Resolved: In the United States, misdemeanor jail time ought to be replaced with significant rehabi

NC-AC Resolutional Analysis 1- "The resolution is using a US framework, and in the US rehabilitation is used in conjunction with jail, thus for this round I must prove that rehabilitation ought to be prioritized, but I do not have to prove sole rehabilitation" ï¿½ ahem. Resolved: In the U.S misdemeanor jail time ought to be REPLACED with significant rehab.. With emphasis on the word replaced one has to contend that jail time is and will be replaced on the affirmative side with a pure "significant" amount of rehabilitation. ï¿½ Rehabilitation wouldn't be a high priority; it would be the only priority due to the missing factor of jail. [[Not good J]] 2- "I never said it is absolute. Jail doesn't always work either, e.g. escaping from prison. nothing is absolute" ï¿½ Why advocate something that isn't absolute. – ï¿½ [warrant/clarification] – My 70% card is implied as to that 70% of those who had gone though rehabilitation recommitted crimes. This proves that rehabilitation isn't as effective as jail. ï¿½ I prove to you that jail time ought to be ensured and maintained, not taken away. It's our best option, by voting aff you take REPLACE jail with rehabilitation. 3- "Aff. doesn't have to prove total abolishment of jail" ï¿½ Aha. Yeah you do. You advocate the resolution you REPLACE jail. [I like capitalizing that word.] V: 1- "She does not say how continuing governmental normality helps societal welfare" ï¿½Governmental normality = jail. – I've been advocating that jail time helps societal welfare through stats. – Which are pretty impressive ;] – further more, by not following governmental normality we risk societal welfare. It's common sense. VC: 1-And 2 - "Her definition of justice is circular. He says justice determines just conduct, but he never explains what justice is" "I agree with premise a under justice. I.e. justice is for the greater good." ï¿½ You and I both contend for the greater good, however you fail to tell me how exactly you are achieving the betterment of the greater good. I speak of flaws that come with change within governmental normality, however all you advocate is the REPLACEMENT of jail with rehabilitation, but you show no from of how this impacts society to the best aspect. ï¿½I contend that justice is as well to provide to the greater good. CI: 1- "It is inconsistent. She argues that the status quo is fine w/o rehabilitation, however he then says that 70% of people recommit crimes." ï¿½Cross apply my clarification and warrant under R.A #2. 2- "It is flawed. She jumps to a horrible conclusion. At this point rehabilitation is not prioritized in the US system. She jumps to the conclusion that the people recommitting crimes came from rehabilitation. This could be and false. What she doesn't tell you is that the 70% includes all criminals, rehabilitated for not." ï¿½Reasoning as to why it isn't prioritized in the U.S system. – oh maybe it's because it isn't efficient in that of itself proves why negative ought to maintain and not replace jail with rehabilitation 3- "(Turn) The affirmative in this case is more desirable because it changes the status quo in which we can now prioritize the rehabilitation system and see if it is successful." ï¿½ Aha. – Why would we seek to "see if it is successful" when we already know that it isn't. Why waste, time, money and effort to be in affirmation of a silly resolution, which clearly sways to the negative. CII: 1-[[group]] "1. He argues Societal Welfare but he never proves why the status quo is efficient is archiving this. 2. His point can be turned because it gives the US avenue to prioritize rehabilitation as a means to promote societal welfare. 3. His point that I am advocating rehabilitation as a pure form is mitigated by his own assertion of the status quo within the US framework" ï¿½The status quo is efficient when achieving S.W for the following reasons: a. We advocate governmental normality. B. We have a higher success rate with jail vs. rehab. C. We don't abolish jail, which is what the AFF is doing. ï¿½Again we ought not make rehabilitation a priority at it's highest. It's simply not worth giving up jail. AC: Obv: 1- "I'm sorry if my words came out odd. I was saying that the literal wording of the resolution is contradictory to the US status quo, thus we must assume US framework. And you have asserted the status quo thus we can both agree to this ob. 1" ï¿½Sweet. 2- "Um no, I am saying that jail and rehabilitation is used in conjunction. I.e. the aff doesn't have to prove abolishment of the jail system, rather to prove rehabilitation prioritization w/ jail." ï¿½Jail and rehabilitation cannot be used in conjunction. Again note the resolution the affirmative has to prove abolishment of the jail system because that is exactly what the resolution is saying that we ought to REPLACE. V: 1- "Again, I am not abolishing jail. Obviously the status quo isn't good (view turn on C1)" ï¿½you advocate the resolution. You abolish and replace jail with rehabilitation to misdemeanor crimes. – Your idealistic reach for the status quo to be perfect isn't possible. - - I prove that rehabilitation is a terrible idea. Prove to me that jail is terrible. VC: 1-"Cannot be empirically determined because the US has not prioritized the system as of yet. (Warrant) Europe has significantly lower crimes rates then the US, and guess what? They prioritize rehabilitation." ï¿½ We haven't prioritized the system for a reason. It's flawed.. - - ugh. Why bring up Europe? - - Resolved. IN THE UNITED STATES – in this case we can only base things off of the U.S success rates, for you do not provide ANY detail as to whether or not Europe includes all crimes, just misdemeanors, or jail time as well as rehabilitation. Flawed once again L. 2-"It is effective" ï¿½ :s. – do you really want to claim that rehabilitation is effective…? 3-"I would argue no, on the fact that rehabilitation lowers recidivism, thus the government does not have to recapture them and put them through jail again." ï¿½in here lies that prompt fact that again you fail to show how rehabilitation lowers recidivism. Right now the government is forced to recapture criminals and put them trough jail again because of the 70% of those who have gone through rehabilitation. CI: 1-"He uses a double-negative thus saying that I do provide warrants. He never provides a warrant on the success of the status quo. Extend my stat on the fact that he never refutes it, and it proves that changing the status quo will lead to less recidivism (Cannot attack it in his next speech)" ï¿½I provide warrant…. 2-"lol, look to the 70% recidivism rates within the status quo that he provided He never provides an "outstanding number" at all in this round" ï¿½ Oh but I do. And you DON'T. -: D CII: 1-"Rehabilitation isn't a "punishment". It is a restorative mechanism in conjunction with punishment." ï¿½You speak of rehabilitation used inclusively with jail time [which has been noted several times through this longwinded speech as false] – how can you claim that it isn't a punishment I need warrant on this. – CRYSTALIZATION!!!! 1 – Values: a.Justice vs. Societal Welfare – It is obvious that both are achieved on the negative side of the flow. But look to the flaws of the affirmative, in that of itself should provide judges with enough common knowledge that rehabilitation actually dampens S.W but also doesn't accomplish to accommodate to justice once so ever. 2 – Argumentation: A.Judges, I really would like you to look at the general refutation within this speech for 2 reasons. – I currently have stomach flu – and for me to type this was one heck of a task. – and finally because I have A LOT of makeup homework :] Good luck sir LightC. I'll have germ-x before we shake hands. Much appreciation to judges.