Resolved: In the United States, minor jail time ought to be replaced with significant rehabilitation

I'll just basically be attacking all of his points straight down from his last speech... Off of 1 (Justice versus Societal Welfare)--> 1. Societal Welfare is the greatest value. As I stated in my last speech, if you achieve societal welfare, than more people receive their due, thus having more justice. But if you get justice, that does not guarantee the welfare of society... therefore, my value is the greater of the two as mine encompasses both values. 2. Values are about who achieves them, not which is better. Simply within this round, it is about who ACHIEVES the greatest value, not who claims they do. Within this round, you will see that since I give the greatest chance for rehabilitation, I truly do give more due and truly do achieve more societal welfare because of the chances given by organizations such as Criminon. Off of II (The Criterion for Appropriate Punishment)--> 1. The appropriate punishment in this debate is Significant Rehabilitation. Throughout this round, the appropriate punishment is simply significant rehabilitation not only because it gives the greatest chance for BOTH values, but it also actually looks more to just punishment, but also punishment AND lesson learned. And with twice the "due", you have twice the values. Off of A (Rehabilitation is outside the Jurisdiction of the State, and thus is an unjust approach towards criminal behavior.) --> 1. The goal of affirmative is to make significant rehabilitation within the Jurisdiction. This argument simply proves nothing on the Con side. Rehab isn't in the jurisdiction of the state... well, why not? This debate is all about making and societal welfare the best, and with programs like Criminon, significant rehab should be in the jurisdiction and if you vote pro, it becomes jurisdiction for minor crimes. (this argument goes against all jurisdiction arguments) Off of B (Jail time Is a Just form of punishment)--> 1. Flow through previous questions/significant rehabilitation is more just In my last speech, I asked how what is just makes it ought to be replaced... ("Simply what I have to say against this is what is just? How does it tie in to justice? Is rehabilitation more or less "just" than jail time? If so… how? If it is not just, does that mean it we shouldn't replace the jail time with the rehabilitation?"............) This went unargued or unanswered, please flow this through for the pro side. Especially the question of how significant rehab is unjust. Being just is basically doing what is right and when you compare the two options of punishment, you will see that the right thing is giving another chance for minor crimes. Thus making the more "just" option pro. ----------------------------------------------------------------- (the argument in between the dotted lines about the values) As I just stated, it is more just to give a second chance. Also, you will see that justice and just are different. AND societal welfare must still be seen as the greatest value (cross-apply my first argument in this speech) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Off of III (Forced Rehabilitation is against the societal welfare)--> (General Arguments) 1. Forced Rehabilitation supports societal welfare. Since significant rehab gives the greatest chance for rehab (as this argument has gone unargued) you will see that with less crimes, there is more societal welfare. 2. Con never connects his explanation to societal welfare specifically. Simply to disprove this argument, look to his example of "brainwashing unwilling inmates and fostering in them a belief that Lord Xenu hydrogen bombed aliens into oblivion on earth 75 million years ago" is absolutely ridiculous. SIGNIFICANT REHAB DOES NOT EQUAL BRAINWASHING BELIEFS ABOUT LORD XENU... Significant rehab instead supports teaching of laws and most importantly why and how they should be followed. Although I am not intensely informed about rehab methods, I am fairly sure it does not consist of brainwashing or anything about Lord Xenu. In other words, you have to see that societal welfare was only connected by this outrageous example. Instead, I challenge my opponent to connect the possibility of helping the criminal to worse societal welfare... My guess is that it will not be as bad for the societal welfare. 3. The only people that significant rehabilitation hurts is the criminal. Since the resolution says "on balance"... I will only look at general concepts. But when looking to who will be hurt by the rehab is the criminal. Forcing them to do rehab doesn't hurt anyone else. In fact it helps them as they get their "due" and get their societal welfare. Also, since the criminal have the chance for getting hurt (as minor jail time will also do) you will see that they get their punishment (or due) through significant rehab WHILE giving them a chance to improve to a regular citizen. (specifically off of mistake 1 of forced rehab) (not willing to rehab) 4. People not willing to work with the rehabilitation efforts still deserve their chance. Why is it that when someone is unwilling, we give up. If you are going to do the right thing in this round (the true just thing) you will vote Pro by NOT giving up on people. I know that in the past, my mind has been changed. For example, I used to prefer Burger King over McDonald's. But with time and a few meals at Burger King, I now actually prefer eating at "BK." It's the same thing with criminals... if we work with them and show how society is supposed to be run, eventually they will see the good (or the better food) and see that this is where they should be, not committing crimes. Vote pro....... give the criminals their chance. (specifically off of mistake 2 of forced rehab) (money) 5. In order to support the values, money ought to not be a concern. If we are going to get EITHER value, we should not be worried about money. Jail time still costs money, but we still use it. Rehab costs money... but we OUGHT to use that for minor crimes. If cheaper is better... fine, lets stop getting iPod's, let's stop getting pepsi/coke. What you will see though is that the off-brands work, but we OUGHT to get the better of the two if we can. ESPECIALLY when dealing with justice AND societal welfare. 6. I don't have to prove it can be replace, but simply that it ought to. The resolution ONLY specifies what OUGHT to happen. For example, I ought to donate to the poor, but that doesn't mean I will or that I am capable of doing so. In other words, if we are unable of switching to significant rehab doesn't mean that we ought not to. We OUGHT to try to pursue this other option since it does give the greatest chance for rehab and both values (Criminon). 7. Con has offered no figures. Simply put, con says we can't afford this but offers no evidence of budgets, rehab costs, or jail time savings. Off of IV (Jail is good for societal welfare)--> 1. Pro evidence outweighs Con evidence. If Con thinks that jail time is so much more effective than significant rehab... Prove it. I provide evidence (that was found extremely quickly since is it well spread on the internet and well accepted as there are a lot of repeat offenders) while my opponent merely assumes jail time works. Evidence flows Pro. 2. Attempts of Pro outweighs Cons attempts. What makes Pro so much better is the attempts that it makes to actually rehabilitate the criminals. Again, flow through (as it went unargued) the intent of the two systems. Jail time attempts to punish... Significant rehab... attempts to punish WHILE rehabilitating. The attempts on Pro are so much greater, that it will by chance increase justice and societal welfare. -In the end- Simply put, the wisest form of "due" is significant rehabilitation over minor jail time, therefore, it ought to be replace and I urge you to vote Pro. Thank You