Convicted criminals should all be chipped

Now, my last rebuttal followed by voting issues. My opponent's first point is that all people in prison are guilty. I've already proven him wrong with statistics that say 149 people were exonerated in 2015 (1). This means that definitively, no, not all people in prison have actually committed crimes. My opponent's next point is that criminals are already disenfranchised as citizens in many ways after they leave prison, so that would justify more. Not. At. All. He's essentially saying that something is bad, so let's make it worse. It advocates for further violation of rights to convicts. Let me mention now, my opponent has never refuted in this entire debate that the chipping violates rights. He in fact says that it is okay and even good to violate the rights of living, breathing human beings simply because they have ended up in prison whether it be a wrongful conviction, a minor offense, or even something serious. He then cites some evidence about born criminals. Here's some facts about his source: Lombroso was incredibly racist, saying that "The projection of the lower face and jaws (prognathism) found in negroes" was part apish. He literally thought black people were part ape. He also believed that animals could be criminals and could be immoral, while others were moral (2). This guy definitely, definitely isn't a source we should trust. There is a reason why, as my opponent said, Lombroso was one of the first criminologists. His theories are essentially race based. You know, the kind that say black people are born to be criminals because of what they are physically. Simply ridiculous. My opponent goes on to say that criminals shouldn't have rights, and any victim would agree with him. Well, for one, I've been a victim of more than one crime in my life and I don't think all criminals shouldn't have rights. So he's wrong on that one. Now, let's look at the implications of believing criminals don't have rights. If criminals don't have rights, then they must not have a right to a fair trial or freedom of speech or religion or even life. Is that okay? No, of course not! Criminals are human beings too, and in fact most of them haven't murdered or raped or assaulted someone. In fact, in June 2017, 46.2% of arrests were for drug offenses (3). You'd be hard pressed to find an argument for why an 18 year old kid caught with a bag of weed should have to lose all of their rights as a human being, or at least a right to their own body for the rest of their life. Pro goes on and continues with his NSA spying argument. As I said before, he is saying that because our rights are violated to a degree as is, we should just give away more because why not it doesn't matter. This is flawed reasoning in that, as I've already mentioned and has gone unrefuted by my opponent, it leads to a slippery slope of a loss of rights which is bad. My opponent's next argument is that there is a cost benefit and time benefit to chipping. Financial cost, sure. Cost to our morals as a society? As I have already discussed, there is absolutely no moral benefit in violating the rights of millions of people simply because it saves some money and time. We ought to be valuing rights over some saved money. If my opponent was truly concerned about saving money in the justice system, they would have accepted my rehabilitation arguments since they reduce recidivism by up to 20% (4). They likely also would advocate for ending the war on drugs, but I won't go into detail on that. Note that my opponent totally ignored my rehabilitation argument in his last post. The last argument from Pro is that the 75% number is justification for chipping. No, it isn't. As I've already mentioned, we can't know exactly who will re-offend and when when we release them from prison. We are guaranteed to violate the rights of about 1 in 4 people who won't be re-offending by chipping them. My opponent makes it out to be that chipping will prevent crime here, in saying that it would protect the public. He provides no source for that information. Furthermore, the point of the chip, in his argument, would be to find the re-offending criminal after a crime is committed and confirm that they were at the crime scene. That isn't prevention, that's capture after the crime is already done. Finally, my opponent links to an article about criminals sentenced to life in prison who were allowed to leave (what? thought it was LIFE) and then went on to continue causing harm. First, I'm not advocating for letting people out of prison just because. I'm saying that we shouldn't chip them when their sentence is up, which for these 100 people would have never happened. This means that the crimes they committed after being released never would have occurred if they had actually served their life sentences. Thus, my opponent's argument isn't about chipping but rather not letting criminals out of prison early, and therefore is totally irrelevant to this debate. Now for voting issues. 1. Rights. My opponent has advocated for convicts to lose all of their rights simply because they are convicts. This argument fails because they provide little to no moral justification for doing so, while I have provided evidence to the contrary. This is a reason to vote Con. 2. Lack of evidence from Pro. The Pro in this debate has provided, in total, two sources. That isn't even enough sources to have one per round, and both came in the last. Meanwhile, my first and second rounds had 7 sources each. This one has 4. The burden of proof should always be shared, and considering that my opponent hasn't refuted any of my sources while I have refuted both of his, the Con should win the ballot. 3. Contradictions. My opponent's burden was to prove that all convicted criminals should be chipped, as that's what the resolution says. In round 1, he maintains this position. In round 2, he contradicts it saying that only violent offenders should receive chips. My opponent's contradiction went unaddressed by him in round 3, and thus the argument should extend that this alone would be a reason to vote Con. 4. Solvency. It appears that my opponent wants to decrease costs and reduce crime. I have provided an alternative to chipping which preserves rights, which he did not successfully refute. Rehabilitation based prisons could reduce recidivism by up to 20% (4), which would obviously reduce both number of crimes and prison spending. Thus, I solve my opponent's objective but in a preferable way. 5. Dropped arguments in general. My opponent failed to have true clash with my arguments throughout this debate. If you read back through, you'll see that there are arguments which he targets in on and others which he totally ignores. This isn't for a lack of space to do so on his part, either. If you compare our arguments mine are generally far longer and well developed. 6. No Pro voting issues. My opponent failed to look throughout the debate and give specific reasons why he thought he should have won this debate. Being that that is the case, we must defer to my voting issues which all would lead to a Con decision even by themselves. For these 6 reasons, I must urge a Con decision. Sources: (1). http://www.law.umich.edu... (2). https://www.wired.com... (3). https://www.bop.gov... (4). http://static.nicic.gov...