CSI AFF - I affirm, Resolved: In a democratic society,...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
I affirm, Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. A democratic society is distinct from a democratic government or any other principled society such as a religious society. The unique characteristic of a democratic society is that it is inherently distrustful of government which is why power is vested in the people. Although the essence of a democratic society is self-governance, we can make external arguments about how such a society ought to treat its demos. Moreover, to declare that there is no way that a state ought to interact with its people is tantamount to denying the possibility of obligations to treat citizens with dignity. While the literature occasionally uses the term ex-felon, this term actually refers to unincarcerated felons. Legally, once one has committed and been convicted of a felony crime, that condition is permanent. Retain means 1 , “continue to have (something); keep possession of”. This does not, however, preclude suspension of the use of the thing which one owns. The citizen possessed the right to vote prior to conviction and the question of the resolution is whether to permit felons to keep the right to vote or whether to deny the right to vote. The affirmative burden is to establish a normative rationale to allow felons to retain the right to vote. Reciprocally, the negative burden is to establish a normative rationale for the restriction of the right to vote. Given the wide array of felony laws that do and could potentially exist, a defense of any specific law creates impossibly imbalanced burdens, which is key to debatability. Debatability should be looked at prior to other standards since frameworks are meant to make the resolution more debatable. Negating by rejecting the resolution (either by rejecting the resolution on a truth-condition level or through critical argumentation about the assumptions of affirming) is infinitely regressive and forces the affirmative to defend an infinite amount of non-verifiable ontological claims, which is impossible. Both sides must have an equal chance of winning before the round to guarantee people want to participate even after seeing what side they’re on, and reciprocity of burdens insures a level playing field. Also, affirmative ground is over-determined because it is tied to proving a value proposition. The negative is required to prove that the value proposition is false; otherwise the truth of the AC in proving the textual resolutional question has not been challenged and the statement can be affirmed My value is the just resolution of democratic rights disputes as the resolution is specifically asking when the democratic right of participation can be appropriately limited. This is the most germane value to the topic as the topic is not dealing with democracy generally, but limiting the specific right of a specific group of people. However, democracies must have some way of making necessary rights limitations.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 4

CSI AFF - I affirm, Resolved: In a democratic society,...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online