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

I'm only bringing up your violations in the second round because you only decided to try to disqualify me in the second round. I can't see into the future, littlelacroix. I was perfectly happy to let your violations slide. "Societal good is what I am valuing and Utilitarianism is my criterion by which I am achieving Societal Good" is not a clarification. I thought I explained this in Round 2. One cannot achieve x by x. "Utilitarianism is any ACTION that creates the greatest good for the greatest number of people"? It's ASSUMED that the value criterion will honor the value. It's insufficient to define the criterion, "anything according to the value". Show me that you're doing anything but rephrasing the value, and I'll validate your criterion. "You're entire argument is basically refutation of my own contentions" in that it has to do with the prison system. I can't very well change the topic. "If Brett Favre was able to play both football and baseball, then you could compare the two." I agree, Brett Favre cannot play baseball, so why did you try to evaluate jail according to its rehabilitative potential? "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." You insult the judges' intelligence. What I could not and would not disagree with was that rehabilitation is better at rehabilitation than the alternative. But it is your choice to measure utility in terms of rehabilitation. I've argued against that throughout. As to the resolution, you are "simply clarifying what significant means"? I take it, then, that every Pro in the tournament concurs? You did get quite specific, quite a bit more than "clarification". Believe me, I don't need you to clarify. The resolution was self-explanatory. "Vietnam is less of a deterrent than jail?" I know! So why the hell did YOU provide an anecdote in which the convicted chose Vietnam instead of jail? That should inform the following: "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?" The question, of course, is not which is "harder", but which is preferable. The man in your anecdote craved structure like a child, and we have no reason to believe he was an exception. The poor masses would certainly prefer "working hard" for what your system promises, as opposed to languishing in poverty. Why do you obsess on "cheaters of the system"? Your rehab plan fails by REDUCING deterrence, not by turning deterrence into net incentive. But even if your plan succeeded beyond your wildest dreams, and people preferred rehab to civilian life, why would they strive to get caught? They might as well milk criminal life for all its worth, only increasing risk according to the benefits of your incarceration. What does the "military budget" have to do with anything? If expensive "rehabilitation" is being chosen over cheap "jail time", then money is being wasted. The greater budget situation is quite apart. "You are saying that by rewarding a criminal, they become even more desperate." I'm saying quite the contrary, that the rewarded criminal becomes LESS desperate. Thus, no "education" is necessary for to make his crimes more sophisticated. The sophisticated crime is the natural result of the comfort you provide. "When the criminals have dropped out of high school, they would only be required to finish high school." Really? But in Round 1 you clearly state, "The non-high school graduate would complete high school, not a GED, and complete some college courses." I'm only going by your "clarification" of the rehab process, you understand. And yet I'm still unsure as to what separates "some college courses" from "associate's degree". As my opponent has banked his entire debate on disqualifying me, I shall have to deal with that. Let's talk about Societal Good, as opposed to "the greatest good for the greatest number" ("Utilitarianism"). What's the difference? One is "ACTION"! Is that how an LD debate is supposed to go? That the Criterion is merely a conversion of the Value into "ACTION"?