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

To my esteemed Bnesiba, Thank you very much for this debate so far, hopefully it continues in a similar manner. As far as your definitions go, I have a couple problems. The first of which is your inconsistency. You say that significant is synonymous, therefore should be defined the same as its synonym. If that is the case, then why aren't all definitions synonyms? If that is how you want it, then ought is synonymous with should. Should does not imply a moral ought, therefore I don't have to show the moral obligation. But I don't believe that it is enough to simply give a synonym in order to define a word. I actually like to define it. And your actual definition works quite well...a large amount. So as the resolution stands, I as the affirmative must prove the moral obligation of replacing misdemeanor jail time with a large amount of rehabilitation. I do not have to replace it with more, because synonyms are not definitions. They are simply synonyms. RA: My first argument here is on his value/criterion. At the point where he says "I will show through my case how the criminals get their due on the neg, but you will see that is impossible for the aff to achieve this value, b/c affirming violates my criterion" he should not be able to win his value or criterion. Among debaters there is this thing called ground. The resolution provides specific ground for both the affirmative and the negative. In this case it is significant rehabilitation for the affirmative, and misdemeanor jail time for the negative. If as the aff I were to give my criterion as significant rehabilitation, there would be significant abuse, because I am saying that you have no chance at winning. By saying that by simply affirming the resolution I can't win...there is significant abuse. When you look to my value criterion you will see that it allows for both sides to equally access the win. If you give my opponent his criterion, then there is no way of winning, and therefore no reason to debate. The reason you don't give my partner his criterion, is because mine is better. We should find out what they are due, but that isn't a good enough value. Not only should we find out what they are due, but we should find out how it affects them after their punishment as well. In a sense, finding out what their specific punishment is, but also to find out what the future repercussions are. The reason you should accept my value over Bnesiba's is because mine allots for the future repercussions as well as the inherent punishment. He argues that one can succeed in many things not all of them good. But success for an individual is inherent in this country's founding. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness guarantee each American citizen the right to success. And forgive me for not defining success...I thought you were intelligent enough to understand what success means. Because language itself defines words when used in context. Therefore, the best value and criterion for this round are an individual's right to success and QoL. Contentions: 1.) This "significant difference" between the numbers, isn't all that significant. In fact, according to the justice bureaus website, there were 24,219 misdemeanors last year, and 17,353 felonies last year. Which isn't really all that much of a difference. Not only that, but the number of felonies versus misdemeanors doesn't prove that they don't commit felonies. Your analysis on this point is lacking severely. You can't just make a claim and expect it to stand. Please use at least some logic OR analysis. You use neither one. 2.) You say it increases pain, but never prove how. All you say is that it is less scary and therefore wouldn't make them stop. But you ignore the analysis I provided showing you how it helps them mature faster. This argument shows us that when we mature, we stop committing acts against the community. Which therefore defeats your argument completely. Even if we were debating on a util. basis, I gain access through the stopping of misdemeanors and felonies. So once again, please provide some sort of argumentation. You say that the status quo solves, but this is untrue. I never touched the stove. Not every child touched the stove. That's the entire premise that your argument relies on. That we never learn until we do and are punished. I've never killed someone. Does that mean I'll only learn not to until I do and am punished for it? Of course not. This argument is flawed in every sense. We learn by being told not to do it, and sometimes by getting punished for something we do. But teaching a life lesson is often just as effective if not more so than being punished. When you look to the resolution specifically, the negative burden is to show how misdemeanor jail time ought not to be replaced with significant rehabilitation. At the point where he has only tried...and failed...at mitigating my points, he loses this round. When he doesn't uphold the burden placed upon him by the resolution, and I at least try, you will always vote for me. Even if he somehow successfully mitigates every single one of my points, he still doesn't win the round because he hasn't tried to prove his own burden. He never presents his own side showing how misdemeanor jail time is better than significant rehabilitation. At that point I, The_Devils_Advocate, win this debate round. Thank you very much and good luck.