Rehabilitation ought to be valued above retribution in the United States criminal justice system.

'Tis a sad day that this debate has become what it is. My opponent still fails to adequetly respond to anything coming off of my case, rather still insisting that I need statistics among other things without answering back for all the reasons I explained in the previous round for why I don't. I could simply just say Extend out Long, Long 2, and Strauss as they explain why suffering is necessary and why it shouldn't be reduced, she's trying to reduce it, therefore I win. But to be nice, I'll respond to her points she brought up.Her first point is that I need statistics because in order for us to adopt any kind of plan we need some way to weigh between the two to see which one we would rather do. There's a number of errors in her reasoning:1. She's assuming I'm trying to make some sort of plan. I'm not. The entire advocacy of the NC is to reject the affirmative case, not to posit a plan of it's own. Insofar as I'm not making a plan of my own, instead just arguing for why we shouldn't accept your reasoning (and I can do this because of the definition of Negate I provided in my case that my opponent never contested meaning to disprove or deny the truth of something), I don't need to posit any kind of statistical evidence.2. She's assuming I'm accepting her cost-benefit analysis framework and operating under such. I'm not. The entire point of the NC is to apriori reject the AC for denying the value of being human. There's no weighing between anything, I'm saying "THe affirmative is doing x. X is absolutely, 100% wrong for x, y, and z reasons. Therefore, you should reject the affirmative and vote neg." Nothing about that has anything to do with weighing between two different plans. 3. I'm not engaging with my opponent on a normative or substantial level, but rather on an ontological level, which functions as a higher line of reasoning than the normative evidence she's providing. Like I said previously, recidivism rates and how much money we'll save won't matter if we lose what it means to be considered human. 4. She ignores the argument I make in the previous round as to why you prefer analytical evidence over empirical evidence in the first place. That means that even if I do have to engage with her on a normative level, you're prefering my arguments anyway because the only reason that empirics have any kind of impact in a debate round is through analytical reasoning. Empirics also rely on analytical arguments to have any kind of real-world application. If I just say "42%", there's literally nothing you can draw from that without any kind of analytical context saying what the 42% means. Also, if only statistical evidence matters in terms of warranting arguments, then there's no answer that we could provide to the question "Why do statistics matter" without relying on flawed, circular logic. So there goes, really, the only point she brings up in her last round. She doesn't respond to anything else that I say, essentially. So I guess this is just the point where I summarize the round:- My arguments that suffering is necessary for human existence and to be able to find meaning in what it means to be human have gone unresponded to throughout the entire debate. - Because my case has been unrefuted, it disproves the assumptions my opponent's case makes that we should be attempting to reduce the amount of suffering in the world (i.e. by valuing rehab over retribution), therefore meaning we reject her case.- If we're rejecting the AC, by the unrefuted definition of negate that I give in my case meaning to deny the truth of or to disprove, then I successfully negate the resolution, meaning I win. Sooooooo yeah.