In the U.S., however, voting rights are controlled by the states, thanks to the 14th amendment. Nearly all states already have provisions for felons to get their voting rights back after serving their sentences, and two states allow them to vote while in prison.

Who says this is a good topic? It would seem to be moot unless it applies to felons still in prison or on probabation.

Also, the word “felon” is an english legal term. I highly doubt the Chinese use english-based legal terms in their criminal justice system.

And what about Canada? I’m not positive, but don’t they do the same as the U.S.?

õ.o

I dont know about China or Ukraine, but according to the interwebs the Australian legal system does not label serious criminals as “felons”. Instead, they separate crimes into “summary offesnes” and “indictable offenses”.

In common law legal systems, a felony is a serious crime, often contrasted with a misdemeanor. In the U.S. legal system, this distinction is principally made in criminal law, wherein the Federal government considers a misdemeanor crime punishable with five days to a year in jail, and a felony crime as punishable with a year or more in prison; infractions, lesser crimes, are punishable with five days or less jail time, or no jail time.[1]

Most common law jurisdictions have abolished the distinction between felony and misdemeanor, (e.g. Crimes Act 1958 (Vic., Australia) s. 332B(1), Crimes Act 1900 (NSW., Australia) s. 580E(1)). Such jurisdictions have adopted other classifications, e.g. in Canada, Australia, Republic of Ireland, and the U.K., a crime is either a summary offence or an indictable offence.

Now we know.

If this is true, then why did you waste five posts talking about it?

for what it’s worth, double-punishment is a bad argument

So, what you should have done is just stuck with your point B, because that is the only way you attack my actual argument as it stands alone. Which, btw, is agreeably not a very strong point, even with evidence and further warranting, it is rather easy to refute. I wouldn’t use it if I wrote a case.

Unfortunately, I have not came up with fully detailed contentions yet, so I will not be able to post any 2-3 sentence argument without “Where is your warrant to your standard?” “Where is the evidence?”

So obviously, this isn’t a good idea if you actually take this to be a literal debate, rather than a sharing of ideas.

An example? The 2007 national final round was just sheer beauty. I make all my students emulate the qualities of the speakers.

a) there is no impact to “double punishment”. in order for this argument to matter there would need to be an articulation of why this is a bad thing, who this hurts, etc.
b) why should our means of retribution be confined to one punishment? does this mean we can’t give people prison and a fine, or a fine and community service, or community service and probation? this seems like an artificial limitation on the range of punishments that is grounded in arithmetic rather than fairness.
c) this begs the question of whether the felon has, in fact, repaid his debt to society. warrant please.
d) we limit people’s freedom after we release them from prison all the time, often with good reason. there is a good reason child molesters do not get to celebrate their release with cake and ice cream at the local elementary school. one justification for restricting the rights of felons after they are released is that their crimes are an affront to the social contract (this might ring a bell, given the tenor of your previous posts) that a democratic and pluralistic society demands.
e) again, saying this is “arbitrary” is begging the question. see c.
f) “existing only in some societies” is not a reason why it is arbitrary, nor does it speak to the value question of the resolution at all.
g) why are misdemeanors not categorically distinct from felonies? this argument does not speak to the larger issue of whether criminals should have the right to vote restricted which seems to be the value question at issue here.
h) those under 18…wait for it…can’t vote!!!! obviously restricting rights that don’t exist makes 1000% sense. besides, one could argue that they’re less culpable, and that the threshold for permanent restriction of their rights should be higher.

next argument plz

“I’m not a big fan of this more “progressive movement”, I believe that a focus on communication is crucial in a model LD round.”

And why are those two mutually exclusive? Do the model LD rounds you enjoy have any content?

Felon disenfranchisement is unjust because it constitutes double punishment. If the felon has already served his punishment, and repaid his debt to society, then why should he have to face further retribution? Especially considering that this extraneous punishment is arbitrary, existing only in some societies, and not holding through for misdemeanors or those under 18, I contend that no democratic society ought to uphold disenfranchisement.

when is that feature coming back? this little discussion has either caught people at their most bored, or should be talked about?

And Bob can do whatever he wants, its not our fault when he gets draped for pulling a non LD oriented disadvantage.

By the way, “intelligent debate over policy” can’t happen without solvency, because policy’s can’t be carried out without plans, and plans need to have solvency to work.

Second, it really doesn’t have much link to the overarching theme of LD debate: the value clash. At least, certainly not the one “bob” was talking about.

And finally, being a policy tactic and discouraged in LD debate (I’m pretty sure), Many judges flash warning signs when they hear word of a kritik, disadvantage, solvency, and the like. They would much rather hear an intelligent debate over policy/philosophy, linking back to the value structure.

confused judges = you lose normally? no?

“look judge, i understand that the AC is making a value judgment that exists outside of a temporal frame, but if you vote for them McCain will win the election!”

No.

fail. you’re doing it wrong.

BC, JD

A felon is someone who has been duly convicted of a felony, as defined by the convicting jurisdiction.

BC

What definitions are good for Aff/neg?

and most people seem to actually LIKE this one too. i feel good karma going around :P

It beats the shit out of our current topic, that’s for sure.

It’s extremely refreshing to be avoiding the repetitive resolutions that all pertain to Justice.

And of course the “birdie” was wrong. If they have never done it in the past, why would they do it now?