Resolved: In the United States, juveniles charged with violent felonies ought to be treated as adult

Simple. I win. Extend that treat implies that juveniles will be sent to adult prison and subjected to adult punishments- this defends my contention, thus is stands. Value My opponent's value is very vague. There are many versions of the social contract theory. He has not specified which. Thus, you cannot look to it. Further, he conceded that his value criterion was non-unique. Extend this. At this point we can't look to the AC because he has no value or value criterion I said that we must uphold democracy's core values. I also pointed out that protecting the rights of the accused is a core value of democracy. Put 2 and 2 together and you can see my value criterion. Now that you can see it ever so clearly, extend it. AFF Plan Basically, the AFF is arguing against juvenile courts. However, he is saying that age should be a factor in the decisions of the criminal justice system. He says this twice. My interpretation of "treat" which he conceded, shows that, in order to affirm, the punishments and jails would have to be the exact same. Thus, in order to affirm, age must not at all be a factor. "In an AFF world, the resolution allows for age to be taken into account as a mitigating factor" The resolution does not allow for this. I will show why 1. The only difference between a juvenile and adult is their age. 2. If age is taken into account, then this difference will be taken into account 3. Thus, they will be treated differently, thus negate. So, you can, if you are so inclined, negate off of the AFFs plan. However, I will address it anyway. His case 1. A) Neg doesn't have to advocate juvenile courts. I just have to advocate some difference in treatment. I advocate that age be taken into account at trial and that juveniles be sent to separate detention centers. In light of the extension of the interpretation of "treat", this means you negate. So, this is irrelevant. B) I could care less if he extends this. 2. A.) He worded this in his case as defense "contrary to what neg will have you believe" but extends it as offense. This is abusive. Don't look to it. Negate off of abuse B.) He argues neg because age would be a mitigating factor. Whereas this is the difference between a juvenile and adult, this negates the resolution. So, the turn stands. NC My sole contention Sub point A) He doesn't address the meat and potatoes, just why we shouldn't look to abuse. However, with the extension of the "treat" interpretation, it is clear that abuse can be looked to. 1. Extension of "treat" interpretation means this falls 2. It does. Putting juveniles in separate detention areas, as my cards show, prevents abuse. Again, extension of "treat" interpretation means this falls 3. He needs evidence for this sort of claim. If he does not provide it, it cannot be looked to. If he does provide it, it is abusive because I wouldn't have a chance to respond to it. Either way, I win this point. 4. This is bad logic. If there is a choice between more abuse or less abuse, less abuse ought to be taken. There is only one option for adults. Also, this is irrelevant because we are talking about juveniles. Extend this entire subpoint. Ziedenberg and Schirald report: A 1989 study by a team of researchers, led by Professor Jeffrey Fagan of Columbia University's School of Public Health, compared how youths at a number of juvenile training schools and those serving time in adult prisons reported being treated. Five times as many youths held in adult prisons answered yes to the question, "Has anyone attempted to sexually attack or rape you?" than those held in juvenile institutions. Nearly 10 percent of the youths interviewed reported that another inmate had attempted to sexually attack or rape them in adult prisons, while closer to 1 percent reported the same in juvenile institutions. Ziendnberg and Schirald continue: There is a dearth of data on rape, suicide and assault rates among the 4,000 juveniles who are sentenced to adult prisons, as well as the 65,000 children who pass through the adult jail system every year. There are obvious incentives for prison officials to underreport incidents of rape and suicide because they are administratively embarrassing to the prison system, and could be used as evidence for lawsuits. Thus, it is clear that the rights of the juvenile criminals are being violated more in adult prison than juvenile prison because they are subject to more abuse in adult prison than in juvenile detention and instances of abuse in adult prison go unreported. This does not protect their rights so it does not uphold democracy. You can negate on it alone. Subpoint B) His response is that juveniles can be treated differently. This advocates the neg. If he kicks the response, the point stands and you negate. If he doesn't, he advocates the neg and you negate. Reasons to negate (in brief) 1. Value- He conceded that his value criterion was non-unique. Vote neg on that. 2 Abuse- He worded two of his subpoints as defensive, yet he tried to extend them as offense 3 More Abuse- He is trying to say that the AFF can advocate that age can be taken into account in an AFF world. But, since age is the only difference between a juvenile and adult, this is false. But, even if you buy his interpretation, it is over limiting because the AFF already gets to set the debate because the AFF opens it up. If you buy his interpretation, it is abuse because of ground skew because it would prevent me from running a kritik or counterplan or using my legitimate interpretation of the resolution. So, if you don't buy his interpretation, you negate off of the turns and arguments. If you do buy his interpretation, you negate because it is abusive. 4 Arguments- he conceded that treat implies juveniles will be sent to adult jails (upholding my first subpoint, which was never properly refuted) and that juveniles would be subject to the same punishment (upholding my second subpoint, and making his interpretation wrong). He also advocates neg. Remember, there is more than one way to treat juveniles differently than adults. Juvenile courts are not the only way. He conceded the "treat" interpretation, which helps my interpretation of the resolution as a whole. At this point, it is game over. NEGATE.