Conflicting viewpoints Conflicting viewpoint is a critical thinking that is very key and central in most of our arguments, either in speech or in written form. When coming up with our premises to argue our opinion or present that which we have, critical thinking is the core in ensuring there is logic in the arguments. Premises should therefore be well articulated to accurately convey the meaning it was primarily intended to realize. In attempts to present our premises accurately, biases, fallacious arguments and illogical reasoning should be avoided at whatever cost. In this paper, I will examine three pro reasons for disenfranchisement of felon laws. The first con premise argues that blacks are the most affected by the felon disenfranchisement law because a disproportionate number of blacks are felons. The premise further argues that the problem is not the racist laws themselves but rather the black criminality since the white felons are too submitted to the same laws (Jason, 2014). This view is not only proper in logic but also articulates the argument clearly. This view is interesting as it clearly explains the uniformity of the law to both whites and blacks. In a broader sense, the premise argues that it is because of the unusual felon criminality levels associated with blacks that makes this law perceived to discriminate against them. This con premise is a good argument in terms of logic; how the ideas are expressed. If I would buy into this idea, it will mean I wholly agree with the premises and thus strongly stand in the position that disenfranchised felon laws are in the most basic form non-discriminatory. In a more realistic position, this idea is true, when it is argued that the felon laws apply evenly to both white and black races. This simply means, both races are subjected to the same equal sanctions whenever violations are noted. Analyzing this argument closely, it is fallacious. Hasty generalization comes in when the premise that blacks make the most felons is featured. There is no sufficient evidence to support the claim and no premises to anchor the claim. This is fallacious as it is a conclusion jumped into with no clear representative sample to rely on for generalization. Again, it is biased to say, the problem is not the law but rather black criminality. In a deeper sense, this would mean, the laws were enacted to control the increased felon crimes committed by blacks. The second pro premise argues that it believes in civil rights and equality in the criminal justice system, but at the same time finds it reasonable to deny a felon voting right. The premise argues that these laws have always been in existence in different states and therefore it is a reasonable sanction to people who deliberate on committing serious crimes. This premise is interesting in the aspect of arguing that it denies voting rights to those who deliberate on committing felons. According to this premise, there is no racial intent, but the core of the p.

1. Conflicting viewpoints
Conflicting viewpoint is a critical thinking that is very key and
central in most of our arguments, either in speech or in written
form. When coming up with our premises to argue our opinion
or present that which we have, critical thinking is the core in
ensuring there is logic in the arguments. Premises should
therefore be well articulated to accurately convey the meaning it
was primarily intended to realize. In attempts to present our
premises accurately, biases, fallacious arguments and illogical
reasoning should be avoided at whatever cost. In this paper, I
will examine three pro reasons for disenfranchisement of felon
laws.
The first con premise argues that blacks are the most affected
by the felon disenfranchisement law because a disproportionate
number of blacks are felons. The premise further argues that the
problem is not the racist laws themselves but rather the black
criminality since the white felons are too submitted to the same
laws (Jason, 2014). This view is not only proper in logic but
also articulates the argument clearly. This view is interesting as
it clearly explains the uniformity of the law to both whites and
blacks. In a broader sense, the premise argues that it is because
of the unusual felon criminality levels associated with blacks
that makes this law perceived to discriminate against them.
This con premise is a good argument in terms of logic; how the
ideas are expressed. If I would buy into this idea, it will mean I
wholly agree with the premises and thus strongly stand in the
position that disenfranchised felon laws are in the most basic
form non-discriminatory. In a more realistic position, this idea
is true, when it is argued that the felon laws apply evenly to
both white and black races. This simply means, both races are
subjected to the same equal sanctions whenever violations are
noted.
Analyzing this argument closely, it is fallacious. Hasty
generalization comes in when the premise that blacks make the

2. most felons is featured. There is no sufficient evidence to
support the claim and no premises to anchor the claim. This is
fallacious as it is a conclusion jumped into with no clear
representative sample to rely on for generalization. Again, it is
biased to say, the problem is not the law but rather black
criminality. In a deeper sense, this would mean, the laws were
enacted to control the increased felon crimes committed by
blacks.
The second pro premise argues that it believes in civil rights
and equality in the criminal justice system, but at the same time
finds it reasonable to deny a felon voting right. The premise
argues that these laws have always been in existence in
different states and therefore it is a reasonable sanction to
people who deliberate on committing serious crimes. This
premise is interesting in the aspect of arguing that it denies
voting rights to those who deliberate on committing felons.
According to this premise, there is no racial intent, but the core
of the practice is the reasonable aspect of the policy. In a
deeper sense, denying voting rights can deter others from
committing crime to becoming law abiding.
This premise is logical in a sense to an extent. Borrowing the
claim will therefore imply that one agrees with the claim that
denying felons voting rights is a reasonable policy and can be
helpful in reducing crime levels. This idea might be true in the
sense where the felons feels marginalized from the state’s
operations. With this feeling, others will refrain from crime so
as to have the right to participate in the state’s decision-making
process. In a broader sense, the policy is reasonable because it
serves a general deterrence purpose thus reducing felon levels.
This premise is not right in logic as it argues the claims so
shallow. This premise is clear in raising arguments that the
reasonable policy is implemented, just because it has always
been in practice in several states. It is difficult to deduce from
such reasoning to well establish the cause-effect dimension. It
is not reasonable in a critical sense to argue that a practice is
reinforced just for the sake of it; because it has been in

3. existence over the years in a state. It is also assumed that,
denying the felons right to vote is a reasonable policy. The
claim has not been backed with evidence to elaborate the “how”
dimension of its effectiveness.
The last pro argues that the blacks commit the disproportionate
number of felonies. The premise further expounds to say that
the fact that blacks make the greatest population in prison
should not throw blame to racism. It adds to say most
population in prison is male and this should not be interpreted
to denote reverse sexism. He acknowledges the victim survey to
indicate the index of blacks in felony commission to be at the
top and thus claims regardless of the felon’s race, the
punishment should be accorded as stipulated (Edward, 2005).
This claim is interesting as it clearly anchors on statistics to
prove the fact that black population makes the most felons. It
also expounds on why racism should not be blamed in the whole
matter. It gives a typical demonstration relating the statistics of
male dominating the prison and why that has never been termed
as reverse sexism. The argument here is logical as it is anchored
on facts and the facts are arranged in a way to support the
original claim.
Believing such a premise will imply that it is right not to blame
on racism for the black disproportionate numbers in felony
commission. To a greater extent, this argument is true as it is
supported with evidence in this case the survey. This premise is
logical and well-articulated in its deductive reasoning citing the
comparison it gives of the large numbers in prison being male
and that has never been associated to reverse sexism. This is
used to deduce the fact that black felons increased number
should never be equated to racism.
In conclusion, a claim should be supported by premises which
elaborates further on the claims. The premises should be firmly
anchored on evidences and not mere thinking to prove a point in
an argument. Assumptions, biases and fallacious statements
must be avoided at all costs.