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

I hope this debate concludes well :D Alright, I'm going to clear up the flow by going Interpretation, then Value Clash, Criterion, then some basic line-by-line. INTERPRETATION A) I would like the judges to pull through HER definition of ‘replace'. She defines it as, "To provide a substitute or equivalent in the place of"… by this definition, she must accept that in order for a PRO ballot to be made, we must remove jail time and "provide a substitute" (rehabilitation). B) In order to beat the interpretation and prove her points apply (or that mine don't) she really needs to link to the resolution or link to a definition in the resolution. She fails to show how my argument of "do both" doesn't apply, and therefore, my argument (and really my entire case) must be flowed through to the end of this debate. C) Through acceptance of this argument (do both), we get both values, both criterions, and all of her arguments therefore become irrelevant. ---I hate to sound like a policy debater, but if she fails to meet my interpretation or if she fails to disprove my interpretation, she loses this debate. So the interpretation must be settled before all other issues are weighed. VALUE: Societal Welfare 1. I am not saying that rehabilitation does not always work, it is successful at times. However, so is jail time. If you look to the recidivism rate, it is not 100%, this shows deterrence. Furthermore, people like me do not commit crimes because I do not want to go to jail. Personally, I see jail time as a worse punishment when compared to rehab because talking to some guy isn't that big of a deal to me. 2. I think that this is better than my opponent contends. Let me show you through an example. A guy goes drinking and driving. He needs a jail cell the night (he blows a .32), however, he needs rehabilitation after that night not to drink and drive again. Now, pro is willing to shun off the jail time, however, it is just as important as the rehabilitation. However, if for some reason you believe that I have to show jail time as the better option, I must say that in the case of aggressive misdemeanors (domestic violence), it is the ONLY option. CRITERION: Propriety/Cost Benefit Analysis ---"necessary to separate them from society is when they are a danger to society (EG: Domestic Violence… Drunk (Driver)… Bar Fighter… or even just a gun threat. Rehabilitation is not "appropriate punishment" as far as aggressive crimes. Truly, look to my interpretation as the one, two punch. 1) Jail Time looks to now… 2) Rehabilitation looks to the future. You need both of these. Flow through the fact that Restitution is lost, Deterrence is lost, a better example is non-existent, Reparations to the victim is lost, and overall, there is no separation of society and criminal. She did attack this, but did not show rehabilitation alone could uphold all of these (particularly restitution, deterrence, and separation of society and criminal). Jail time is successful in ALL of these fronts, thus if you are weighing which is better, jail time wins. ---Furthermore, through negation of the resolution, you open a door to a possibility of fewer costs, and more benefits (she basically forgets her criterion in her last speech) "CIII": Cross-apply Interpretation ---I actually did through the recidivism rate not being 100% and by me not being a criminal because of the built in deterrent. (Line by line switches to AC now) ---If we have a moral obligation to the citizens, then it is best upheld through more than just replacing jail time with rehab. It needs something more to fulfill this obligation as I have shown time and again. ---For you it may be good, but what I've been arguing is that it may not be good enough for everyone. I personally want cake with my frosting (jail time AND rehab). This is why a CON vote is so necessary because more people will get value (and more will get cake :) ---They get free food, free protection, free basketball, showers everyday, a bed, a toilette. Sometimes I'm tempted to commit a crime just to enjoy these luxuries! We almost treat them too well to be honest. ---The problem is evident, you are a criminal. Why then is rehabilitation the only method to go at this. Rehab might work for some first timers, but once you begin to build your record, sometime you'll just need solid jail time. This can only be upheld on the CON side. CVI: My moral obligation is to the society. This is upheld by giving the best shot for victims to A) get an appropriate punishment (propriety) and B) to be reintegrated back into society. It is because of this, that Sephiroth > Batman. And I therefore urge you to vote CON! Thank you and good luck with the rest of the debate and the rest of the tournament!