Solitary Confinement

Con states that I have violated the rules, but I figured that I would follow the usual debate structure; which is acceptance, presentation of arguments, rebuttals and closing arguments. There are only three rounds with 5,000 charterers for each - thus, merely accepting in the first round seemed rather senseless to me - especially as it leaves little space for rebuttals and closing arguments. Rebuttals: Con in fact violates his own rules, as instead of presenting an argument of his own, he proceeds straight to the quoting of various excerpts of my argument and attempts to rebut them. He states that he disagrees with my contentions, without providing a detailed explanation as to why. He asserts that 'there is no reason to cut of [off] communication, any source of entertainment, or any source to keep your sense of morality.' Inmates who are placed in isolation, in many cases, are still able to maintain some contact with the outside world - mainly in the form of communicating with family members, etc. They also are still entitled to some forms of entertainment. As for Cons comment regarding morality, this seems rather vague and misplaced. My argument primarily revolved around practical reasoning - I.e that isolation can prevent suicide and harassment - or indeed worse - from other inmates. Citation three in my opening argument presents a thorough account of how life is for pedophiles and sex offenders in some U.S prisons. In living with the general prison population, they are strongly exposed to repercussive violence and aggressive mob-like behaviours from other inmates. Con additionally demonstrates some ignorance on the subject of solitary confinement. He assumes that merely killing someone is enough to warrant someome being placed in isolation - this is incorrect. I explained the reasoning behind solitary confinement in round one and outlined why it is necessary in some circumstances. It requires more than one murder to isolate an inmate. The criterion is that they must pose a direct threat to the general prison population. If they do not pose a direct threat and have not exhibited any violent behaviour, they will not be placed in isolation. That is, unless, they actually request it because they have been harmed by or could be harmed by their fellow inmates - this would specifically apply to pedophiles or serial killers, as previously stated. The sources used by Con are without added context, therefore they can be dismissed as sources. His first source is a research paper, but he failed to reference exactly what part of the research paper he was alluding to [you cannot just include a research paper without providing additional context for it]. His second source is a YouTube video - again, easily discounted. His third source is a book titled 'Health and Human Rights in a Changing World', but once more there is no context. The same can be said for his fourth source - it is a Steinhardt research paper, but again, Con failed to add context or outline what he was referring to in this paper. The same applies to the PsychologyToday article. It would appear that Con believes you win an argument by including random sources and not detailing what they reference in your argument. At the least, he could've directly quoted excerpts from these sources.