Question: Should Ex-Convicts Regain Their Voting Rights Post Sentence Completion?

Individuals who have served their sentences for felonies should be granted the right to vote upon their release.

Hello, Ex-Con: I accept your challenge and hope to meet the high standards set by previous debates. Here are my points:

1) These individuals reside in the United States and have completed their sentences, often with the intent to become productive members of society.
2) The government has jurisdiction over them, but their voices should be heard in the democratic process.

Firstly, I believe in broadening the electorate, not limiting it. Secondly, I don't disagree with the points you've made. However, those same arguments apply to citizens, and we don't automatically grant voting rights to all citizens. Let's ensure that voting is a right for all citizens before extending it to others. That's all I have for now.

Let me respond to your rebuttal one by oneMurderers could be rehabilitated:An eye for an eye is a good policy for murderers. They deserve to lose their life because they killed innocent people. If murderers get a second chance than most potential murderers will still commit murder. Giving murderers a second chance does not deter future murders. If murderers get a second chance than some of them might commit murder after they get out of prison. Some people do commit a crime again after they get out of prison. The government shouldn't take the risk of that happening. The government should keep inncocent people safe by making sure that murderers lose their life instead of getting a second chance. The government should only use the death penalty when there is clear evidence of murder. This way innocent people will not get the death penalty. There are other ways to lower murder rates and other punishment could be more effective:I agree that teaching moral values will prevent people from commiting murder but that's not the only way to do it. The government should also prevent people from commiting murder by making the punishment is a lot worse. There are studies that show that the death penalty deters future murders. The studies are described in this article. http://www.washingtonpost.com... the death penaty may not have an effect on the murder rate but abolishing it would not deter future murders. If the death penalty is done in a painful way than it will deter murder by even more because more people will be scared to commit murder. Why would anyone want to get killled in a painful way? The way they should use the death penalty is by shooting the murderer with a gun. The key to lowering the murder rate is teaching moral values and scaring potential murderers by using harsher punishments.Murderers could have killed murdered intention of destruction:If the court is not sure if the murder happned by accident, for self defense or intentionally than they should not give the defendant a punishment. The court should get clear evidence and find out if the muder happened intentionally or not before they give the defendant a punishment.Conclusion:It was a pleasure having this debate with you. The voters will vote for the person that did a better job debating. Good Luck on your last chance to argue.

http://www.youtube.com...Thanks, Philo. In a classic South Park episode the character Stan, uncomfortable with his choices for an upcoming school mascot election, chooses to abstain from voting. After being pressured to vote by his friends, threatened into voting, and ultimately shunned from his community Stan finally returns and registers a vote only to find out that it didn't even matter in an extremely lopsided election. The episode lampoons our cultures view on voting: that despite the stupendous improbability of any individuals vote actually mattering, and even if an individual dislikes or has no opinion on the candidates, it's still viewed by many people as some kind of obligation. However even in their wildest, most cynical dreams the creators of South Park could not have envisioned a world where their "Vote or Die" song would become actual government policy. This is the world Pro wants. Puff Daddy would probably make an excellent enforcer in the Pro world. Don't have an opinion? Don't like the choices? Have a sincerely held moral objection to voting? Too bad. Vote or die.=Framework= What values should we enshrine into law? Pro believes that the only important value is democracy, a manifestly absurd view that would allow 51% to vote to exterminate the other 49%, but it's clear that good governments, including democracies, have higher values--ultimately governance is a balancing act between individual rights and the common good. Pro totally ignores the individual rights part of the governance equation. Obviously compulsory voting violates individual rights, but is it in the interest of the common good to mandate citizens to vote? The answer is clearly no, and whatever minuscule benefits it manages to bring to the table are vastly outweighed by the complete destruction of individual rights brought about by this policy. =Counterplan=Assuming that we want to drive voter turnout as high as possible, democracies should make it easier to vote and institute tax credits for individuals who cast a ballot. This economic incentive would be extremely easy to put into practice and would drive up turnout without any of the ethical implications that stem from compulsory voting. I. Undemocratic Pro wants us to value whatever is most democratic. By far the more democratic option is to allow individual societies to determine voting policy themselves rather than making a blanket declaration that they have an obligation to force their citizens to vote. National nuances, opinions, customs, or autonomy be damned--Pro may not know anything about Nauru or Monaco but he still views those nations as his to rule. This is the height of totalitarianism, not democracy. In the United States, the overwhelming majority, 66%-26%, opposes compulsory voting[1]. This statistic is utterly devastating for Pro, who wants the entire debate to come down to whatever is more democratic. I'll get to Pro's specific arguments later, but it's absurd on its face to suggest that it's more democratic to overrule the vast majority of the population on this issue. Ultimately, the Pro position relies upon a fatal conceit: the idea that from our vantage point in the first world we can legislate for everybody else just as well as we could for our own nations. This kind of thinking is what provided the justification for colonialism and indeed Pro's intellectual framework relying on the assumption that we in the West have the right to dictate policy for the rest of the world is blatantly neocolonialist and must be rejected, to vote Pro is to perpetuate this kind of thinking. This neocolonialism is the antithesis of any kind of lofty democratic ideals and to reject it requires also rejecting the resolution. In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory if that is the policy that is best for their society and we don't get to decide that for them. II. Freedom of Speech and ExpressionArticle 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights[2] protects an individuals freedom of expression. The right to free speech is declared in the very preamble. Article 19 specifies: "this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." I argue that both the rights of freedom of speech and expression protect an individuals right to refrain from voting. Voting is inherently a speech act, it's a citizen voicing his opinion on who he wishes to hold the position in question--but freedom of speech itself contains the right *not* to speak. The US Supreme Court in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette[3] took the obviously correct position that the freedom of speech protects the right of silence as well, protecting the right of schoolchildren to *not* salute the flag if they chose. The court ruled that forcing everyone to salute the flag created a "Compulsory unification of opinion". Forcing everyone to vote would violate free speech in much the same manner, and, in the US at least, would mean completely undermining court precedent and the rule of law. An individual has the right to refrain from voting as a speech act--perhaps the individual wants to make a statement about how they disapprove of every candidate on the ballot or if they do not support democracy and favor another system of government such as a monarchy or anarcho capitalism. Refraining to vote is also an act of political expression. Article 19 protects an individuals right to hold an opinion "without interference". Many individuals feel that voting is immoral for various reasons, such as they do not want to perpetuate a system they oppose, and they are allowed to hold and exercise that opinion. Many individuals also believe that by voting for a politician they are implicitly responsible for the actions those officials take. As George Carlin once said[4]: "I believe if you vote, you have no right to complain...If you vote and you elect dishonest, incompetent people into office who screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You caused the problem; you voted them in; you have no right to complain." If an individual disapproves of every candidate for office, or every choice on a referendum ballot, forcing them to vote is forcing them to violate their conscience. Governments have to have a compelling state interest before they can override individual rights and force an individual to violate his sincerely held moral beliefs. Pro's arguments don't come anywhere close to meeting this litmus test as we'll see in the next round.III. Freedom of ReligionArticle 18 of the Universal Declaration gives every individual the right to "to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." Jehovah's Witnesses, due to religious reasons, are required to maintain political neutrality[5]. Pro would bulldoze over their right to observe their religious teachings. The US has a really great litmus test for what laws violating religious freedom are to be allowed, called the Sherbert Test[6], which requires that if the government is going to violate an individuals sincerely held religious beliefs it must prove that both there is a compelling state interest behind the violation AND that the policy is the *least intrusive* method of achieving this compelling state interest. For example, if the government has a compelling interest in promoting contraception, forcing the Catholic Church to distribute contraceptives after every Mass would not be the *least intrusive* means to achieve this interest. Other democracies have similar policies and I will defend the validity of this test should Pro choose to engage it. If one rereads Pro's arguments with the Sherbert Test in mind it's quite clear that even if there is a compelling state interest in bringing voter turnout as high as possible (there isn't), forcing Jehovah's Witnesses to violate their beliefs is not the least intrusive method of achieving any of these benefits.IV. Nonvoters are less informed Those who choose to refrain from voting often make a wise choice. According to Pew[7], 76% of the people who report rarely voting admit that don't feel they don't know enough about the candidates to cast an informed ballot. Pro argues that forcing people to vote will improve education, but there can be no denying that some people are simply too busy or too lazy to properly inform themselves on politics. The counterplan of providing tax credits for voters would be superior to crafting a high turnout, educated electorate because only generally nonvoting people who actually have an income and pay enough attention to politics to learn about the tax credit would be motivated to vote. We can have high voter turnout without forcing the 29% of Americans who cannot even name the Vice President of their country[8] to cast a ballot and expecting the results to be beneficial to the nation as a whole. Maybe in other democracies with a more informed electorate this policy would make sense (although, I would argue, even in those the tax credit system is preferable) but not in the US. Not in a lot of other democracies. In conclusion, those who refrain from voting are generally less informed than those who choose to vote, compulsory voting grossly violates actual human rights and a tax credit system could achieve similar results without any of these impacts. Don't empower Puff Daddy to force you at gunpoint to vote. Vote Con. Sources:1. https://today.yougov.com...2. http://www.un.org...3. http://www.oyez.org...4. 5. http://www.jw.org...6. http://definitions.uslegal.com...7. http://www.people-press.org...8. http://gawker.com...

A Final defense My opponent claims that I changed my advocacy and doing so costs me the debate. I am perplexed by this accusation. My initial argument was that compulsory voting increases voter turnout and ensures people’s votes are counted. This is still my argument. There is no shift in advocacy. It seems to me that my opponent is conflating compulsory voting with limiting who people can vote for. As I mentioned in my previous round; the purpose of compulsory voting is not to make people vote for someone they do not wish to vote for. Rather, it is to ensure that everyone’s vote is counted. Thus, as people have the ability in the status quo to write in whomever they want and do not have to select an option presented the same would be true under compulsory voting. Here Famous complains that this makes my proposed system all too similar to the status quo. Not so, as he mentioned in his opening argument there are many reasons why people currently don’t vote. Surely he does not view this list as comprehensive. Compulsory voting ensures that people’s votes are counted for so that we don’t have to guess as to why they did or did not vote. Even in the cases given, someone voting for “none of the above” clearly articulates the voter’s dissatisfaction whereas not voting leaves ambiguity. Con argues that placing an undecided or none of the above box on a ballot is poor conduct on my part as it is a late plan. Again, I find this perplexing, I am arguing for compulsory voting, not for limiting what can or cannot be voted for. These are entirely separate issues. What we have here seems to be a case where my opponent does not have a good response and seems to be rejecting my argument to technicality because he has no response to it otherwise. It seems to me that my opponent is trying to severely limit what I may or may not argue. If anything is poor conduct, I would say this is. My burden in this debate was to affirm that voting in a democracy ought to be compulsory. I have done this. Famous attempts to have his cake and eat it too. Consider he argued that people that are not interested in voting or undecided will simply check the box none of the above, only to later argue that bandwagoning is an issue. This should clearly demonstrate the lack of structure in my opponents’ criticisms. As my opponent concedes the point that bandwagoning is an issue with or without compulsory voting I will not address this further. This brings us to the asinine claim that compulsory voting is a violation of human rights. Here con misunderstands my objection. He claims that because the UN does not intervene in every violation of human rights that the UN’s lack of intervention on compulsory voting means nothing. First, I am not claiming that if compulsory voting was a violation (which it is not) that the U. N. would intervene. Rather, I argued that the U. N. does not view Compulsory voting as a violation. Take notice that my opponent has not cited an example contrary to this, he merely cites the U. N. website and erroneously applies a statement on slavery to compulsory voting. He claims this is a “minor violation. ” Again, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Either compulsory voting is slavery and a severe violation of human rights or it is not. A Brief Summary My opponent’s argument’s are based on four key elements of a democracy. He argued that compulsory voting violates two of the four. First he argued that compulsory voting works contrary to the principle that “A political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections;” I have shown this to be untrue and based on the semantics surrounding the word “free. ” Compulsory voting does not mean forcing people to vote for something they don’t want. Second he argued that Compulsory voting violates the key principle that A rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens. ” He claims this because he views compulsory voting was a violation of human rights and a type of slavery. I have shown this to be a ridiculous accusation. The fact that he even claims it to be a “minor” violation demonstrates how off base this contention has been. I have presented a case for compulsory voting. This case demonstrated that low voter turnout is detrimental to democracy. Compulsory voting has the impact of increasing voter turnout, thus ensuring “The active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life” which con claims is one of the key elements of a democracy. Thus we see the resolution is affirmed. Thanks for reading.

I, too believe that we should live in a society in which no one pays attention to race, gender, sexual orientation, so on and so forth. BUT, your resolution falls apart in one aspect, and that comes to dealing with felons and whether children should have all the rights adults have. I would like to ask my opponent the following questions: Q1: Should convicted child molesters be able to have the right to be a teacher or a daycare worker? Should they be able to be in a room alone with a defenseless child? Q2: Should people who have a felon for theft be able to work at a bank or anywhere where they have complete control over money or items that are not theirs? Q3: Should someone who dangerously stalks another person be able to have the right to be near them? What if it is proven that the stalker is contemplating the rape and/or murder of the person they are stalking? Shouldn't the victim have the right to have a restraining order, thus disallowing the stalker the right to be around the victim? Q4: Should a serial killer have the right to live amongst more victims? Q5: Should a 5 year old be able to vote for the president? They are not mature enough. They probably can't even read. That is denying them the right of voting, but it is for the better.Q6: Should children around the age of nine or ten be able to have sex? Sex is a right for adults, but children are not allowed to have intercourse for good reason. Thank you for reading. Back to you, Pro.

I'm sorry about that. It must have been such an inconvenience for you. Here it is, with my opening statement edited: Thank you for accepting this challenge. Before I start, I would like to clarify that we will have four rounds, and the last one should be used for pure rebuttals. the word limit is approximately 700. I have tried my best to be concise and I am looking forward to your reply! It is my first debate on debate.org, so here it goes. Good Luck! Firstly, I define punish as to give someone a penalty for their wrong doings, e.g. jail, fines. I would define people under the poverty line as those that live under $1.90 USD a day. I also define economical crimes as crimes such as theft and robbery. For this debate, I will be talking about punishments in the first round, the wage gap in the second, and the poverty line in the third. Moving on, majority of criminals that commit these crimes are in poverty. Poverty can lead to high levels of stress, but it is no excuse that these people be exempted from any kind of punishment, as their situation does not justify their actions. The purpose of a punishment is to deter the criminal in question and the public. These people should not resort to unscrupulous means to get what they need, assuming the purpose of which is to provide for their lack of financial stability. If we let convicts off without punishing them, it is not only unjust for the rest of the criminals, but will also encourage a higher crime rate, as it does not deter the criminal from doing it again. If the rest of the people that are in poverty don't steal or rob?, why should they? There are a wide range of punishments, such as jail terms and fines, and many of them take up time and money. However, since I understand that they may have to provide for a family, and may not have the time to accept debates for fun just for the sake of a grammar error, which I agree was wrong on my part. I think that community service is also among the most effective, because you would have to wear a uniform and sweep the streets, which in my opinion, affects the persons ego and they will feel embarrassed, for the fear of being recognised, looked down upon etc, which will definitely reduce the chances of them being a repeat offender. This concludes my first point.

1. Treating selective offenders for pedophilic acts instead of incarcerating them in all instances allows more offenders the opportunity to reduce or prevent the expression of pedophilic behavior. 2. Giving pedophiles a greater opportunity to reduce or prevent their behavior decreases the likelihood of re-offending. 3. Persons convicted of pedophilic crimes should be sent to involuntary civil commitment hospitals rather than being incarcerated. 4. Civil commitment hospitals can provide incessant treatment to pedophiles while simultaneously keeping them out of society where they can potentially harm more victims. 5. If all persons convicted of pedophilic crimes are incarcerated, there is potential for devastating impacts on the correctional system. 6. A rise in the prison population causes an increase in costs, resources to become limited, and less treatment and prevention programs for those incarcerated. 7. Confinement hospitals can also prevent violent attacks toward pedophiles, which can occur both inside and outside of prison. 8. It is true that incarceration sends a clear message of punishment to those convicted of a crime. 9. Other negative consequences of choosing to treat and not incarcerate all persons convicted of pedophilic crimes are acceptable, such as evading a degree of punishment or causing emotional distraught to victims and their families. 10. Persons convicted of pedophilic crimes should be treated and not incarcerated in all instances.

Being sentenced indefinitely to treatment centers still does not justify as punishment. Yes they are protected and locked up in these centers but does not justify they are being punished. They should be punished for their immoral wrong doings and serve their punishments in prisons with the availability for treatment. I completely agree with your last statement regarding allocating our resources on making sure potential victims are ultimately safe while treating the victims that unfortunately have been victimized already.

I meant to say that while basic punishment is necessary, serving six lifetimes in prison is not any more of a deterrent than one life time, and is overly extreme. What I was trying to say was that extreme penalties are pointless, and that they can, in some cases, be sacrificed for rehabilitation instead. The exception would be if someone of a sane mind committed a serious offence and knew exactly what they were doing. And I would not have you believe that all prisoners do is work out, as I stated earlier, ". .. and although there may be some education systems is some institutions, how good these systems are and whether they are effective in any way is the main question. " I had also said earlier that the prisoners get working opportunities, which is beneficial. For a crime to occur, there must be two things, the actus reus - meaning the act - and the mens rea - "the guilty mind". So in some cases where a crime is committed, the person doesn't know what's going on at the time because of their mental condition. And although punishment is necessary, it can also be unfair, people not of right mental states shouldn't just be convicted of life in prison, it is not their fault they are mentally unstable. In Canada, there is a case of a man who had gotten drunk and lost his two daughters in a blizzard (. http://news.therecord.com...), but in this case, he admitted what he did was wrong and that had a problem and pleaded guilty. The man had the option of a sentencing circle (. http://www.sasked.gov.sk.ca...), where the community, the man, a judge and a policeman have the chance to suggest what to be done with the accused. In this case, the citizens of the circle wanted the man to stay in the community and do community service and be rehabilitated in the community, take alcoholics anonymous, etc. The judge ignored the opinions of the sentencing circle and gave him three years in prison. I think that the man, since admitting his mistakes and wanting to improve himself as a person, should have stayed in the community. That way he could make noticeable progress and have to face the people in the community with shame and work to make those relationships better. In prison, the rehabilitation programs probably are not as extensive as the ones set up in the community, nor as personal. Another case is of a man who was on a greyhound bus and stabbed another man while the passengers and drivers were escaping the bus. The man was locked on the bus and he decapitated the other young man that was stabbed earlier, killing him. While what he did was clearly wrong, he was a schizophrenic and thought that the voice of god was talking to him, telling him the young man was a demon going to kill him. Last I heard, the case is yet to be resolved but I think that the man shouldn't be sent to life in prison, he should be put into a mental institution, and go through intense therapy. The chances of the man ever being stabilized is slim, but at least if there is a medical advancement and he is mentally stable, he can be introduced back into society instead of being forgotten about and wasting away in prison. So in conclusion, after fixing a flawed resolution, rehabilitation should be given to people in place of severe punishments. We should work to help and fix people who are unstable or going through a hard time in their life and made a mistake. Why can't we "sacrifice punishment for more rehab programs"?

In the previous round I did mention that the jobs that get days off or extra time can cause a guilt trip, but I also stated that it was only a minor objection to your notion. In this round I will go over some of the arguments you mentioned in your rebuttal, but I will also get to the heart of the problem. In response to my mentioning of time off, you claim that most people will not give in to the guilt trip. You stated in the last round "Many workers who do get this break do not give into the guilt trip, but instead use the time for something else." Now I'm not sure if this is true or not. However, if we assume that it is true, then your argument suffers much more than mine. For if people that are given extra time choose to do something with that time other than voting, then Saturday elections would be meaningless. The people would use that extra time for something else. That statement has not been thought through to its proper conclusion. Your inferences on the economic disasters that occur due to some extra time off or one extra day a year are rather far fetched. First of all, the economy falling apart because of a single day off or a slightly longer lunch break is a ridiculous notion. Psychologically, breaks and days off can make a worker more productive. Never allowing such breaks decreases productivity much more and is far more devastating to the company. The direction that you have gone with as far as the guilt trip is highly creative and amusing. But realistically, it is also quite ridiculous. You go from a guilt trip causing psychological damage to a person drinking and driving. Then that person apparently kills someone who was one day away from curing AIDS. Was that serious? This is even more far fetched than your economic example. Nevertheless, the days off and the guilt trips were only a minor point to reveal in Round 1. Now I will get to the true problem with your idea. The United States is a country that was founded on the idea of freedom. The Bill of Rights is often used as an example of the rights and freedoms that U.S. citizens should have. The first amendment reads as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." If there are to be no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion, then how can you justify making election day a Saturday? A denomination of Protestant Christians known as Seventh-day Adventists celebrate their Sabbath on Saturday. Changing the day of the election to a day that prevents followers of a religion from voting is clearly wrong. Furthermore, religious Jews also celebrate the Sabbath on Saturday. So now we have two separate religions that you wish to eliminate from the election process simply because it is more convenient for you! Well this is not how America works. You cannot place people with a decision between following their religion or voting. In the last round you stated "Lower class voters often do not get breaks for Election Day. This is unfair to lower class voters." But the polls open up at 7:00 A.M. and close at 8:00 or 9:00 P.M. The lower class will still have time to go to the polls either before or after work. This is not the case with the religious denominations mentioned. With them it is not a mere inconvenience to get up earlier, or to go vote after work before heading home. They cannot both practice their religion and vote if the elections were changed to a Saturday. I know of no religious denominations that celebrate their Sabbath on a Tuesday, and therefore it is culturally fair to leave election day as the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November. It is true that most people have work that day, but there is time for both voting and going to work. You ended your last round with the statement "Vote PRO for the better debater and better position!" But in light of the fact that a Saturday election is clearly biased, I don't believe you have the right to claim the better position.

As you mentioned in your speech, jailbreak is a big thing which is true and to add on to that point what if you take Guzman as an example? The world's most wanted drug lord deeply embarrassing the Mexican government by escaping TWICE from maximum security prison. He is known to trade slaves, drugs and weapons and have killed more than thousands of people indirectly or directly. Should this type of person not serve a death penalty? If he is kept alive, he will not change and continue his drug trades and cause harm to the world. Obviously we know that he did help people but his graceful actions were not in fact so called legal because the money he uses were mainly from drugs. My point is that criminals such as Guzman should be executed for killing so many. I understand that although around $17 billion have been spent on prisons, don't you think there will always be a flaw? Unless we execute these malicious criminals they will still be in this world and still have that chance of killing people. No matter how strong the prisons are, there will always be a flaw and a chance of escape.


Question: Should Ex-Convicts Regain Their Voting Rights Post Sentence Completion?

Convicted ex-felons who have completed their sentences should have the right to vote in all US elections.

My opponent has raised some interesting points, but I will refute them and present my arguments for why ex-felons should be allowed to vote.

First, my opponent contends that many felons return to prison within 3 years for the same or a different crime. However, this argument fails to consider that felons are often placed on parole and probation for several years after their release. During this time, they are allowed to vote only if they have completed all probation and parole requirements. This means that those who have fully served their sentences should have their voting rights restored.

Second, my opponent argues that it would not be fair to citizens who have never been convicted of a felony. But the purpose of allowing ex-felons to vote is to help them reintegrate into society. Denying them the right to vote perpetuates a stigma and prevents them from participating fully in civic life. It would be unjust to impose a lifelong sentence on someone who has already served their time.

Third, my opponent claims that felons should earn the right to vote by proving their judgment is valid. However, the focus should be on felons regaining their right to vote, not just having it. By serving their sentences and fulfilling their civic duties, ex-felons should regain their full rights, including the right to vote. My opponent should provide a more detailed plan for how felons can earn the right to vote.

Now, I will present my own arguments:

1. Restricting felons from voting violates the Constitution. Disenfranchisement for life falls under the category of "excessive sanctions," as the 8th Amendment states. A felon's sentence has been served, and they should be free to exercise their right to vote. Additionally, disenfranchisement after release from prison, probation, or parole is akin to denying a citizen the right to vote based on a "previous condition of servitude," which is a violation of the 15th Amendment.

2. Felon disenfranchisement encourages racial discrimination. When a significant number of people from a minority race are not allowed to vote, it creates an imbalance between races. The United States is known as the "Great Melting Pot" of diversity, but this reputation is undermined when one minority is significantly underrepresented at the ballot box. A disproportionate number of ex-felons are African American or Hispanic, and this disenfranchisement can lead

This is personal to me. I was raped by my father when I was 13, and I wanted to gun him so bad, because it was torture. There is a place called torture which is where you go mentally and emotionally when you are tortured. I do not favor current execution methods, but find something humane, and I will. I will finalize with the thought that all torture victims have post traumatic stress disorder, and being condemned to a lifetime of that warrants a humane version of execution.

My opponent is trying to argue his case in the comments section. The voter should disregard those arguments. http://www.debate.org... Recap: -My opponent's evidence is insufficient to affirm the resolution. -My opponent had Burden of Proof. -Such a debate would likely be removed before the voting period (my opponent conceded this in the 2nd round). Notes: -People should not consider the voting when voting http://www.debate.org..., as my opponent intends. Thank you.

As you mentioned in your speech, jailbreak is a big thing which is true and to add on to that point what if you take Guzman as an example? The world's most wanted drug lord deeply embarrassing the Mexican government by escaping TWICE from maximum security prison. He is known to trade slaves, drugs and weapons and have killed more than thousands of people indirectly or directly. Should this type of person not serve a death penalty? If he is kept alive, he will not change and continue his drug trades and cause harm to the world. Obviously we know that he did help people but his graceful actions were not in fact so called legal because the money he uses were mainly from drugs. My point is that criminals such as Guzman should be executed for killing so many. I understand that although around $17 billion have been spent on prisons, don't you think there will always be a flaw? Unless we execute these malicious criminals they will still be in this world and still have that chance of killing people. No matter how strong the prisons are, there will always be a flaw and a chance of escape.

1) I believe the idea behind voting is to have a say over what the decisions of the government are which affect us. Non-citizens who are living in the United States are affected by the decisions of our government, and yet are often not represented in that decision making process. I consider this an injustice: they get ruled over by the united states, but don't get the privilege of voting. They also get taxed without representation, considering they have to abide by the US tax law before they're even allowed to vote. Why are we putting up with what the founders despised: taxation without representation? Either they should be exempt from taxes, or we need to allow them to vote. Considering some taxes are automatic, like the sales tax, it seems the only option is to allow them to vote, since it would be impossible to exempt non-citizens from the excise taxes like sales tax. Additionally, they are held liable for our laws yet don't get a say in the laws even though they are bound to follow them. They have all of the responsibilities of a citizen essentially(paying taxes, following the law etc), but we don't give them the benefits of citizens. We should. 2) There is precedent in the United States history to allowing non-citizens to vote. The supreme court once stated, in the supreme court case Minor vs Happersett in 1874, that "citizenship has not in all cases been made a condition precedent to the enjoyment of the right of suffrage. Thus, in Missouri, persons of foreign birth, who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, may under certain circumstances vote", despite this, federal law currently prevents non-citizens from voting[1]I'll leave it at this for nowSources:[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...

Firstly, my opponent ignored my argument showing his own personal contradiction. This is a prima facie argument, and defeats my opponent's criticisms. Moving on to his (few) claims:"This is retarded. Yu[sic] win a debate by being eclared[sic] a winner from a legitimate judge you fvcktard[sic]. obviously[sic] you know nothing about debate[sic]. " Deciphering the spelling and grammar, I would usually address this by saying there are multiple judges in most debates. However, this is irrelevant to the debate, and therefore irrelevant to either of our cases. "it shows that crisians[sic] are stupid stephen_d1psh1it[sic]. seriously its[sic] clear s[sic] day"The irony of presenting a case as clear s day. However, my opponent still did not present his own argument, nor did the idea that Christians having low intelligence affect whether they should be allowed to vote. To conclude, my opponent has presented no arguments in favour of himself, yet managed to somehow make an argument showing he is self-contradictary. Furthermore, he has misspelt words endlessly (Spelling and Grammar -1) and constantly swore at myself (conduct -1).

Con argues not voting is a valid political choice and I agree. In compulsory voting countries the ballot usually has an option to represent a non-vote for voters who are not sure. I argue CV would secure every citizen a vote, ensuring proper representation from their government. There are also a few other logical benefits from CV. We know that discouraged and poor aren't voting in non-CV countries. Why not put in place a system where these underrepresented groups are assured a vote. Australia, a CV-Country, votes on Sundays and even accepts doctors notes to ensure fairness. The right not to vote shouldn't be mistaken as "your vote doesn't matter". CV may infringe on a persons fundamental freedom a little, maybe its worth it.

1. Treating selective offenders for pedophilic acts instead of incarcerating them in all instances allows more offenders the opportunity to reduce or prevent the expression of pedophilic behavior. 2. Giving pedophiles a greater opportunity to reduce or prevent their behavior decreases the likelihood of re-offending. 3. Persons convicted of pedophilic crimes should be sent to involuntary civil commitment hospitals rather than being incarcerated. 4. Civil commitment hospitals can provide incessant treatment to pedophiles while simultaneously keeping them out of society where they can potentially harm more victims. 5. If all persons convicted of pedophilic crimes are incarcerated, there is potential for devastating impacts on the correctional system. 6. A rise in the prison population causes an increase in costs, resources to become limited, and less treatment and prevention programs for those incarcerated. 7. Confinement hospitals can also prevent violent attacks toward pedophiles, which can occur both inside and outside of prison. 8. It is true that incarceration sends a clear message of punishment to those convicted of a crime. 9. Other negative consequences of choosing to treat and not incarcerate all persons convicted of pedophilic crimes are acceptable, such as evading a degree of punishment or causing emotional distraught to victims and their families. 10. Persons convicted of pedophilic crimes should be treated and not incarcerated in all instances.

How am I solely arguing my opinion? A man named Tim spent two years in prison and says "First off, you get your housing where you will live, then most likely you will be assigned a job such as cook , grounds keeper, field worker etc. since the whole unit is ran by the inmates. After that its a routine of going to work and going to chow and spending the rest of your time in your cell except when your allowed to go to rec and play ball or work out which is generally once a day. You can also apply for classes to try and better educate yourself while your in there to help you when you get out. Its all about repetition every day." I don't believe you or my opponent will be thinking of simply "an eye for an eye" when it's them or another member of your family.

"...people most effected by the messes caused by the government must be heard, instead of a select few who passed a test. Every vote counts. We cannot allow ourselves to be silenced."The problem with the premise here -- that government's problems must be solved by the masses -- fundamentally misunderstands the nature of our government. Our government is an extension of the people. Any messes caused by government are messes incurred and tolerated by an electorate that keeps putting the same people in power. We have had government of the masses for a while now, and we can see it is not as effective of a system as it could be."Now, before I start arguing my side for legal and moral purposes, I should let my opponent know that the effort to suppress the vote is already abundant in this country."My opponent went on to list ways in which the vote is being suppressed. The examples are immaterial. In my opinion, some of his railing against voter ID laws and felony disenfranchisement is off-base in this particular debate. The kind of voting restrictions my opponent talks about is restriction for purely political reasons. All the restrictions target minorities, a group of people that generally aid the Democratic Party. Therefore, Republicans oppose liberalizing voting laws, and Democrats support doing so.But what I'm talking about is voting restriction for reasons other than petty party politics. I'm suggesting voting restriction to those who are most qualified to vote. The difference here can be summed up in the following metaphor:On one hand, a business owner refuses to hire someone because of their race ( i.e. poll taxes).On the other, a business owner refuses to hire someone because they're not qualified for the job (i.e. my idea)."Firstly, the fifteenth amendment, which says that voting rights cannot be based on race. The twenty fourth amendment outlaws poll taxes. Finally, the twenty sixth amendment lowers the voting age to eighteen. Now sure, these do not guarantee voting rights to all, but my opponent must agree that these all take steps in the direction of equal voting rights for all. So if we were to add a constitutional amendment to have a test to see if you could vote, that would actually be a step backwards in everything we have fought so hard for to this point."I agree that all of the amendments listed go along with the theme of expanding and protecting voting rights, but this theme does not legally or constitutionally bar us from implementing my plan. Sure, it would be a step in the opposite direction we've been heading, but it wouldn't violate anything in the Constitution. And to not implement the plan simply due to the fact that it would be a reversal of historical trends is silly; doing so would completely ignore the merits of my idea and the drawbacks to the current way of doing things."He knew that if a group of people were silenced, then the country's decline would follow. Are we going to so carelessly give up the right to vote to all, or are we going to be like Dr. King and fight to preserve those rights?"This sounds nice, but it lacks backing. Why would our country's decline soon follow if the majority of voters ceded their right to do so? I've outlined why we would be better off with more qualified voters, and I don't see how unqualified voters not voting is a problem, especially if the majority of them approved of such circumstances during the process in which this idea would be engraved into the Constitution.

1. The jury is forced to do this because of the government. 2. Plea bargaining - some people plea bargain and are then found innocent 3. Sometimes there is no good evidence, but a trial still happens Sometimes there is false evidence or evidence planted by others Sometimes there is more recent evidence found after the conviction 4. It is wrong to unjustly waste someones years away and then not compensate them for their pain and suffering 5. After getting out of jail finding a job and getting money is difficult. These people need the money to restart their lives, the ones that the government ruined. 6. System is as fair as possible but that has nothing to do with this debate, they make mistakes. A person DESERVES just compensation because years of their life have been filled with pain and suffering in our jail systems. Even a year inside of a jail cell can give you psycological and physical ailments for the rest of your life.


Question: Should Ex-Convicts Regain Their Voting Rights Post Sentence Completion?

Resolved: In the United States, felons who have completed their sentence should regain their voting rights.

Today, I stand to support the proposition that felons should be allowed to vote upon release from prison in the United States. This argument is not only rooted in democratic principles but also in the belief that rehabilitation and reintegration into society are crucial for a healthy democracy.

1. One of the cornerstones of democracy is universal suffrage. By denying released felons the right to vote, we are disenfranchising a significant portion of the adult population, which can amount to up to 7% in some states. This disenfranchisement affects approximately 5.9 million people in the United States, undermining the democratic process by silencing their voices and distorting the electoral outcomes. For instance, if felons in Florida had been allowed to vote in the 2000 presidential election, the result might have been different, as felons tend to vote predominantly for the Democratic Party. This clearly shows that felon disenfranchisement can sway election results and does not accurately reflect the will of the people.

1a. The American justice system is based on the principle that once a sentence is completed, the punishment is over. Therefore, denying felons the right to vote for an extended period after their release is an extension of their punishment, making it harder for them to reintegrate into society. This practice contradicts the principles of accountability and rehabilitation that underpin our justice system, as stated by former Attorney General Eric Holder. It is unethical and unnecessarily prolongs punishment.

1b. The U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights prohibits excessive sanctions and stipulates that punishment should be proportionate to the offense. Denying felons the right to vote for decades seems excessive, as voting is a fundamental right of American citizenship. This restriction goes against the constitutional principles regarding excessive sanctions and is an unwarranted infringement on a basic right.

2. Allowing felons to vote upon release would facilitate their transition back into society. Felons who are denied voting rights often feel frustrated with the slow pace of re-admittance into society and are three times more likely to reoffend than those with full rights upon release. If felons were allowed to vote upon release, they would be more likely to reintegrate smoothly into society and less likely to reoffend.

2a. Minor offenses, such as tampering with crab traps illegally, can result in over seven years of voting rights suspension in some states. This is unjustified,

The Contender has many flaws in his argument. Firstly, "Harlan" says "I think that while punishment is necessary in some places, society should mainly put emphasis on education as means to discouraging people from doing attrocious things, rather than fear." This tells us that "Harlan" agrees with my point of view, and would like to see the death penalty applied in some cases. The other half of his point tells us that he would like to see more "education" rather "than fear". I would like to point out that we are thoroughly educated when we are young. Police come to our schools to talk about what to do and what not to do. But does this serve any purpose? A famous gangster and killer called Al Capone once said "I have spent the best of my life giving people the lighter pleasures, helping them have a good time, and all I get is abuse, the existence of a hunted man." Yes. Thats the word of the most feared gang leader in Chicago. As you can see, criminals don't see how they are wrong, and they won't see how they are wrong through "education". Men like Al Capone think like that. There is no way of escaping that fact. Secondly, "Harlan" doesn't get the point of a death sentence. Here are his words: "Plenty of people die already, so I don't think it is necessary to kill more people in order to get organs." So what "Harlan" is saying here, that the death sentence is in place to "kill more people in order to get organs". Thats what he's saying. The point is, that if someone commits an "attrocious" crime, they get a fair punishment. The organ donation is just a way of a 'repayment' of the people they've killed etc. And also, only healthy organs will be chosen (I would also like to add that healthy blood can also be donated). And as "Harlan" said:" I would see this as dishonoring to the person punished, if they did not give consent before-hand for their organs to be utilized." This proves that he is feeling sorry for the criminal who has killed lots of people and thinks that this is dishonoring the person. Why doesn't "Harlan" feel sorry for those who were killed? Why, "Harlan"? Thirdly, "Harlan" says: "The case of prison break-outs is a very rare one." This proves that "Harlan" does not understand the point. I am not talking of prison break outs. I am talking of how people are released because their time is up and then they get put out into the public, and then they kill more people (which is almost always the case), and then they get sent to jail again, and then the cycle continues. And as "Harlan" says: "Also, if it is determined that a prisoner is so dangerous that not only are they not suitable for society, but not suitable for being with other human beings (inmates) at all, they can be put in a mental institution." Well, can I just say, people don't enjoy working with killers. They don't feel safe. And also, "Harlan" still doesn't get the point. The death sentence is a fair punishment for a an "attrocious" crime. "Harlan" is relating the death sentence as a way of getting rid of people. That's not my point! And even more important, isn't a "mental institution" just another phrase for "jail"? They do have rehabilitation places in prisons you know. And lastly, "Harlan" says: "There are many practical solutions that would make the death sentence wholly unnecessary." This proves again that "Harlan" does not understand. We are not trying to get rid of people. We are not trying to find ways to donate organs or blood. We are not trying to find ways of lowering a population. We are just trying to find a way to fairly punish someone for what they've done. And can I also say, that there are spelling and grammar mistakes in "Harlan's" argument. Take the word "attrocious" for example. That was in "Harlan's" argument.

Hello Since you never specified and I live within England I'm going to debate within the context of the UK. I really don't see a massive problem as to why people on welfare benefits shouldn't vote - this is a democracy after all. So I'm going to argue in favour of people on welfare benefits should on their own free will be allowed to vote.

How a state government works is this, we as citizens gives up some power so that the state protects our unalienable rights and in return we live by those laws that the state has set forth. When someone who just broke one of the biggest laws set forth, which is we do not kill each other, he/she relinquished their rights. How is life in prison a suitable punishment for a person who kills a person or even kills more than one? How is that justice being served? Did those victims not have lives? dreams? rights? Were those rights not just violated by an individual who broke the laws of the government? When someone is murdered, the state has failed to protect that person from his unalienable rights being taken away. The best solution is to serve justice, kill the menace to society, not cloth them, feed them, give them books to read, give them water, or even a shelter until they die in their cells. Example Jeffrey Dahmer, killed 17 boys, he tortured them, raped them, and ate their bodies. 17 boys died and the suitable punishment was to be stuck in jail for the rest of his life? He took their dreams, their future, their innocence, and disposed of the bodies so that not even the families could give a proper burial, and the most reasonable conviction was to send this man to jail for life? Why does he deserve to live? Where does it say he is allowed to take the rights of 17 boys? For people who commit these crimes, prison is a blessing, with all these charges how are these people supposed to live in the outside world? No person in their right mind would hire a murderer. Our international relations should stay intact, we are a more powerful country we should not force ourselves to change every little thing so that all the countries will accept us more. It is impossible to please the entire world, our allies will just find other reasons to look at us in a bad light, we cannot change everything just to fit their likings. The death penalty is a fitting end to a person who did not care about the consequences of his/her actions,they gave up their rights when they decided to break the state laws and take another persons rights away. I do not see the logical reasoning with one person killing 17people and getting to live his life, that seems like a flaw in the justice system if we allow that to happen. The death penalty should not be phased out. http://en.wikipedia.org...

That is a very elitist attitude. You believe that only people who have the means to a better education deserve the right to vote. Those people who sweat and work hard everyday in fields to feed families of people they will never ever meet, those people don't deserve the right to vote. Is this your idea of a perfect world where only the rich elite make the decisions while the working class is basically turned into slaves?

Pro has not responded to any of my arguments. This is a debate, and debates entail an exchange, not talking past each other and ignoring the other side.Now, on to the mesh of one sentence arguments...the American jail is not as hard as should be on certain prisoners for what they have done. 1) This is irrelevant. If jails should be harder, it only follows that the jails should change, not that the death penalty should be allowed. 2) Why are jails not hard enough? Please provide support. I think that if you have the guts to go up and have the nerve to kill someone then you definitely don't deserve to still be living and breathing on this earth its just not right1) I developed a lengthy argument last round which addressed the moral responsibility of individuals and the unjust nature of the death penalty. I invite Pro to read it.2) Pro only appeals to emotion. She doesn't make an argument. you need to learn from your mistakesUnfortunately, you'll find that when you try to use capital punishment to educate someone, their capacity to remember what they learned is greatly impared. it will also teach others to learn from what you have done and be warned that if you decide to take this path in your life there will be serious consequences like the death penalty Deterence is a contentious issue, so Pro cannot make an argument for it without providing outside research. In 2008, a survey was conducted on members of the prestigious Fellow in the American Society of Criminology. 88.2% of the experts do not believe that the death penalty is a deterrent. 74.7% say that research refutes the claim that death-penalty states have lower homicide rates than neighboring states without the death-penalty. In fact, death-penalty states had 42% higher homicide rates than non-death penalty states in 2007. [1] Also, in a 1995 national survey, two-thirds of nearly 400 police chiefs and county sheriffs responded that they did not believe the death penalty significantly lowered the number of murders [1]. “Overall, it is clear that however measured, fewer than 10% of the polled experts believe the deterrence effect of the death penalty is stronger than that of long-term imprisonment”[1] A study was conducted a few years ago by the prestigious National Research Council of the National Academies [2]. The study covered over three decades of research and concluded that there were three fundamental flaws in current studies on deterrence: 1. “The studies do not factor in the effects of noncapital punishments that may also be imposed. 2. The studies use incomplete or implausible models of potential murderers’ perceptions of and response to the use of capital punishment. 3. Estimates of the effect of capital punishment are based on statistical models that make assumptions that are not credible.” The conclusion of the study was that research is not informative about the effect of capital punishment on homicide rates and, therefore, should not be used to inform policy judgements. There have been a vast amount of studies regarding capital punishment and deterrence such as the 10 mentioned between 2004 and 2012 here [3]. The only thing we can gather from all these studies is that the effect of capital punishment on homicide rates can’t be established, as the mentioned article concludes. There are, however, reasons why the death penalty might have very little deterrence or no deterrence at all. The first reason is the consensus of experts against deterrence. The second is presented below. For the death penalty to deter, criminals need to actively weigh the thought of execution to their potential crime. This is problematic; one, because executions happen so little in America and are applied so arbitrary that no one would believe they had much chance of receiving the death penalty. Also, murders are largely committed in the heat of passion, or under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or because they are mentally ill--little thought is given to the possible consequences. Those murderers in the minority, who plan the crime in advance, are counting on not being caught; they expect to avoid punishment altogether.[4]or harsher and stricter jails This debate has nothing to do with the debate.People need to take the blame for what they have clearly done and its not right to kill and innocent person and still live and eat and live your life when them and their families have to suffer for what you have done Correction: Live and eat and spend the rest of your life in prison. No one contends that murderers should recieve punishment. Pro has simply given no rational argument for why it warrants the death penalty. I've already given many reasons why the death penalt is unjust. Pro can't address any of my arguments nor even give one of her own.i don't know if you've noticed but your justice system has more sympathy for our criminals than our victims No, I haven't.Another good reason to have the death penalty is because when a prisoner's parole or escape can give the criminals another opportunity to kill another person again. The only way to stop recidivism is to execute every murderer, which no person wants, or life without parole, which is an alternative to the death penalty.Also have you noticed with all these prisoners here and known of them getting killed its taking up space and that's not realty safe.Seriously... The answer to our prison population IS NOT TO JUST START KILLING PEOPLE. And finally something we all have to pay attention almost everyday is our taxes did you know that we are paying to keep our criminals stuck in that jail place when it could be going to something a lot more useful that could actually help and benefit us.Pro obviously did not even attempt to read my case.Sources: [1] http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu... [2] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[3] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[4] http://deathpenalty.procon.org...;

Being sentenced indefinitely to treatment centers still does not justify as punishment. Yes they are protected and locked up in these centers but does not justify they are being punished. They should be punished for their immoral wrong doings and serve their punishments in prisons with the availability for treatment. I completely agree with your last statement regarding allocating our resources on making sure potential victims are ultimately safe while treating the victims that unfortunately have been victimized already.

I think you are very focused on the idea that a percentage of people don't live long enough to vote. It is sad that people die young but we can't change laws because of that. 4-year-olds die of cancer, we wouldn't lower the voting age to 4 to accommodate them. "However, that means that even someone who lives until one hundred years of age spends one forth of their life without rights over themselves, and control over their lives. Most people get less time." Not being able to vote does not mean you don't have rights over yourself. it means you need to wait till you are older. Actually less than a fourth of teens have their own opinion...but, even if you don't buy the influence argument, teens still are not ready to vote. Children do have free will but they are not mature enough to vote. As I said before: "Studies have proven that full brain development usually occurs by the age of 25. Teenagers are known to be more emotional and impulsive than adults. Their voting is likely to be immature and also not very well-informed." "Most voters are already uninformed, and if teenagers are as well, it makes little difference." This is very problematic. Instead of just adding more uninformed voters to the pool, we need to educate the ones we already have! You can't just say, well our voters are already ignorant so who cares if we add more ignorant voters? That is not how elections should be, elections based on misinformation and ignorance are not true elections! I wish you wouldn't compare women's suffrage and civil rights to teenagers not being allowed to vote. They are not the same, teenagers are not being oppressed the way women and African-Americans were. In conclusion, teenagers should not vote because they are not mature enough and to allow them to vote would lead to more problems and questions: 1. In that case, should non-citizens get to vote? 2. What about 10-year-olds? 3. Now we have more misinformed voters who will vote based off emotion instead of logic and facts

Your first debate, let the mayhem begin! Just kidding, I am no better at this than you are most likely. Don't let my win ratio fool you. A couple of weeks ago I was 0-27 now as of this posting I am 24-3-1 I am a controversial personality and people mess with my voting record, it is a completely unreliable indicator of my debating skills or is it HMMM. Anywaaaay. Let me start by saying your entire opening argument infers that all forms of public humiliation must include bodily harm. I specifically stated that if you needed examples to make your case I would provide them. Public humiliation that does not cause bodily harm is not against the law. "Do not confuse slander with public humiliation" Exhibit (A) All the major tabloids and news outlets publicly humiliate people everyday. They can say what ever they want about anybody without impunity. You can not sue anybody for publicly humiliating you. I can walk up to you in a crowd of people and make fun of you and make rude comments about you and there is nothing you can do about it. Public humiliation is in fact being used in several places around the country right now with very good results. Tents for jail cells in the Arizona desert: http://www.cnn.com... The recidivism rate for the inmates that go through the sheriffs rehabilitation program is 14% verses 60% on the national average. You will note that every single human rights and civil rights group in the country has been unsuccessful at closing it down. So this is proof that public humiliation and harsh living environments are not inhumane as long as they don't cause bodily injury. This judge in Texas makes people where signs, again not unconstitutional with better recidivism rate than national average. http://articles.latimes.com... Only 3 out of 600 people have repeated offenses. "My opponent states that counseling and probation are a waste of time and resources, but can we really compare economics and convenience to justice and due process? This argument clearly falls." This link explains the vicious cycle that 4 out of every ten people get caught up in starting out as misdemeanor offence in most cases and end up convicted felons because they can't pay the fees associated with it. It is cruel and unusual punishment to condemn people to a life of crime over a few thousand or even a few hundred dollars. http://www.thenation.com... "My opponent states that counseling and probation are a waste of time and resources, but can we really compare economics and convenience to justice and due process?" The above comment is also addressed in the last link. The legal justice system today is pretty much a business or a corporation theses days. Entire sub businesses are propped up by the legal system. For example: DUI schools, Anger Management Schools, Financial planning schools, Driving schools, they have a school or a class or some sort of councilor for just about anything you can think of. And you have to attend these classes for weeks if not months and the cost of all these things add up: Fines, probation, schools, counseling. The vast majority of the people who have to attend and pay for these things are often indigent to begin with and wind up violating their probation because they can't pay all these fines and fees. Next thing they know they are convicted felons for VOP violations and are given more fines and ordered to more classes and more counseling on top of what they already can't pay for. The vicious cycle begins and a once misdemeanor offence ends up as a felony and the person just gives up and lives it up or runs from the law until the next time they get caught because they now have nothing to lose. "My opponent also states that they often resort to stealing to meet the cost of being a criminal, but no facts or statistics were provided so this point falls" This comment is addressed by the fact that people who get caught up in the legal system are unable to find employment because they have warrants and such that prohibit any kind of permanent gainful employment forcing them to engage in illegal means to earn or steel money. Public humiliation is a much better option. People 9 times out of ten will choose to pay a fine or go to jail over being publicly humiliated. People choose to pay because public humiliation is just that "public humiliation" I have given numerous examples and statistics to prove that public humiliation of the types presented in my argument are far more effective at detouring repeat offenses than probation or counseling or schools. All these people caught up in the justice system should be publicly humiliated for their original offence and have all the fines and schools and on and on dropped so the person can get back to living. Public humiliation would reduce crime especially if it is used on first time offenders in particular as it will have a lasting and unforgettable deterrence effect.

Thank you, once again for your arguments." kohai better not forfeit my debate with him."I am sorry but I have to forfeit(SORRY, I was too tempted!)RC1) As I proved, the DP also takes inoccent lives!RSPA) I wish to direct your attention to the source that my opponent used. According to his first source, 70% of theives are re-offenders. Therefore, based on his logic we should kill theives.Murders have the lowest re-offending rate of any criminal. Therefore, if murders should be killed because they can re-offend, anyone can and thus should be killed.Under that logic, I should be killed since I have speeded multiple times. Killing the speeders will surely save more lives!RSPB) My opponent claims that the DP is a deterance. I contend that it is NOT. According to a recent survey, 87 precent of criminologist said that it is not a deterrent and nothing will change by abolishing the DP [1]In fact, I wish to direct your attention to source number 2. This was a graph done between the years 1993-2009. According to this, states without the DP decreased in homicide, while states with the DP increased in homicide.Another simple fact is that when someone is comiting a crime, they do not think about the consequences.RC2) This is a circular logic that is a logical falacy of the slippery slope. Furthermore, I contend that if a prisoner has truly been reformed and can be released back in society and he can support himself, there is no reason to keep him in prison. However, if he has not, then we need to keep him behind bars.If punishment is the reason for prison, and not reform; then based upon con, we should give life without parol.Sources1. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...2. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...

It is hard enough in today's world to live without having one indiscretion you had at the ripe old age of let's say twenty years follow you and hunt you down. After you've committed your CHUMP crime, a Driving While Impaired, Possession of a Controlled Substance (namely marijuana), Drinking Under Age, and an array of other NON-VIOLENT crimes, you grow up. As a part of the "grown up" experience you consider that you need a job...you begin filling out online applications, you walk into the variety of chains around our country and you apply. The interview does come because you're a healthy looking person, you're clean cut, you've finally grown up. The interview goes well and then you hear, "once we get your back ground check back, I'll give you a call." And all of a sudden that stupid mistake of yours just two years ago is coming back to haunt you, you know it before it happens. Let's go a bit further, say you're an middle aged adult man or woman, in this economy of cut backs and shut downs, you find yourself without a job. You've worked at the very same job now for well on twenty years so you know that you'll leave it with some consolation, at the very least unemployment. But you also know that unemployment benefits won't pay the bills so you begin to look for work. That Driving While Impaired charge that you got at twenty-two years of age has not crossed your mind in decades, your car insurance is no longer affected by it, it's over. You interview, it goes well and you just know that you got the job because you're qualified, educated, and grown up. The phone rings, it's the company that you interviewed with and wa-la, no job forthcoming, your criminal background check results were in, the D.W.I. HALTS this process. It is not fair. Anyone that has ever had any criminal trouble, REGARDLESS of what crime it was, the debt to society has been paid IF that individual completed his/her sentence, the majority do. It doesn't matter if it was actual prison time or merely the payment of fines, HIS/HER DEBT HAS BEEN PAID. Granted if the crimes were violent it would certainly lend to a more indepth study of what the person allegely did, but some people really do change and some crimes ARE NOT what they seem. According to Google (my favorite search engine) ONE in FOUR Americans have criminal records (http://nelp.3cdn.net...). Also according to Google, the majority of criminals are one time offenders, and the majority are misdemeanors (http://www.drtomoconnor.com...). It has been determined that a MAJORITY of reformed criminals remain reformed, that this same MAJORITY become productive members of our society. Until that is that dreaded cut back or shut down. IT IS THEN THAT THEY BECOME DEPENDENT ON THE TAX PAYER because companies around the world are turning GOOD PEOPLE with VERY GOOD SKILLS away due to a DRIVING WHILE IMPAIRED charge that crept up when the background search was performed. It is downright sad. It has been determined that AT THE VERY LEAST NINETY-THREE PERCENT of the information sold on the black market today regarding PRIVATE individuals has a tonnage of inaccuracies. It has also been determined that sixty-three percent of the information sold about you and I has been sold by the very states that we live in. Have you ever Googled your name? Have you ever entered your name into any people search engine? Try it, you'll be astonished. I have a very unique name, there are twenty-three individuals of the same name nationwide. I do NOT support criminal records as adequate records on any individual, because I know that people can change. I know what it was like to be young, and I know the mistakes that I made. I know too that criminal records are a matter of public record, but really, if I share the same name with twenty-three people on this planet, isn't it likely that I may inherit some of their misgivings...it happened, I can prove it. I think that it is time that WE THE PEOPLE give the systems that are currently in place regarding the often private information about individuals a good revamping. A majority of these systems are antiquated and should be put to rest. We should hold our government accountable for the ACCURATE distribution of information that is PUBLIC RECORD, MAKING THEM CROSS THEIR T's AND DOT THEIR I's. Any pros you may offer will be refuted.


Question: Should Women Have Legal Access to Abortion?

Should abortion be legal?

The legalization of abortion should be upheld as personhood is determined post-viability or post-birth, not at conception. As per the U.S. Supreme Court's definition, personhood begins when an individual is outside the mother's womb, breathing oxygen, and progresses from zero to eventually marking one year of age. This understanding supports the argument for legal abortion.

Although it should be a women's right to chose. Aren't we born with certain unalienable rights? Granite the baby has not yet been born, but that doesn't give us a right to disregard it of its rights and take an innocent life. After a certain period of time it is no longer a clump of cells, but a living organism. Therefore abortion is wrong and inhuman.

Thanks for taking the challenge Miserlou :-) we should all be a little open minded right? Here we go... Abortion was legal in the beginning, It was common and thought to be acceptable. The real reason abortion was made illegal was because of health reasons for the Mother. It was common among Native Americans and common in colonial times but in the 1800s laws were passed to stop the procedure. The middle of the 20th century safer cleaner and more advanced procedures came about and in 1973 Roe v. Wade overturned all abortion laws in the United States. Abortion is Natural as the body itself, aborts up to 20 percent of all pregnancies. Obviously in many cases a healthy mother's life could be in danger and many times this comes with a high chance of loosing the baby also. In these cases it is only logical to abort the baby for the sake of the healthy mother.

Thank you for allowing me to debate this issue with you. Since you gave no real background on what your stance is, I am going to guess that you believe abortion is morally correct and can be performed. Abortion is basically the legalized killing of an unborn child. There can be many reasons, such as rape, incest, or the parents just don't want to care for the child. There is, however, a safer solution to these problems, which is a little thing people call "adoption". There are over 2 million infertile couples waiting for a child that they can raise, regardless of health issues, such as Down syndrome, Spina bifida, etc. However, only 1% of pregnant women searching for help will even inquire about adoptions. Abortions are depriving couples from having a child of their own, which is a very selfish tjhing to do in many people's eyes, including my own. Brown, Kristi Burton. Adoption: Why So Many Choose the First and What We Can Do. Live Action News. www.livenews.com.15 May. 2012. 21 Jan. 2013. http://www.lifenews.com...... I also believe that life begins at conception, therefore that child is a person who has the right to live. In 1982, Ronald Reagan stated that all people, particularly unborn children, as stated by the Declaration of Independence, are untitled to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." A fetus is not senseless a mass of tissue, it is a precious living human child that has not yet experienced life, and by aborting it, you are depriving it of that right. Abortion, based on these few examples is morally wrong and should not be tolerated in the world today.

Response Point 1: Correct. People should not have pregnancies that they do not plan to have or keep (intended or uninteded pregnancy). But this unfortunate fact will never be suppressed (meaning that millions of people per year will continue to have sex that may result in an unintended pregnancy). Thus, abortion is still necessary. Response Point 2: Exactly. Thank you for proving my point that if abortion was made illegal, than women are going to get abortions anyhow, and a lot of women have them homemade (to use your term), and most of those are unsafe. Response Point 3: There is no right to live. Being able to live is a privilege provided by God. But to not go off on a tangent, I would like for you to state me the passage that either says those words verbatim (preferably), or something of the same effect. Response Point 4: I will cover post-abortion stress in one of my attack points. Response Point 5: Do you really believe Lordknukle? He has some extremely weird beliefs. Response Point 6: Most women who abort are poor. If the baby was born into this surrounding, the baby would be most likely poor his or her whole childhood, and most likely, the rest of his or her life, and these surroundings greatly increase the chance that he or she commits one murder or is murdered. The child would be better off not being born. I would not want to live in or experience those types of surroundings. Would you? Response Point 7: The matter of when a fetus is of one's own opinion. Some say when the fetus's heart first beats, or when the fetus can start breathing, or at conception, or when a fetus can feel pain, or when a fetus can survive on it's own, or at birth. There is no strong, solid evidence of when a baby is born, and most of the accepted alive dates (like when a fetus can survive on it's own, or when the fetus can feel pain) have no set date, but are still a matter of scientific study not proven yet. You cannot prove that a fetus is alive when it's heart first beats. Response Point 8: Most of these famous people did not live in poor surroundings, or where abortion was a major opinion for the child's mother (I am not saying that all famous people do not fit this category because some do). Attack Point 1: "In 1964, 28-year-old Geraldine Santoro bled to death on the floor of a Connecticut hotel room after she and her former lover, Clyde Dixon, attempted an abortion on their own. Dixon, who had no medical experience of any kind, used a textbook and some borrowed tools. When things went terribly wrong, he fled the scene, and Santoro died alone": http://socialistworker.org.... This quote alone sums up what it was like for the thousands of women who died at the hands of untrained specialists. Attack Point 2: Six months after abortion was legalized in Guyana in 1995, admissions for septic and incomplete abortion dropped by 41%. Previously, septic abortion had been the third largest, and incomplete abortion the eighth largest, cause of admissions to the country's public hospitals. One year after Romania legalized abortion in 1990, its abortion-related mortality rate fell from 142 to 47 deaths per 100,000 live births. These are examples of the positive impact legalizing abortion has on women's health.": http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org.... Attack Point 3: "Forty-two percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes below 100% of the federal poverty level ($10,830 for a single woman with no children)" "Twenty-seven percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes between 100–199% of the federal poverty level": http://www.guttmacher.org.... Do you think the babies that were aborted by these 69% of women who are single, and make a yearly income of less then $21,660 would have had a very good life? Do you think they would ever have a chance? Say those 69% of women were not able to abort. Those children grew up in terrible surroundings surrounded by violence, murder, want, and laziness. I am sure a lot of those children would grow up to become theives and even murderers. And I am sure a lot of those would end up in jail. These children would be better off not being born. Attack Point 4: "The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that in 1972 alone, 130,000 women obtained illegal or self-induced procedures, 39 of whom died.":http://www.guttmacher.org.... This means that at least 260,000 people broke the law by having an illegal abortion. That number only takes into account the woman and the doctor. There could be more the 2 involced in one abortion. The prohibition of abortion will again cause 130,000+ crimes. And they need solving. Police are already having a hard time controlling crime. Adding 130,000+ crimes with at least 260,000 people involved will make the police department a mess. Attack Point 5: "In 1967, England liberalized its abortion law to permit any woman to have an abortion with the written consent of two physicians. More than 600 American women made the trip to the United Kingdom during the last three months of 1969 alone" "The year before the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade, just over 100,000 women left their own state to obtain a legal abortion in New York City": http://www.guttmacher.org.... This means that is abortion is made illegal, then thousands of women will travel to a foreign country that legalizes abortion. In other words, they will bypass the law. Attack Point 6: This is the connection between abortion and mental illness I promised. http://www.msnbc.msn.com...... http://www.guardian.co.uk....... This source claims that the unwanted pregnancy is the cause of mental illness, not the abortion itself. http://feministing.com....... This source cites at least three studies denying the claim. I know you stated the connection of post abortion stress. Here is a quote that I think may sum this part of the argument up in my favor: "This review identified several factors that are predictive of more negative psychological responses following first-trimester abortion among women in the United States. Those factors included:Perceptions of stigma, need for secrecy, and low or anticipated social support for the abortion decision; A prior history of mental health problems; Personality factors such as low self-esteem and use of avoidance and denial coping strategies; and Characteristics of the particular pregnancy, including the extent to which the woman wanted and felt committed to it.":http://www.apa.org...... So the abortion did not cause the mental illness, rather, it was the unwanted pregnancy. If the woman was made to stay with the pregnancy, then there would be even worse post-pregnancy stress. Get the connection? Attack Point 7: In February 2003, the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) held a workshop of more than 100 of the world's leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. The experts reviewed human and animal studies that looked at the link between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. Some of their findings were: • Breast cancer risk is increased for a short time after a full-term pregnancy (that is, a pregnancy that results in the birth of a living child). • Induced abortion is not linked to an increase in breast cancer risk. • Spontaneous abortion is not linked to an increase in breast cancer risk. The level of scientific evidence for these findings was considered to be "well established" (the highest level): http://www.cancer.org....... This conclusion again states that if the woman was made to stay with the pregnancy (or not allow her to abort), than the women is at an increased chance for breast cancer. Another point is the if you prohibit abortion, you would have to prohibit pregnancy before that because the pregnancy itself causes mental illness and breast cancer. ==OFR== I have essentially crushed the pro-Life argument.

As somebody who believes in a free society as opposed to one where lives are dictated by the state I think abortion should be allowed but not enforced. Thereby it is essentially, as dictated by a free tolerant society, legal to have abortions by those medical practitioners who agree to perform them. It matters not that I personally disagree with abortions only that others do agree with them and are willing to comply to each other's desires and wants.

Abortion is absolutely nonsense. It should not be legal under any circumstance and I look forward for a debate.

My stance is that all abortions during the first trimester should be legal.

I accept. Though I'd like to provide a definition for "abortion" and clarify my stance on the issue. Abortion: the termination of a pregnancy by removing the fetus or embro from the woman's uterus before it can survive. In most states, abortion is legal up to around 20 weeks (if I did my research correctly) unless it poses a serious health risk for the woman, in which case exceptions are made to this rule. I will be arguing that we not change the status quo on this issue and that abortion continue to be legal up to around this period of pregnancy.

In my opinion, abortion is morally and ethically wrong, and should be illegal except in the case of extenuating circumstances, (explained later). Abortion being legal only teaches our society that rather then dealing with an accident or mistake, you can simply give some money to a doctor in order to "fix" the problem. Sure, there are arguments based on the fact that a fetus is not technically a human being yet, and that by aborting it, we are not denying its natural rights to life. But in all honesty, who are we to judge that. Sex, birth, and life are all natural processes, and the more we tamper with them, the worse the consequences will be. I feel that abortion simply makes people lazier. Rather then taking responsibility for what they have done, they'd rather deny a potential human being its right to life, because they do not want the responsibility of taking care of him/her.

I accept, 5 minutes to post arguments is fine by me (although strange to be honest), but con must refute my case, here goes... Now onto the Pro case, on why abortion is legal and moral. 1st- Morality Morality is defined as a "Code of Conduct that would be put forth by all rational persons" By the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy[1] Personhood- [3] Murder- The crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought [2]. Is Abortion truly murder? Well, to answer that question, we must look at what allegedly is being murdered during the process of an abortion. A Fetus is NOT a Person, A.K.A a human being. A-Is a Fetus a human being? Fetus are essentially completely reliant on their host, in which they reside. Only that one host can truly take care and sustain that Fetus. This characteristic represents that of an organism that is inhumane, in that human beings do not rely on one human being, and only that human being, for sustenance. Simply saying that Fetus will grow is a weak argument on the grounds of abortion, because we look towards what is technically going to die. In no way at any point of an abortion is a human being going to die. A Fetus, can clearly be distinguished from a human being, and as such, Abortion cannot be considered a murder. B- The Right to life of a Fetus There is a major contradiction in giving a Fetus a right to life, anyone who does is completely undermining the host from which it lives. As stated in point 1, Fetus' do not share any characteristics of a human being, they reflect a parasite in fact, one that sustains itself solely off a host organism, and continues to grow, while feeding off the host. By giving a Fetus the right to life, the mother's life is basically worthless, it must sustain a parasite it does not want to sustain, and this is indeed an infringement upon the rights of the mother. To better state this, i will Quote Joyce Arthur- "The free exercise of one's moral conscience is a fundamental right in our society. And since pregnancy entails profound physical, psychological, and long-lasting consequences for a woman (it is not a mere "inconvenience"), her freedoms are significantly restricted if she is forced to carry to term." [3] C-The Choice of abortion (Quality of Life) Has anyone ever stopped to ask themselves why women have abortions? Does the quality of life mean nothing to Pro-Life people? A Moral outlook on abortion shows the many reasons women choose to have abortions. Not only may it be unwanted, but many times the Rape victim or the Soon-To-Be Single mother cannot successfully sustain their baby. The Fact is, Quality of life is just as important to the mother as it is to all of us looking at this issue from a 3rd person perspective. If a mother is living in such harsh conditions where she can barely make a living herself, why would she want to bring into this world a being which she must watch suffer unless cared for, and then diminish the already bad quality of her life as well? No Justification exists for allowing a being into this world if it WILL SUFFER. On top of that, the it should be the mother's choice based off of her right to life, and her quality of life. Why do we make the innocent pay? By Diminishing a mother's life, and allowing a baby to suffer, we as human beings are inherently immoral. This point in no way advocates unwanted pregnancies, but a pregnancy cannot be planned, and no specification has been made on how women become pregnant in the first place. An easy assumption is through unwanted means such as- Forgetting Birth Control or the much more gruesome- Rape. 2nd Legality of Abortion A- Roe vs Wade (1973) The U.S. Supreme Court stated that abortion bans were unconstitutional in every state, legalizing abortion throughout the United States. There are multiple reasons for this. 1) Forced Permittence This may sound silly, but a burden is a burden, just as a man walking into your house and using your bed without any permittence is unlawful so too is having to carry an unborn organism that feeds off of you. Just as that man eats your food and takes all of your stuff, so too does that unborn organism. The truth of the matter is, just like a house is owned, so is a body, whatever is inside that house or body is what is permitted to be inside based on he owner.To make things clearer- Whatever exists inside my body is at my disposal, any organism is inherently infringing upon my rights by taking up space in my body. Just as a Tapeworm is an unwanted organism in your body, so too is an unborn fetus, unwanted by the mother, yet the mother is forced to carry it. 2)Infringing upon the Quality of Life (Sound Familiar?) This point may sound familiar, and it should, because it applies to both legality and morality. Quality of life is everything, many philosophers argue the quality of life is what defines life, without happiness and joy there is no point to life. If a women was forced to carry a burden which she knew she could not carry, and had no way of disposing it legally, this would be in reality torture. We cannot justify denying the rights of Freedom, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. By not allowing for a woman to have an abortion, we are deterring and infringing upon that woman's rights. B- Fetus' Rights [3] Do Fetus' Have rights? Let's say we somehow gave an unborn Fetus all the constitutional rights an American Citizen was given. Could it truly exercise any rights at all? What would be the point? Giving Rights to an organism that cannot use a single one is meaningless. By Giving Rights to the Fetus or Zygote, a weighing factor would be put into play. Who's life would be worth more then? The Woman or the Unborn Fetus that cannot exercise a single right given to it? This is completely unfair to the woman, not only is this Fetus' life given weight equivalent to hers, it's also given rights it can't even use, and it isn't even alive! Logically, we cannot give an organism rights if they cannot exercise those rights.Thus it is legal for a woman to have an abortion on the grounds of rights. Thank you for taking the time to read this debate, i wish you all good luck and thank my opponent for an intellectually stimulating debate. I hope for the best :) [1] http://plato.stanford.edu...... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...... [3] http://www.abortionaccess.info...... This is all mine, i used this in another abortion debate as well, but judges my opponent put a time limit of 5 minutes between arguments, and this is still MY WORK look it up if you don't believe me. Thank you and good luck. Reminder- Cons BOP is to refute pro, simply giving completely different reasons why abortion is wrong does not comply to traditional forms of debate.