In the United States, misdemeanor jail time ought to be replaced with significant rehabilitation.

Alright, since you are now bringing this up in the second round, I will clarify. Societal good is what I am valuing and Utilitarianism is my criterion by which I am achieving Societal Good. Utilitarianism is any ACTION that creates the greatest good for the greatest number of people. For example, upholding the resolution is an action that carries out the greatest good. Had you mentioned this earlier in the debate, I would've clarified it then. Furthermore, I would just like to point out, once again, that you have no case in this round. You have not set up a case with a value, criterion or even contentions. You're entire argument is basically refutation of my own contentions. I would presume that you've never debated LD before since you, as the Neg, haven't provided any case whatsoever. As far as your attack on my Contention 1 and 3, the two are very similar, but they are just clarifying as much as possible. In both of those contentions, along with contention 2, I prove that rehabilitation is a better process than putting people in jail for less than a year. And as far as your football and baseball argument, you're comparing apples and oranges. If Brett Favre was able to play both football and baseball, then you could compare the two. But since that is not the situation, you absolutely cannot compare the two. Unlike that however, we are looking to the resolution to determine if rehabilitation is a better alternative to jail. They are both consequences of the same crime and thus we can argue the two as such. Furthermore, since you say that you cannot and will not disagree with the Pro's arguments, then you openly admit that the Pro is right. And I have proven that rehab is more utilitarian than jail. It will prevent people from repeating crimes, some of which the criminals may not even get caught for, than having a few more first time offenders. Thus we are preventing more crimes by professionals through rehabs, making the greatest good for the community. And you don't refute my arguments because they are irrefutable, rather because you obviously don't understand them. And on my Contention 2, it's not a plan, it's clarifying the resolution. Since the resolution specifically states "significant rehabilitation," I am simply clarifying what significant means. Plans like what you attempt to bring up, include a plan set in stone, followed by how it will be instituted. That is why this is not a policy argument, rather it's a clarification. When you talk about the money to institute my "plan," that is when it becomes a policy argument. 1) Again, this is LD debate and not policy, and since you don't understand that, I will come back later and explain it in greater detail. "Negative Deterrence" Did you seriously compare Vietnam to jail? Vietnam is less of a deterrent than jail? Are you kidding me? This is just plain ignorance! And furthermore on this argument, it's not that rehab is suppose to be a deterrent, it's offering support and structure which is beneficial to those who need it. Also on this argument, you mention that rehab is the easy way out. Not really. Which would be harder, sitting in a minimum security jail cell for less than a year or working hard to earn their freedom back into society? Obviously working hard is more difficult than sitting around doing nothing. "Opportunity Cost" This is an entirely nonsensical argument, with absolutely no refutation, that you are just repeating from before. As I said already, I would prefer several more fist time offenders than letting criminals make a career out of it. More times than not, those criminals get away with several crimes that are never solved. If cheaters of the system want to get arrested to go through rehab, they will commit a single crime and make sure that they get caught, thus there is barely any harm to the community. Thus we would be taking the action that creates the greatest good for the greatest number, sound familiar. Utilitarianism isn't vulgar like you suggest, thus by upholding the Pro Side, we actually can achieve societal good, unlike the Con side. 2) Once again you are turning this into a policy round by trying to institute the actual plan, so I will try and go along with your argument. The US military is currently spending more money than the rest of the world combined. If you are so worried about saving the education system for innocent people as well, why don't we pull some money from the military budget and achieve both plans. Thus we could improve the education system and carry out proper rehabilitation for those still committing crimes. Although the education system is being improved, it would take many years for it to have a major effect on crime rates, so by instituting both plans, we could improve the justice system currently. We can prevent recidivism and help innocent people at the same time. Does that make you feel better that we've created a means to achieve both? It's rather ridiculous that I even had to argue this, but now we can institute a plan for both you and I to get what we want, so thanks for wasting more time. 3) Again, tie this back to my argument that having a few first time offenders is better than letting criminals make a career out of crime. By allowing "social mobility" through crime, you may once again be letting a few cheaters pass the system, but you will also be preventing the criminals from constantly getting away with crimes. 4) This argument is rather ridiculous. You are saying that by rewarding a criminal, they become even more desperate. There is absolutely no logic in this argument. Furthermore, you are saying that crimes will become so sophisticated that they are technically legal. But once again, this is ridiculous. In what world would we be educating criminals to make them better criminals? I ask any judges of this round to completely disregard this argument. 5) Here you are disregarding one major factor, only high school graduates will need to get an associates degree. When the criminals have dropped out of high school, they would only be required to finish high school. Since America's drop out rates are so high, it is quite likely that they must just have to get their diploma, rather than a degree. Finally, you need to make sure that you watch out when you mention the Pro and Con sides in your argument. According to your last argument, the judges should take mercy on me. However, I do agree with you on that since you don't even know how to debate LD. I may have given it the wrong category and time limit by accident, by why, may I ask, are you in an LD tournament when you don't even know how to debate it properly? The Con side, my opponent, has NEVER present an actual case of his own, especially his lacking value and criterion. Even IF I was willing to submit to his arguments on my value and criterion, he doesn't have one of his own, so either way, Pro wins the value and criterion debate. I certainly hope, that as my opponent suggested, that you take mercy on the Pro and vote on actual LD voting issues. Thank you and good luck to my opponent in any future rounds in the tournament.