For-profit prisons in the United States should be banned.

Thanks to Lee01 for some great points!A few issues, though. Firstly, Pro should hold the BoP, since this is a policy debate; but I can't really dispute that, now that I've accepted. Secondly my opponents use of sources and their format is questionable. Typically, one should assign a source number and refer to each number as you back a particular point, rather than lumping all the sources at the end. This leaves me, and the voters, confused as to what points she has actually backed up. I'll lay off the sources for this round, so my opponent has chance to rectify this structure.RebuttalsEssentially, my opponent raises a single argument - that there is more violence in private prisons, due to the freedoms afforded to the prisoners. She raises a two cases in which abuses have occurred in private prisons, but this does not actually support her premise. She needs to provide objective proof that private prisons have greater levels of violence than state prisons, and also that this occurs because they are private.She then goes on to assert that Juveniles are put in cells with adults, which is unjust. I concede this. It's not really relevant.Negative CaseC1: Private prisons should not be banned because P1: they save the government money and P2: they prevent overcrowding.P1: Cost SavingsWhen barriers to entry and regulations are removed, competition and enterprise drive innovations and promote market efficiency. This market efficiency is not found within state prisons because there is a lack of competition, and thus here exists no incentive to innovate. This is not just speculation, a 2007 analysis of state prison management concluded that there have been "widespread problems and deficiencies in many public prisons." [1]This laissez-faire model was also affirmed by a 2002 report which analysed 28 studies noted that: "Following along the lines of the capitalist model of competition previously suggested as a benefit of private prisons, show that the introduction of privatization urges managers (both from public and private facilities) to implement cost-effective strategies while maintaining quality of services to remain competitive," and finally concluded "privatization saves money without reducing quality." [2][1] http://www.cca.com...[2] http://reason.org...P2: Overcrowding SolutionSP1: Overcrowding is a problemIn recent years, due to the American obsession with incarceration, prison populations that skyrocketed, and the US has one of the world's largest. Because of this, a number of overcrowding incidents have occurred in state prisons, often resulting in early release. [1] In California, a group prisoners actually sued a state prison, claiming that overcrowding was preventing them from receiving adequate health care and thus violating their rights. [2]SP2: Private prisons can solve itBuilding state prison facilities is a slow and bureaucratic process involving lots of needless paperwork. It's undeniable that private prisons can be used sensibly to alleviate stresses and demand on state prisons, even if one is principally against using an entirely privatised system. [1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...[2] http://www.prisonlaw.com...ConclusionEven with the BoP as shared, banning aprivate prisons is a tough burden to fill, and Pro certainly has not done it yet, my opponents contentions being largely unsupported. I've provided convincing evidence that supports premises crucial to the debate. Private prisons can be effectively employed as the tool of an effective government in order to limit overcrowding and other cost issues pertinent to incarceration.