that not only that the criminal justice system can offer juveniles more options for their crimes but also that they a proven to work effectively. Contention Two: Juveniles Know right from wrong. The reason the juvenile justice system was formed was because society wanted a less harsh way to hold juveniles accountable for their actions. Their justification was that juveniles were of a lesser level of accountability because of their age. But what we must see in today's debate round is that justice cannot be based on age, but rather if the action was right or wrong. Many arguers against juveniles entering adult courts are that they are not as emotionally ready or stable as an adult to be held accountable for their actions. Although the factor of emotional development has been proven through scientific research committing a crime isn't based of whether your emotions controlled you or not, it's rather you knew if it was right or wrong. We have all experienced the emotional drive versus whether are actions were right or wrong. For example, when one is child and they want a cookie out of the cookie jar their emotions tell them that they want a cookie, but they still know they are going to get in trouble if they decided to grab one. Grabbing the cookie isn't a matter of emotional drive, but whether or not the child is willing to suffer the conseq

negative: In a democratic society, felons out to retain the right to vote. I regret that my opponent has forfeited this round as I enjoyed the debate.

negative: people with serious mental health problems or criminal records should be able to own guns. People who have committed serious crimes should not be able to on guns. Others who did stuff like spray painting should be able to own them after a period of time.

negative: Citizens recieving government benefits should not be allowed to vote I ask you read the following in either JFK's or Morgan Freeman's voice.Lladies and Llamas of the Tribunal:We have, on this site, erected a generic political debate. On this day, political affiliations do call us so strongly. They call us to arms to support our friends of the same party, whether that means to step to Defeat the Demon Democrats' iDeas, or to Repel the wRetched Republicans' Reigns.I ask that we repel these instincts, so that we may, unbiasedly, find the answer to the question posed above: "Should those on benifits be allowed to vote?", using the arguments provided above.I believe that I have effectively proven that those on benefits do indeed have the right to vote, with my opponent failing to show the following:1) Why other groups, who often vote at the expense of the others, should still be alloud to vote.2) Why those on benefits directly take the money.3) That Congress, at 6% approval rating, still are doing what 51% of people want.4) Why the majority should be ignored.5) How those relying on benefits would survive if they are immediately removed.6) How will, if only those without benefits are voting, people keep benefits.7) Why, if benefits are unfair, revoking voting rights make them fair.As you can see, my opponent's idea raises too many questions, questions that he is yet to answer.

negative: It often happens that the third felony - that is, the one that triggers the automatic sentence - is ... Historically, judges have abused the discretion that they have been given by the criminal justice system. Too often, judges have imposed light sentences on criminals, even when those criminals have been repeat offenders. The mandatory sentences imposed by three-strikes laws ensure that recidivists (repeat offenders) are punished appropriately.

negative: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain their right to vote Generally, PRO goes first. However, if you accept this debate, then you forfeit your right to go second and will therefore go first (I don't feel like going first) Felony disenfranchisement is the term used to describe the practice of prohibiting people from voting based on the fact that they have been convicted of a felony. I stand against felon disenfranchisement, convince me otherwise [...]

negative: In a democratic society felons ought to be denied the right to vote. I cite Con for bad conduct in forfeiting the round. Ya gotta keep on top of it. Arguments are continued.

negative: Children should be allowed to vote. I accept the terms as my contender has laid them out and gladly accept the challenge. I will be arguing on the Pro/for side of the debate. I will argue that age restrictions have no place in our voting system. I will use resources including only scholarly articles and textbooks, which I will access through Indiana University Libraries. Not only will I conclude that humans under the age of 18 should be allowed to vote, but I will argue that it may be beneficial to their cognitive/social growth. Let the fun begin :)

negative: Homos should not be allowed to vote Felons are not allowed to vote, sodomy should be considered a felony as it was untill recently in many or most states, no I don't care to do the exact counting or a precise rundown of which states had laws against sodomy as a felony......I know the laws are changing and they are pushing laws to outlaw what I am saying as "hate speech'. That does not mean it is normal or good for men to abuse themselves with each other just because they feel like it, nor for woman to abuse each other sexually no matter how much they enjoy it. Enjoying it does not make it right, and a society that does not have the hootzpah to set limitations on perversion cannot remain a free society for long. It will become necessary for other nations to take over, or an opprossive government to rise which is what is happening now in America where we used to have freedom of speech but "progressives" are pushing to ban speech that does not fit their politics. Homos should not be allowed to vote.......... all sex outside of marriage should be against the law.......I'm not discriminating. All fornicators and adulterers should be hit with felonies and being felons, not allowed to vote.

negative: Resolved: Voting should NOT be based on age I accept your challenge and will debate that voting should be based on age. Please clarify if your argument is as "themohawkninja " said in the comment section below. Right now I am under the impression that I will be debating against the use of literacy tests and political knowledge to decide who is allowed to vote. Pro will have to prove that there is a problem with the current system and that changing it as such will fix said problem. I look forward to this debate.

negative: Women should be allowed to vote No rebuttals. Round 3 rebuttals Round 4 rebuttals Round 5 rebuttals and concluding statements

negative: Stop decimating the Constitution The creation of a life supporting system; a positive environment and a humanistic society has been best idealized, described and structured no better than in the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The intentions were without distinctions of treatment differing on characteristics of people. The use of interpretation has radically changed the original precept. There are several parts of the government affected however I will start with one: The Justice Branch. First, the government was to be divided into three branches for checks and balance system. The Legislative Branch is elected by the people. The people can decide if a change should be made. The head of the Executive Branch is elected by the people. The people can decide if a change should be made. The Judicial Branch is appointed by those in office who insure the ultimate portion of the Judicial Branch (Supreme Court) has the attitude and beliefs that support their positions. The justices are appointed for a lifetime. The people have no choice or control. This raises questions about this branch being held accountable. The Supreme Court cannot make laws nor is it supposed to decide what is fair, positive, negative, right or wrong. It is supposed to rule only if the item or issue is constitutional. Prosecutors (Usually in the D. A. office) are the most involved to make justice one sided. Their responsibility is to support justice be served. Whenever they describe their effectiveness, it is by stating how many convictions they have. As a result they have influenced and manipulated the system so it is structured to support convictions. Some examples: 1. If a person is guilty until innocent, how come some are incarcerated for long periods of time before trial. I am particularly speaking about those who do not appear or have the means to run and pose no threat to society 2. The Constitution guarantees a speedy trial. The process has been molded so complex that speed is not an issue. In fact they too often threaten a person with so much time in jail trying to get a confession. Guilty until proven innocent. 3. With mandatory sentencing there is only one person who can determine what the sentence is going to be. Not the judge not the jury. The prosecutors add multiple charges and negotiate a reduction for a confession. Why charge and drop? Are they guilty or not? A person that is serving a sentence or a person charged with a crime is sometimes offered less punishment if they do what the prosecution asks. They do not get punished as much as others for the same crime. A person who is innocent can be intimidated by the thought that they cannot go to work; see family; eat when hungry; see the outdoors; be safe from assault and bodily harm. In fact when negotiating, often the prosecutor describes these factors. Guilty until proven innocent. 4. Prosecutors who lose a case often say the jury said not guilty but not innocent. When the jury is instructed they are told to determine guilty or not guilty. No one said innocent was a choice. 5. After a trial when evidence appears or seemingly unfairness has occurred, the prosecutor most often says the jury found them guilty so that is that. When the prosecutor disagrees with an innocent verdict, they do not say the jury said innocent so that is that. 6. The prosecutors agree with gathering and storing DNA to help find the guilty. They also disagree with and fight to prevent testing DNA of people in prison to see if the right criminal is being punished. They often try to prevent DNA of convicted people from being released to defenders. Is this justice? When a person has been proved to have been wrongly convicted, the prosecutor does not apologize or offer any words of empathy. The innocent person still must answer on forms and applications that they were convicted of a felony. If it was proved a wrong decision, why must a person have to explain why it is still on their record? The punishment is not over. Let me cite one of many examples: Recent DNA testing has proven the innocence of 10 men from Cook County, Illinois who were forced to confess as children to crimes they didn't commit. Some of them have been imprisoned for nearly 20 years. Despite overwhelming genetic evidence that has linked the crimes to the real killers, state officials have refused to recognize the innocence of these men‚ï¿½aï¿½ State attorney Anita Alvarez refuses to vacate the sentences, retry, allow bail, release or give any justice to the people proven innocent. If she does not believe DNA to be conclusive evidence, why does she present it in cases she is asking for a conviction? So many people were proven innocent in Illinois that the death penalty was suspended for a while. In Dallas the D.A. allocated money, records, resources, access to the innocence project to look at inmates cases. Several were found to be innocent and the judge apologized for the injustice and said they could leave court and go home free without having to return to jail. Now that is the Justice System insuring justice be done. 7. The recent manipulation by prosecutors is so underhanded it is evil. A rebuttal to the closing argument! The person who speaks last is the most influential among other things. Since the accused is there to defend them selves, they should have at least fairness. For example the defense should be able to waive closing second and then open and rebut. One of the ways I suggest could be instituted to help remove some of the issues I have stated about prosecutors would be to amend their duties. The D.A.ï¿½ï¿½a‚ï¿½a„ï¿½s office could be responsible for both the prosecution and the defense. Every other case, month, quarter or an established period, each assistant D.A. would change sides. This way it would reduce the importance of winning statistics; make all of the same resources (info, police availability, labs, testing, fiscal matters, etc.) available to both sides which is equal justice. When the accused receives documents ordering court appearance or explanation of charges, some of it is in Latin. Why? The system is set up so a person with special information must be used and the ability to pay determines the type and quality available to receive justice. There are only two sets that have no legal training or status: the defendant and the jury. Ones future will be determined and the other makes the decision. Why are they the only two not present when the case is discussed (sidebar or in chambers). The process is supposed to be open and the defendant should be aware of all information. Whatever happens in court should have transparency but there are even things that happen that the Court Reporter is told not to put on record. Thank you for accepting the debate. First, let me address incorrect info. The government cannot change the Constitution any time it wants. The only way it can be changed is for two thirds of both houses of Congress to vote to propose an amendment or for two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. (This method has never been used.) Then it only becomes law if it is ratified and Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it, or ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it. This method has been used only once -- to ratify the 21st Amendment -- repealing Prohibition. The Supreme Court has stated that ratification must be within "some reasonable time after the proposal." Beginning with the 18th amendment, it has been customary for Congress to set a definite period for ratification. In the case of the 18th, 20th, 21st, and 22nd amendments, the period set was 7 years, but there has been no determination as to just how long a "reasonable time" might extend. Of the thousands of proposals that have been made to amend the Constitution, only 33 obtained the necessary two-thirds vote in Congress. Of those 33, only 27 amendments (including the Bill of Rights) have been ratified. My stated issues have nothing to do with legally changing the Constitution it has to do with the interpretation. The only change I have a problem with is the last amendment (1992) where Congress found a loophole and made an amendment automatically giving itself a yearly cost of living increase. The loophole kept the States from being able to ratify. No where else does the document deal with salary. No one else is guaranteed a cost of living increase and no one else determines their own salary in the Federal Government. So do you realize the Government does not have the right to amend the Constitution any way it sees fit? (…of the people, for the people, by the people). 1.No I do not want any guilty person walking around, period. Again, my questioning is regarding the process by which they are judged not the consequences. That is a different story. (In Texas a judge sentenced a teen to 25 years for the possession of one joint of marijuana and a few years later sentenced his own teenage son to 5 years probation for the possession of 3 kilos. In Florida a judge sentenced a heavy drug dealer to probation because "as a skinny white person, he will not survive in jail". Although it difficult now to plead insanity, in California a man served 6 months after being convicted of killing two people as a result of eating too many Twinkies). No I don't want any of them walking the streets, but they are because of interpretation, but they are. 2.I said or suggested nothing about increasing time and complexity of any trial, in fact I quoted the Constitution about the "right to a speedy trial and that has not been changed. Your assumption for some reason is different. Now you read number one and the Constitution as to the validity of your number one. 3.I must not be communicating my opinions very Whether the person has good or bad in them has nothing to do with the conditions or manner the confession was obtained. I personally believe that Amanda Know is innocent and either she did not confess or did so to relieve her situation. I do not care if I am in Italy or jail in my downtown, if confessing would allow me to go home to my family instead of spending four years locked up, pass the pen. …a voice in the punishment? NO! The law, judge and jury decide the punishment. Read the law. 4.Innocent until proven guilty. Suspicion is not evidence. 5.Instead of trying to prove one guilty the prosecutor should be trying to insure justice is done. (Why do you always refer to the prosecutor as "he"? Just curious. 6.I do not think we are going to agree on the responsibility of officers of the court. Pass. 7.If my "argument is irrelevant" why are you debating me?

negative: "Society should use the death penalty as a form of criminal punishment" The costs of the death penalty and the absence of positive benefits make execution an unjustifiable form of criminal punishment. I am advocating for life-without-parole as an alternative to the death penalty. 1. Rebuttal to :: The Death Penalty will prevent murders from murdering again In previous round I argued that the death penalty does not deter future murders and provided an assortment of studies that supported my claim. My opponent does not dispute my claim, but instead responds that the death penalty exists to prevent convicted murders from having the opportunity to murder again. My opponent argues that 1 in 200 people break out of prison and thus murderers could theoretically escape and commit more murders. He also states that 66% of prisoners who are released from prison after serving their term go on to commit serious crimes within 3 years. I respond to both of these issues. First, my opponent states that one-half of one percent of prisoners escape, i.e. 1 in 200 hundred. This number is apparently correct, but it is misleading for our purposes. The vast majority of these escapees are minimum security prisoners that are defined as “walk-aways” from community corrections facilities that have minimal supervision.[1] These prisoners are not murderers escaping from maximum security facilities. Instead, they are typically non-violent offenders. If we look at the facilities where murderers are most likely to be housed – federal prison, maximum security prison, and super maximum security prison – it is clear that escapes are extremely rare. Only one federal prisoner, out of 115,000, escaped in the four years prior to the source my opponent cited, and that prisoner was recaptured.[1] And, no prisoner has ever escaped from a super maximum security prison.[2] Escapes from maximum security prisoners have occurred, but these escapes are also highly rare, and it is even more rare for these prisoners to commit murders after escaping. Therefore, the risk that a murderer will escape from prison and then go on to commit more murders is unlikely. Second, my opponent states that 66% of prisoners who are released from prison go on to commit serious crimes within 3 years. This may be true, but it is not relevant to our issue. I am arguing that lifetime imprisonment without parole should be an alternative to the death penalty. Lifetime prisoners without parole will not be released from prison, and therefore my opponent’s statistic is not relevant with regard to these prisoners. If a prisoner is not released from prison, he can’t possibly go on to commit serious crimes out in society. 2. Rebuttal to :: The Death Penalty by guillotine will be cheaper than life without parole I previously stated that the death penalty is extraordinarily expensive. For example, it has cost California approximately $4,000,000,000 since 1978. And, it costs an additional $100,000 per inmate, per year to house a death row inmate, as opposed to housing a standard life-without-parole prisoner. [3][4]. My opponent argues that execution by guillotine will help reduce the costs of the death penalty, however this is not true. The majority of the costs associated with the death penalty do not come from the manner of execution, but instead these costs come from two places: (1) specialized housing for death row inmates; and (2) immense judicial and procedural costs associated with death row inmates. First, death row inmates are housed in special facilities that are separate from the general population. These special facilities incur greater costs because prisoners must be housed in separate individual cells, prisoners must be supervised and guarded by additional staff, and these facilities must be maintained by additional staff. These specialized housing costs for death row inmates will continue to exist even if the manner of execution is changed – i.e. by guillotine. Second, death row inmates cost taxpayers an immense amount of money because of the procedural and judiciary costs associated with the process of death row and execution. These greater costs do not exist in the judicial process for life-without-parole cases. As stated in my previous round, death row cases have extraordinarily high taxpayer costs associated with pre-trial and trial phases, automatic appeals and state habeas corpus petitions, and federal habeas corpus petitions. These various procedural steps are in place to help prevent innocent people from being executed, but instead they end up costing billions of dollars to taxpayers. Changing the manner of execution will have no effect on these costs. Thus, the manner of execution is not a significant cause of the immense costs associated with the death penalty and changing the method of execution will have little to no effect on reducing those costs. 3. Rebuttal to :: Accidental conviction is not a problem with execution, but instead is widespread In my prior arguments, I argued that the risk of erroneous conviction and execution were too great to allow for the death penalty. I noted that as many as 20,000 U.S. prisoners are suspected to be innocent, a significant amount of which could be on death row. [5] My opponent argues that erroneous conviction is a problem that is widespread within the criminal justice system and is not specific to execution. I agree that the problem is widespread, but it is only in capital punishment cases that an erroneous conviction could lead to an innocent person losing their life. When weighing the costs of potential erroneous conviction, we must also weigh the punishment that would be imposed. Clearly the costs of erroneous conviction are lower if the punishment is only 10 years in prisoner, or 20 years, or even life imprisonment, when compared to execution. We may be able to morally justify some risk of error when the penalties are lesser because these people will still have their lives, but we cannot justify it when the penalty is death. Thus, the cost of error is much larger in death penalty cases than in any other type of cases, and this error cannot be justified in the absence of any positive benefit by the death penalty. 4. Rebuttal to :: Unfair punishment of poor people is not a problem with execution, but instead is widespread This issue relates to the previous one. My opponent is correct that this problem affects poor people in every type of case. But, again I reiterate my point that the cost of losing is much greater in capital punishment cases, where the wealthy will live and the poor may not. Without a positive benefit to the death penalty, there is simply no way to justify this recognized and unfair punishment and execution of poor people. CONCLUSION There is simply no positive benefit to the death penalty. It takes the life an individual and provides no demonstrable benefit to society. The costs associated with the death penalty, both economic and moral, are too great to justify its use. Just like the death penalty, life without parole will keep murderers from reentering into society and inflicting harm onto innocent people. Maximum security prisoners rarely escape, and when they do, they rarely commit murders. The death penalty burdens taxpayers with extraordinary economic costs that could be eliminated if convicts were instead sentences to life-without-parole. The death penalty also burdens society with immense moral costs due to its high risk that innocent people may be erroneously convicted and executed. This moral cost and risk extends even further to poor individuals, who lack the financial resources to defend themselves against this absolute and final sentence. Without any clear positive benefits and with so many negative costs associated with the death penalty, society cannot justify using execution as a form of criminal punishment. SOURCES Sources 1 through 5 in comments.

negative: sex offenders shoulde sex offenders be registered for their entire lives

negative: "Society should use the death penalty as a form of criminal punishment" 1. Murderers rarely escape and murder again There is almost no risk that murderers will escape from prison and then proceed to murder again. Murderers are housed in maximum security prisons. As shown in the previous round, the number of prisoners escaping from these facilities is extremely low. My opponent argues that 67% of inmates who break out of prison will commit serious crimes. This is not correct and my opponent has misread his own source. His source states that “67% of inmates RELEASED from state prisons in 1994” committed a serious crime within three years.[1] This statistic tells us nothing about prison escapees and is not relevant to our discussion. My opponent has not provided any evidence that murderers are escaping from prisons and harming other people. And, I have provided evidence showing that escapes from maximum security facilities are extremely rare. Thus, the evidence supports that murderers can be safely incarcerated within maximum security prisons without concern that they will escape and harm other people. 2. The Death Penalty is extraordinarily expensive In the previous rounds, I noted that the death penalty is extraordinarily expensive. Death row inmates must be housed in specialized facilities and are afforded extremely expensive judicial procedures – including lengthy pre-trial and trial phases, automatic appeals, state habeas corpus process, and federal habeas corpus protections.[2] Death row inmates aren't executed immediately. They sit on death row in these costly, specialized facilities for decades while they meander through expensive appeals processes that cost taxpayers billions of dollars. By way of example, I pointed to California which has incurred $4,000,000,000 in taxpayer costs due to the death penalty. My opponent says that because these costs are since 1978, that $4,000,000,000 is not much money. However, it is important to remember that only 13 people have been executed in California since 1978.[3] Therefore, each execution in California since 1978 has cost taxpayers $308,000,000. Consider that point again – each individual execution has cost $308 million dollars. This is an absurdly high cost. My opponent also argues that, in California, sentencing juveniles to lifetime imprisonment will cost more than the death penalty. He cites a source that states that the 2,600 juveniles serving life sentences in California will cost $6.4 billion. Unfortunately, this number proves nothing and tells us nothing. We can’t compare the cost my opponent has provided with the cost of the death penalty. Why not? First, they compare different amounts of prisoners. Second, they compare different periods of time. First, we would be comparing the costs associated with two different numbers of prisoners. My opponent says 2,600 juveniles with life-terms will cost $6.4 billion. But, 2,600 prisoners is 4 times as many prisoners as there are on death row. There are 700 prisoners on death row in California. We simply can’t compare these costs when they do not involve an equal number of prisoners. If we use my opponent’s numbers to calculate the theoretical cost of 700 juveniles with life imprisonment, we can see the cost is $1.7 billion for 700 lifetime prisoners, which is much less than the $4 billion for 700 death row inmates. Thus, my opponent’s source supports my argument that the death penalty is more expensive than life-without-parole. Second, juveniles sentenced to lifetime imprisonment are by definition under the age of 18. Assuming these prisoners live to 70, they will be imprisoned for at least 52 years. However, the death penalty has only been instituted since 1978, a period of 34 years. We can’t compare costs when the costs are associated with considerably different timeframes. Thus, my opponent’s source that 2,600 life-term juveniles cost $6.4 billion is not useful for comparison. If we want to compare the costs of housing death row prisoners and the costs of housing life-without-parole prisoners, we need only look at the previous rounds. In my previous round, I cited a study showing that housing an inmate on death row costs $100,000 more per year than housing that exact same prisoner in the general population of a maximum security prison.[4] This considerable extra cost does not even include the other judicial and procedural costs associated with the death penalty. I have shown that the death penalty is incredibly costly. It wastes taxpayer dollars by requiring specialized facilities to house death row inmates and wasteful judicial processes, appeals, and petitions. These costs can be easily eliminated by simply removing the death penalty. These taxpayer savings could then be utilized in areas that would be more beneficial to society – such as police enforcement and prisoner rehabilitation. 3. Erroneous conviction of innocent people is morally unacceptable The death penalty imposes an enormous moral cost on society. Not only does the death penalty presume that society has a right to take human life, but it presumes that society finds it acceptable to take innocent human life in the pursuit of exacting its retribution. The criminal justice system is fallible, and as many as 20,000 current U.S. prisoners are predicted to be innocent.[5] Very few of these prisoners will be exonerated because the criminal justice system is not designed to help free innocent people. Some of these prisoners, and some in the past, are innocent individuals who will lose their lives because of erroneous convictions. My opponent says life-without-parole is the same as execution because in both cases “they get their lives taken away from them.” I will not contribute a new argument in this final round, but I will respond that it is clear that these two punishments are not equivalent. In one case, a person has been killed and can clearly no longer experience life. In the other case, a person is alive and able to experience life, but confined within a particular space. These are very different punishments. While it is horrible to think that an innocent person could be sentenced to life-without-parole, it is even worse to think that they might be executed. In one case, that innocent person would still be able to experience life. In the other, all opportunity for any experience has been snuffed out. The criminal justice system is an imperfect system created and run by imperfect people. Tens of thousands of individuals have been wrongfully convicted due to eyewitness misidentification, false confessions, unvalidated forensic science, government misconduct, and bad lawyering.[6] When the risk of error is so high – even more so amongst the poor – it is morally unacceptable to have a punishment that is so extreme. CONCLUSION As my opponent properly states, the death penalty comes down to two issues: (1) financial costs, and (2) moral costs. Both of these costs could be eliminated by using life-without-parole instead of the death penalty. The financial costs of the death penalty are enormous. These billions of dollars could instead be used to improve education, police enforcement, healthcare, prisoner rehabilitation, or any other number of valuable societal goals. The moral costs of the death penalty are also unacceptable. The death penalty is retributive. Death row inmates are already imprisoned and no threat to society at large. They cannot escape. Executing them serves only to exact societal revenge. When so many innocent people are constantly being convicted of crimes they did not commit, it is morally unacceptable to have a draconian form of criminal punishment that will invariable kill innocent people, stealing away their lives and their experiences. Together, these two immense costs weigh heavily against the death penalty. The death penalty provides society with no clear benefits, and only serves to burden it. Removing the death penalty and applying life-without-parole will lift that burden and free society to use its financial and moral resources toward more valuable pursuits.

negative: Children should be allowed to vote Children have not yet learned the entire principles of democracy, and are not fully aware of the consequences of a candidate's actions, they don't know about the national debt, or the deficit gap, or about the views of a candidate. They might pick one based solely on his looks, or about his views on public education. Furthermore, kids don't pay taxes, so how are they entitled to a serious vote? They can't get jury duty, or be arrested for voting fraud, so how can they be held accountable for their actions if they tried to mess with votes?

negative: This house would ban prisoners publishing accounts of their crimes For this debate since I am the first speaker and the Prime minister for this debate I will set the mechanism for this debate. We, as the the British Government, will not allow any prisoner remanded at detained at her Majesties pleasure in British prisons to make contact with any journalist, editor or anyone else seeking to gather information about their crime or any other crime with the intention of publishing it and will hail the act of seeking to gather information from prisoners about their crimes in Britain, unless a court order has been granted, as preventing the course of justice. Any persons helping this crime take place will be seen as accomplices preventing the course of justice and therefore committing a crime as well. This is relevant before, during and after the conviction, during the sentence and after the sentence has been served. Clarification will be provided on request. I see a problem in society and I believe that proposing this motion will solve it. The problem we see is that people who have been charged with a crime, any crime, who then seeks to publicise their account of the story out side of the British court where they were tried makes money out of a criminal act that caused pain and suffering to persons or their property. I will devote this round to showing why this is harmful to society from two main points. Point one: suffering caused to victims and/or family of victim is unacceptable Point two: the glorification of crime My first point looks into the suffering of the victims of the(se) crime(s) committed by the prisoner publishing their story. Being the victim of a crime punishable by a jail sentence naturally comes with stress and harms that cause grievance to the victim and most are put at ease or gain a little more strength to cope knowing that the offender is serving out a jail sentence and justice is being served. However when a prisoner seeks to publish his/her story the victims are thrown into the spotlight once again and reminders of the crime are constantly around them with journalists and publishers coming to their house or phoning them asking to corroborate information or the like and when the story is published. With these reminders they cannot escape the crime and the memory of the fear is brought back again unnecessarily. Even though the offender is behind bars they still have the power to cause suffering to their victims and I see this as unacceptable. The state has a duty to protect its citizens hence why we punish criminals so why then do we allow them the luxury of being able to cause upset to the citizens we sought to protect. This is a harm to society because when this happens citizens lose faith in the way that we are trying to protect them. They see that it doesn't matter if they are in jail or not because prisoners are still able to cause this emotional harm to the victims when in jail. If people lose faith in the system they are less likely to be co-operative in helping to sentence the more serious offenders due to the belief that they are not protected even if the offender is in jail therefore giving due to the view that it is better to not get involved with the conviction even if the offender is dangerous because they feel unsafe rather than to aggravate the offender and suffer at their hand which they see can happen even if they are in jail. By not only sentencing the criminals but enforcing the core principles of jail, to be removed from society as punishment for a crime committed and to protect society until the offender is no longer deemed a danger, by making sure they are prevented form publishing a story and glorifying their crime we uphold our commitment to our citizens and show we are very serious about the punishments we give for crimes committed on our land. We protect our citizens, maintain the seriousness in which we view crimes and allow the victims of crime privacy and confidentiality to recover from the trauma of the crime. My second point addresses glorification of the prisoners a crime and the unnecessary publicity that the criminal gets. This person has been sentenced to jail for a serious crime they have been convicted of by a court. They have taken away a persons positive right and have broken their side of the social contract. No one should be allowed to make money out this act. By publishing a story they are allowed to portray their crimes in such a way that can portray themselves to be victims of an unfair system where this has not been the case. Not only does this impact the views of the police and their puts social restrictions on them that can impact how they work in a negative way but it creates a situation where police and the law are less likely to take these claims seriously from other people charged with a crime. If this other person has been unfairly treated or is wrongly convicted the law are less likely to believe them due to so many other criminals making claims of bad treatment or being wrongfully convicted. This means that the right people are less likely to get the right help harming the image of the police and the law even more which this mechanism will go some way to putting an end to as they are now forced to make these claims through their lawyer meaning the claims are directly in the system and are not hampered by media publicity which can give unnecessary weight to unsupported claims. This brings me to my main point; the media. Newspapers and magazines are companies that sell stories and they have been known to twist stories or to add weight to unfounded claims to add more impact and get more readers. This distorts the facts and can blind the public form the truth, sparking unnecessary, angry views that are unfortunately based on unfounded opinion and hardly ever true facts. This publicity allows the prisoner a place under the spot light but not to portray their crime in a factual fashion but a way that gives them ten minutes of fame brought about at the cost of someone's suffering. Crime should not pay. This glorifies being a criminal more than something fictional seen on TV or read in book because it is real. The crime is real, the offender is real, the prison sentence is real and this makes this situation so much more dangerous. If a sort is said to be a true story, even if it is biased to the point that the facts are distorted, people are likely to believe it. This is harmful in this type of situation because of the bias and the effect of publicity in the media that I discussed earlier. The accounts are believed and pressure is put on the law where there shouldn't be and criminals are allowed the ten minutes of fame that they see even though it is causing harm to society and the victims of the crime. By proposing this motion we are saying, "no" to criminals that seek to earn from their conviction and we keep unnecessary pressure off the already pressured police while lessening the effect biased views keeping trials as fair as possible and making it easier for justice to be served where there has been a miscarriage of justice. We must remember that the suffering of the victim is as real as the crime that the offenders seek to profit from. We must remember that the reopening of wounds from the pressure of being dragged under the scrutiny of the media by those that harmed them in the first place is an unnecessary stress and defeats the purpose of the core values of a prison sentence. It is our duty to protect our citizens and punish those that break their side of the social contract. It is our responsibility to take these crimes seriously and not allow criminals to abuse their right to freedom of speech at the cost of those already made their victims. It is our duty to stop this and for those reasons the motion that "this house would ban prisoners publishing accounts of their crimes" should be proposed. Thank you.

negative: The homeless should be allowed to vote. I extend all my arguments and await my opponents response. I would like to remind him he has the burden of proof.

negative: Resolved: In the United States, Felons should be allowed to vote upon release from prison. 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.

negative: Resolved: In the United States, Felons should be allowed to vote upon release from prison. 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.

negative: Plea Bargaining Ought to be Abolished in the United States Criminal Justice System My LD Case Contention One: Prosecutorial Abuse Took Discovering Truth Out of the Criminal Justice System S1. PROSECUTION"S POWER IS ABUSIVE AND ALLOWS ONE PERSON TO CONTROL THE LIVES OF OTHERS The main winner in the plea bargaining process is the prosecutor. What has happened is that a single officer, the prosecutor, now is in charge of investigating, charging -- deciding whether to prosecute, evaluating that evidence, [deciding] whether or not in his or her judgment you're guilty or not, and sentencing. One in which the power to inflict criminal sanctions on an accused, is dispersed across prosecutor, witnesses, a judge, jury, sentencing professionals. We have a system in which one officer, the prosecutor, has complete power over the fate of the criminal accused. The prosecutor is not always as noble as [they] would like you to believe. It's a lot easier to coerce someone into waiving all his defenses than to actually investigate the case thoroughly,[and] take the proofs to trial. S2. Prosecutors have all the power since judges must impose sentences, leads to pleas higher than the minimum sentence Prosecutors have discretion, largely unreviewable by judges, as to what charges to bring, what promises or threats to make in plea bargaining, and whether to carry out those threats if the defendant does not plead. All prosecutors are in a powerful position vis-a-vis criminal defendants. When prosecutors choose to pursue charges carrying mandatory penalties and the defendant is convicted, judges must impose the sentences. The sentence imposed upon conviction will usually be higher than the minimum, as judges"taking their cue from the federal sentencing guidelines"take into account the actual amount of drugs involved in the crime, the defendant"s criminal history, and other aggravating and mitigating factors. In 2012, 60 percent of convicted federal drug defendants were convicted of offenses carrying mandatory minimum sentences. They often faced sentences that many observers would consider disproportionate to their crime. Drug defendants have only three ways to avoid mandatory sentences: Most prosecutors will offer drug defendants some sort of plea agreement that reduces their sentence, sometimes substantially. Prosecutors also threaten to increase defendants" sentences if they refuse to plead. Prosecutors will threaten to pursue these additional penalties unless the defendant pleads guilty " and they make good on those threats. S3. PLEA BARGAINING CONCEALS TRUTH, PROSECUTORIAL POWER DISRUPTS PURPOSE OF JUSTICE Defense lawyers [are] at a disadvantage in persuading prosecutors.the defendant may be innocent and thus have no private knowledge of the evidence of guilt. The danger that bluffing, fear, or ignorance will skew innocent defendants" bargaining is one of the most palpable injustices of plea bargaining. S4. INNOCENT PEOPLE ARE CONVICTED, PROSECUTIONAL POWER DESTROYED THE PURPOSE OF ACHIEVING JUSTICE. LAWYERS ARE IN IT TO WIN, NOT TO ACHIEVE WHAT IS RIGHTEOUS. The U.S. criminal justice system [is] accurate in about 99.5 percent of the cases. The magnitude of the problem might change when one considers the overall volume of cases processed through the U.S. criminal justice system. in the year 2000 there were 2.2 million arrests in the United States for index crimes alone. We also know that about 70 percent of those arrested for felonies are ultimately convicted of either a felony or a misdemeanor. If we assume that the system was 99.5 percent accurate in those cases and made errors in only one-half of 1 percent, rate of error would have produced about 7,500 wrongful convictions. Contention 2: Wrongful Convictions S1. Plea bargaining risks false convictions Important rights are often waived, such as the right to appeal, the right to a jury trial, and the privilege against self-incrimination. Also, if the defendant supplies inaccurate information during the course of plea negotiations, he or she may not benefit from lenient treatment. Furthermore, in exchange for pleading guilty, the prosecution may require that the defendant testify against a codefendant. S2. Plea deals only help people who are guilty and in turn are unfair. Defendants, of course, already receive substantial plea discounts for cooperating with police and prosecutors. But the usual plea discount follows provision of useful inculpatory information"that is, defendants can get a plea break by admitting guilt and implicating others. Like discounts for "acceptance of responsibility," the irony of typical cooperation discounts is that they are only available to guilty defendants. Because, by definition, innocent defendants are not in a position to provide useful inculpatory information to law enforcement, they, as a group, receive worse plea deals than their guilty brethren. S3. Plea bargaining coerces defendants into pleading guilty for crimes they didn"t commit " there are no other options for them in the current criminal justice system. The vast majority of felony convictions are now the result of plea bargains"some 94 percent at the state level, and some 97 percent at the federal level. Very few cases go to trial. Ideally, plea bargains work like this: Defendants for whom there is clear evidence of guilt accept responsibility for their actions; in exchange, they get leniency. A time-consuming and costly trial is avoided, and everybody benefits. But in recent decades, American legislators have criminalized so many behaviors that police are arresting millions of people annually. Plea bargains make it easy for prosecutors to convict defendants who may not be guilty, who don"t present a danger to society, or whose "crime" may primarily be a matter of suffering from poverty, mental illness, or addiction. Plea bargains are intrinsically tied up with race, especially in our era of mass incarceration. Prosecutors make it known that defendants will face more-serious charges and harsher sentences if they take their case to court and are convicted. About 80 percent of defendants are eligible for court-appointed attorneys, including overworked public defenders who don"t have the time or resources to even consider bringing more than a tiny fraction of these cases to trial. Many of these defendants are facing minor charges that would not mandate further incarceration, but they lack the resources to make bail and secure their freedom. Some therefore feel compelled to take whatever deal the prosecutor offers, even if they are innocent. Due to 95% of cases being settled by plea bargains, plea bargains are to blame for these unfair biases. Trials have higher standards of evidence and include juries, which helps weeds out potential biases and ensures fairness. This makes it less likely for innocent people to be convicted. And thus, I affirm.

negative: Felon Voting 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.

negative: Ex-felons who commited minor crimes or crimes at a early age should be allowed to vote My opponent brings up some new argument at first about how he is trying to focus on a new generation and show kids/younger people the harmful effects of alcohol and committing crimes. However there is already a program that trys to decrease the demand of drugs which is called DARE and so far it hasn't been that successful. I am not saying it's not a good program to have I am just saying that as long as Americans continue to demand illegal drugs, drug cartels and other organizations will keep sending them here. Also my opponent must realize that most felons who commit crimes like theft, which is the most common one, do a lot of these crimes due to what they are exposed to, or because they are poor and need food. So you can't just tell them "drugs are bad" and expect them to listen. You have to improve there economic conditions and give them a replacement for drugs, something more appealing that isn't dangerous. This logic is the same reason why the war on drugs doesn't work, you can't just remove all the drugs and except them to stop, the reason why fights increase after the drugs are removed is because they still have a desire for the drugs, and therefore will do whatever it takes to get them. My opponent try's to attack my contention saying taxation without representation, but he mentions the argument and goes completely over it. The argument is just saying that since they pay certain taxes to the government and for some of the people who work in the government they should be able to vote for people in the government. It's just a logical argument that has no holes in it. He skips over the argument he trys to make and again says that 5.83 million people don't matter. He is dismissing American citizens. That is like me saying "oh forget about the unemployed they only make 5% of the American population lets focus on most Americans who at least have a job and can actually benefit the economy." He claims that my ex felons contention helps him but it doesn't actually, it shows that 90% of ex-felons who get jobs don't go back to jail so why punish those and not allow them to vote if they are proper citizens? The contention is pointing out that not all ex-felons go back to jail. Main argument against my opponent: is how he is basically saying that we should leave ex-felons alone and let them go with punishments some that last forever just to show people what happens when they don't listen? First of all it is common sense that when you commit crimes you can end up in jail, and a lot of people realize that a year sentence or so results in a Felony, they don't need extra things to know this. The main argument against this idea is that ex-felons can be primary sources with or without voting. What I mean by this is that ex-felons can share their stories so society will still learn the consequences of actions from ex-felons themselves. Giving them the right to vote will still leave the other punishments they have and still make felony a popular sentence well known among Americans. Conclusion: The reason why I win is because my opponent never really goes by the resolution, he try's to broaden the debate and he hasn't shown why ex-felons shouldn't be allowed to vote. He also how voting can't provide any of the benefits he mentions that would help society. Also my case structure overall was better then his as well. In conclusion vote for me because I followed the resolution, and proved that there is no reason not to allow ex-felons to vote.

negative: Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections. 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...

negative: Ex-felons who commited minor crimes or crimes at a early age should be allowed to vote 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.

negative: Convicted Felons should be allowed to vote in all U.S. elections 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.

negative: Convicted ex-felons should be able to vote in all US elections. 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.