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

I'm going to begin by defining more words: Synonym: two words that can be interchanged in a context. (Princeton Wordnet) 1.)inconsistency I am not being inconsistent. First, a synonym is a word that can be exchanged in context. This means that they literally have the same definition. If significant is synonymous to more in comparisons, then it could be exchanged for more. B/c of this, you MUST hold the aff to this standard. On the defn of ‘ought' and should. Yes, they are synonyms. According to dictionary.com: Should- must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency) I need to define another word as well: Propriety- correct or appropriate behavior. [Moral behavior] Should & ought ARE the same thing, both indicate moral duty. I am not inconsistent. Also, look to how dictionary.com defines should, with the word must, & ought. CLEARLY synonyms DO function as definitions. if you look to the definition of synonym, you will clearly see that all of my definitions stand as they were. RA: look to the top of my previous "speech". My actual RA was not argued. Therefore you MUST hold the aff to this standard of morality. If the aff does not show moral duty you cannot affirm Values: Sorry if this comes across harshly, but it seems that the aff may be new to LD & fresh from policy. 2.) Theory In LD, the idea of the value is that you provide a standard that you uphold in your case that the other side cannot. You debate values b/c you show that upholding yours is better than your opponent upholding theirs. Also, proving you can uphold theirs & yours or that they cannot uphold theirs fall into this category as well. However at the point where your opponent says that your value is inferior B/C they cannot achieve it, you MUST realize that this person is simply new to LD. All I meant to say by that point was that, Justice, defined as I defined it, Cannot be upheld on the aff. Your value SHOULDN'T provide opposing ground. NO abuse here, just confusion on how LD works. 3.)More against abuse "In this case it is significant rehabilitation for the aff, 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, b/c I am saying that you have no chance at winning" No abuse. If this was your criterion, you would still have to prove that it was superior to mine. Value & Criterion are not automatically accepted just b/c I put them out there. If they were, there would be no reason for both of us to provide values & criteria. Again, this is simply a lack of LD experience. 4.) Aff admits neg superior Look to the reason the aff states that his value is better: "b/c it can be upheld on both sides" The aff freely admits that I can achieve his value. B/c of this, & b/c the fact that I do not achieve my value has not been argued, you clearly see that, even if you do not reject the opposing value, that the neg side is superior b/c I uphold BOTH Justice & Success. 5.)value still sketchy "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." Aside from the obvious Ad-Hom attack here, all we know now is that when good people succeed at good things, good things happen.... duh? My point is that BAD people (like Hitler) can succeed at BAD things (like the Holocaust) & bad things result. This value clearly can produce negative outcomes, where mine cannot. B/c of this, you must look to My value of Justice. 6.)Other value stuff "The reason you should accept my value over Bnesiba's is b/c mine allots for the future repercussions as well as the inherent punishment" How? All the aff states here are warrant-less claims. He states that somehow "success" allows for future repercussions... judges, you cannot accept this claim, he provides no analysis to back this up & no warrant. Without analysis, you have NO REASON to believe this, & must disregard it. "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." The aff agrees that my value is good. Please pull this to the neg. he fails to show how the value of success achieves this... no analysis, no warrant. Please disregard this argument as well. Also, success does not give each person their due, so even if it does somehow look to how it affects them afterwards, b/c he cannot tell what they are due through his value, he tells us to disregard his value as well. B/c of this, you MUST look to justice as I define it, to judge the round. 7.)Justice superior Cross-apply my argument #4 under the value debate from above. This still stands & must be looked to for the round. Criterion: 8.)Abuse... again Apply all of my arguments under 2 & 3 as well as the following: A criterion is supposed to provide a framework for morality. If you're morality allowed both sides to be moral, there would be absolutely no way to debate morality through them. A moral framework MUST be exclusive (apply my Criterion Theory arguments under my criterion in the previous "speech") I am also not abusive b/c of the value/criterion debate itself. B/c we must debate which is better, it is clear that if I prove that my framework for morality is indeed better, it does not matter if you can achieve it. In fact, looking to my previous arguments, YOU SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE IT. If you can, I'm doing something wrong. 9.)the aff admits Neg superior Like under the value debate, the aff confusedly argues that his criterion is better B/C I can achieve it. B/c of this, even if you do not throw it out, apply the affs arguments as well, showing that I can achieve both, while the aff can only achieve a value through his. 10.)Criterion Theory Cross Apply my theory about moral frameworks from above. The aff's criterion still does not achieve any of these points & therefore is not a moral framework. (Most importantly, the aff argues that both sides can uphold it, this means that, as a moral framework it fails b/c it cannot judge which side is moral. B/c the aff criterion is not a moral framework, affirming is virtually impossible due to my Resolutional analysis. (must provide a moral duty, without moral framework this is impossible) 11.)QOL The aff has yet to tell us what comprises quality of life. Is it happiness? Is it wealth? Is it women? Is it food? Is it getting what you want? What is it? The aff still hasn't defined his criterion, the only possible way to judge the round is to look to my criterion. MY Contention 1) Affirming violates utility Please pull my contention 1 across as it was not argued. The change in punishment violates my criterion & is therefore, through my case wrong. I have shown how we have a moral duty to negate. AFF: 12.)Felonies & misdemeanors. The aff has provided false information. According to the US Dept. of Justice In 2006, there were: 968,408 Misdemeanors & 534,460 Felonies in CALIFORNIA ALONE.(http://stats.doj.ca.gov...)(http://stats.doj.ca.gov...) About 50% as many felonies. This is both people who have committed misdemeanors, as well as people who just committed a felony. There is no evidence that people go from misdemeanors to felonies. Also, b/c the aff has provided no analysis as to why this would happen; this point is moot. 13.)pain Aff causes pain. It costs money, and increases the crime rate. (see my previous "speech") B/c my case stands, b/c you are looking to my value & criterion, & b/c the aff has not provided any evidence of a moral duty to affirm, where I have shown a duty to negate, you MUST negate. Thank you