Convicted criminals should all be chipped

Before I begin I have two major points:1. My opponent still has not provided any sources for any of their claims except for using my own statistics. This is grounds not to believe all of their unsupported arguments, as mentioned before (1).2. My opponent, realizing the flaws in their initial argument, has slyly contradicted themselves and in fact agrees that not all criminals should be chipped. To quote them from earlier in the debate, "we should implant micro chips in all criminals before being released from jail." My opponent now says, "People who have been convicted of hunting or other summary convictions would not be implanted with a chip." If we refer back to my definitions of conviction and criminal from before, we see that the term "all" does indeed include these misdemeanors. The resolution is "Convicted criminals should all be chipped." My opponent has essentially conceded that not all convicted criminals should be chipped. Pro has endorsed the Con position, and therefore the Con should be voted for on the ballot.I will now rebut my opponent point-by-point.My opponent's first and second points are very similar so I shall group them. Pro's first and second points in their rebuttal are that convicted criminals should forfeit their 14th Amendment rights simply because they have been found guilty of a crime. Pro says that this is okay because of a 75% recidivism rate. I strongly disagree. In 2015, 641,100 people were released from prison (2). The idea that we should violate the rights of those who won't return to prison, which would amount to more than 160 thousand people per year, is silly. That's a very large number of people whose bodily integrity would be violated without just cause. This also assumes that all people convicted of a crime are actually guilty. In 2015, a record number of 149 people were exonerated in the US (3). It is fair to say that these are not the only people who are actually innocent but in prison. Pro's advocacy would make us violate the rights of people who haven't even committed a crime. Pro then goes on and says that he somehow believes that what insurance companies do is related to the prison system in the US. Not only do they not provide a source for this claim, but they don't even explain why it is equivalent to the prison system. My opponent also says that there would be "75% approval" of this action. No, there would be no approval from my side. We don't know who will violate the law again after release, and thus we should not place a chip in anyone because there is a 1 in 4 chance that it will be violating their rights without just cause.Pro's third main point is "Rehabilitation does not work because people are born this way." They then go on to make it sound like criminals were naturally born to become criminals, albeit with some societal factors influencing them. They don't provide a source for this claim, so we shouldn't even consider it. To further prove my opponent wrong, I have already provided evidence in the previous round which says rehabilitation efforts can reduce recidivism by as much as 20% (4). My opponent then goes on to say that in his opinion, "once you have been convicted you have lost all rights and privileges." This statement is deeply flawed. It essentially says that criminals' lives do not matter, and that they can be abused without just cause. Not only is that unconstitutional (5), but it is also morally atrocious. According to the US Department of Justice, about 5.1% of all people in the US will be incarcerated at some point in their lives (6). By doing some simple math based off of the current population of the US (7), we come to the conclusion that approximately 16,575,000 people will be/have been sent to jail in their lives. Now is when we gain some clarity in what Pro is really arguing. They are arguing for a system in which the government would have data on the location of more than 16 million Americans who have done nothing to justify such a system. This is an absolutely massive violation of rights which would affect more than 1 in 20 people. We shouldn't permit rights to be violated like this. My opponent's last argument boils down to saying something along the lines of 'the NSA is already violating rights, so not chipping doesn't really protect from a violation of rights.' That's arguing that we should allow more violations of rights simply because some already exist, and this is a very slippery slope. From this could potentially stem arguments for repealing the 4th and 5th Amendments in particular and the whole Bill of Rights together. That would be terrible for the rights of all people, and thus we shouldn't do that.In summary, I have proven that my opponent's lack of evidence and contradictory statements alone should be reason enough to vote Con, Pro's plan is an advocacy for massive violations of rights in both quantity and quality without just cause, and that rehabilitation is a preferable alternative to chipping for reducing crime.Sources:(1)https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...(2)https://csgjusticecenter.org...(3)http://www.law.umich.edu...(4)http://static.nicic.gov...(5)https://www.constituteproject.org...(6)https://bjs.gov...(7)https://www.census.gov...