Debatepedia partners with The People Speak Global Debates and the The National Debate Series: Boston (Nov. 10)
Debate Digest Nov 19th: Medical marijuana. Next Debate Digest article: Trying 9/11 terror suspects in NYC courts

From Debatepedia

Overview

The biggest issue in the resolution is the question of whether a democratic society can restrict voting access at all, and, if so, under what circumstances is it okay?

Some of the bigger issues in the round would be what a "democratic society" is (because a society is not necessarily the same thing as a government), and the definition of a felon.

Value and Criterion Ideas

These are just a few options for values and criterions, so don't limit yourself. Also research all the philosophy much more in depth than this overview in case there is something we missed. Thanks!!

International Law Since there is really no such thing as a true “democracy” in this world, wouldn’t it be best if we can cite the closest thing to a democracy? International law allows us to look at what is considered moral or correct throughout most of the world, meaning that even if we can’t pinpoint a true democracy we have several near-democratic governments coming up with their theories of citizen’s rights (think United Nations). There are some good cards on this below.

Societal Welfare Societal Welfare is pretty self-explanatory- looking to the good of the community as a whole. The nice thing about using this as your value/ criterion is that you could use it for either side, just make sure that you explain why it works better for your side and your side only.

Utilitarianism Utilitarianism, much like Societal Welfare, advocates doing what is in the best interest of the majority of the people in a society. Philosophy Jeremy Bentham's theory of Utilitarianism has two parts to it: The first being that an action should be judged based on its pleasant and unpleasant consequences, and the second being that you should always do what is in the best interest of the most number of people.

Inalienable Rights/ Human Rights The affirmative can easily argue that disenfranchisement of felons (taking away a felon’s right to vote)denies them of their basic inalienable human rights. One of the main arguments here would be that by denying an individual’s inalienable rights, you are denying that individual of their human worth and chance to be a productive member of society. The one thing to watch for there would be the argument that felons have already proven themselves incapable of being responsible, productive people in society. *You will want to find a philosophy to support this*

John Locke’s Social Contract John Locke is a big believer in Inalienable Rights. He believes that people have certain rights that exist from the moment they are born that include the right to life, liberty, and property (Property in this case means tangible items or personal happiness). If you were to use Locke’s social contract along with a contention that upholding the resolution means repressing the voice of the minority, then you are in luck. Locke believes that a government should promote equality and operate according to majority rule without suppressing the minority. The one thing to watch for, however, is that Locke still believes that a government should establish laws and, if somebody denies another individual of their inalienable rights then his rights can be terminated as well.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract Rousseau is a firm believer in the concept of the “General Will”. His theory of Social Contract begins with the idea that all individuals enter into a society and, upon entering that society, become a part of the Sovereign. The Sovereign occurs when every person from society comes together to make laws according to the General Will. The General Will is the idea of doing what is best for the most people in your society, which can only be achieved when each member of the Sovereign sets aside their own desires, goals, and individual will to determine what is best for society as a whole. After you enter into this society you agree to work for the General Will of the people and to obey the Sovereign’s laws regardless of whether or not you agree with them. If, however, any citizen decides that his own will is more important that the will of others/the majority, the social contract says that he should be restrained from participating in this Sovereignty because he can no longer look to the General Will.

Autonomy/ Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's Social Contract Autonomy can be defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as, “the quality or state of being self-governing”, and Proudhon’s theory of Social Contract says something similar. Proudhon claims that a social contract should be between individuals who agree not to try to govern each other, rather than the social contact being between an individual and a society. By entering into Proudhon's social contract you are agreeing that you can not enforce justice or take away the rights of anyone else in the contract because everybody has the right to self-government.

Justice Merriam-Webster provides several different definitions for justice, some of them being "the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity" and "the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action." Similarly, you should be able to find a definition somewhere saying that Justice gives each person what they are due.

Retribution Retribution can be defined by the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary as "deserved and severe punishment." As negative, you could pair this with a Social Contract theory (or another argument) to say that a person's right to vote is justly taken away because what they have done to hurt society merits their rights to be taken away by imposing this additional punishment.

John Rawls "A Theory of Justice"

Evidence

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 2, states that: “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.” Then in Article 21, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that: “Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.”

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 25, states that: “Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions: (a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives; (b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors…”

US Constitution Amendment 14, Article 2 states: “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.”

"Liberal and Republican Arguments Against the Disenfranchisement of Felons" (by: Jeffrey Reiman) says: "In the United States today, 4.7 million citizens--more than two percent of the adult population--are deprived of the right to vote because they have been convicted of a felony. Of these, 1.7 million have completed their sentences and are no longer under any form of criminal justice supervision."

Definitions

Felon: A person convicted of a serious criminal offense punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year.

Democracy: a form of government in which the supreme power is held completely by the people under a free electoral system. It is, obviously, run by a democratic government.

Right: that which is due to a person or governmental body by law or tradition or nature.

According to the Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary:

1.Democratic- the belief in freedom and equality between people, or a system of government based on this belief, in which power is either held by elected representatives or directly by the people themselves

2.Society- a large group of people who live together in an organized way, making decisions about how to do things and sharing the work that needs to be done. All the people in a country, or in several similar countries, can be referred to as a society.

3.Felon- a person who is guilty of a serious crime

4.Ought- used to show when it is necessary, desirable or advantageous to perform the activity

5.Retain- to keep or continue to have something

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

1.Democratic- relating to, appealing to, or available to the broad masses of the people

2.Democracy- a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

3.Society- a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests

4.Felon- One who has committed a felony

5.Ought- Moral obligation, duty

6.Retain- to keep in possession or use

7.Right- the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled

Affirming the Topic

Negating the Topic

Further Reading

See also

External links

|}