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

OFF-CASE 1 My opponent contends that ought implies moral importance and that morality can never exist. --> 1) Ought could imply morals AND pragmatism. ---Lucky for me, I achieve both. I am moral when I look out for the community and reach out to the culprits, yet I am pragmatic in looking to the recidivism rates and realizing that something needs to be done, not to mention the jobs being created. Yet my opponent offers no alternative, the thing that you must therefore accept is either A) High recidivism rate or B) Rehabilitation efforts. As I've shown, rehab is the pragmatic AND moral solution. 2) Morality is something we strive for. ---I will never contend that morality is achieved, rather, I contend that achieve MORE of it. Morals, and values, can only be increased, not solved. 3) THIS IS WHAT LD IS INTENDED FOR! ---My opponent doesn't only ask you to reject my case, but essentially asks you to reject LD as a whole. LD is ‘value' debate and my opponent gives NO value to the negative side of this resolution. The default vote EVEN HERE is Affirmative. OFF-CASE 2 My opponent starts out by saying that anyone that engages in value debate ought to be rejected. But right here he uses ‘ought' which according to his OWN ARGUMENT means a vote for the other person (because ought is value which is bad (supposedly)). This either means that A) You accept these off-cases and vote against my opponent for contradicting himself, or B) You drop these RIDICULOUS off-case arguments. Again he says that morals and values are unachievable and bad. Cross-Apply my arguments from before against this and realize that morality is something we strive for. Shoot for the stars, even if you can only land on the moon. My opponent basically says that since we can't get to the stars we should give up, but affirmative can AT LEAST get you to the moon, which is better than nothing. -These off-case are irrelevant to this round. DROP THEM. CONTENTION 1: VALUE- Societal Welfare 1) My opponent offers no valuable ground for the negative side and why jail time is superior to rehabilitation. This fails the key issue for LD debate and must be voted on. 2) The off-case he describes settle for nothing as ok, but if we go beyond what exists today, we can find ourselves in a world not necessarily with PERFECT morals, but at least more than we started with. 3) More Societal Welfare is upheld on the Affirmative side. If anything must be looked to first, it should not be these horrific off-case, but rather, who is striving to help the society first and foremost. CONTENTION 2: Criterion- Integration 1--> The criterion is good because it helps us achieve something that is valuable for our society! 2--> I don't justify how integration is good? Did you even read my case? With this integration we get good means (jobs) AND good ends (societal welfare). You have yet to justify why jail time is good, and until you do, ONLY pro can win. 3--> Criminals want back into society and obviously don't want to be in jail again. What we must therefore do is give them the best chance to achieve those goals. Will we be perfect? Probably not, but at least we can better our system to improve where we have fell behind. And even if we do not fix any criminals, you still must vote pro because of the economic boost from the job market being helped. 4) My opponent doesn't integrate, he decimates. He is willing to shun criminals into a second category and forget about them. This does nothing for our societal welfare and is just something you ought not vote for. CONTENTION 3: 1--> I do show how integration is good. 2--> Unturn. Isolation of criminals will happen on pro OR con. The difference, is that pro tries to un-isolate while con just accepts the isolation as fact. EVERYONE makes mistakes and we screw ourselves over when we live on a 1-strike system. ESPECIALLY for misdemeanors! 3--> Mistakes still need to be dealt with. I have an uncle who drank and drove. He is a good and honest man, yet he needed to go through the rehabilitation cycle to not just HOPE that he didn't do it again, but to know (at least to the greatest degree imaginable) 4--> It is common knowledge that the recidivism rate is high through jail time. The few states is an example and this is easily stretched to America. Not to mention if he was so sure that I was wrong, then he should have given counter-evidence. I see none. 5) Flow through my rehabilitation gives a greater chance for integration. This shows how we can get these criminals to be regular citizens once against and overall benefit everyone in our society. CONTENTION 4: 1--> I don't need a warrant. With more rehabilitation methods, more jobs will be created (common knowledge). Running a jail takes few to no workers while rehabilitation provides not only jobs, but high quality jobs (counseling). 2--> At this substantial increase, it is obvious that more counselors would be needed. Furthermore, the counselors that exist now exist in schools, mental facilities, etc. They have their job already. Counseling is not a universal job that everyone does every type. This means that unique job opportunities would arrise. CONTENTION 5: 1--> Dealt with already. 2--> NO! This argument rests on the assumption that criminals did something bad and need help to be back into society. All of them? No (uncle). But we need to be SURE! 3--> Unturn. Cross-apply the recidivism rate evidence. How many of those criminals 'got their head back on'? I know one thing for sure, more criminals would have 'gotten their head back on' if there would have been rehabilitation (dropped argument WITH evidence). This is what is important. The welfare of the society must be weighed. AS SOON as that is done, the only way to vote is PRO! Thank you and I await your next speech!