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

The order is two off and the AC. Off 1: Ought is of or relating to morality. This means that the resolution asks us whether or not is is moral to replace misdeameanor jailtime with significant rehabilitation. This also means that the affirmative has a necessary but insufficient burden to show that morality can exist because if morality doesnt exist we cannot say that In the United States, misdemeanor jail time OUGHT to be replaced with significant rehabilitation. I contend that morality can never exist. Nietzsche writes, "Every concept originates through our equating what is unequal. No leaf ever wholly equals another, and the concept "leaf" is formed through an arbitrary abstraction from these individual differences, through forgetting the distinctions; and now it gives rise to the idea that in nature there might be something besides the leaves which would be "leaf"—some kind of original form after which all leaves have been woven, marked, copied, colored, curled, and painted, but [made] by unskilled hands, so that no copy turned out to be a correct, reliable, and faithful image of the original form. We call a person "honest." Why did he act so honestly today? we ask. Our answer usually sounds like this: because of his honesty. Honesty! That is to say again: the leaf is the cause of the leaves. After all, we know nothing of an essence-like quality named "honesty"; we know only numerous individualized, and thus unequal actions, which we equate by omitting the unequal and by then calling them honest actions. In the end, we distill from them a qualitas occulta [hidden quality] with the name of "honesty." We obtain the concept, as we do the form, by overlooking what is individual and actual; whereas nature is acquainted with no forms and no concepts, and likewise with no species, but only with an X which remains inaccessible and undefinable for us." Thus, because all assesments of morality are based on arbitrary assessments of specific situations, true morality can never exist and we can never affirm the resolution. Off 2: My opponent says that we ought to have a value of Societal Welfare but value debate is bad and anybody engaging in such debate ought to be rejected. Since Johnicle tries to start a debate founded upon values, he ought to lose on face. William James writes, " It is astonishing to see how many philosophical disputes collapse into insignificance the moment you subject them to this simple test of tracing a concrete consequence. There can be no difference anywhere that doesn't make a difference elsewhere—no difference in abstract truth that doesn't express itself in a difference in concrete fact and in conduct consequent upon that fact, imposed on somebody, somehow, somewhere, and somewhen. The whole function of philosophy ought to be to find out what definite difference it will make to you and me, at definite instants of our life, if this world-formula or that world-formula be the true one….Pragmatism represent a perfectly familiar attitude in philosophy, the empiricist attitude, but it represent it, as it seems to me, both in a more radical and in a less objectionable form than it has ever yet assumed. A pragmatist turns his back resolutely and once for all upon a lot of inveterate habits dear to professional philosophers. He turns away from abstraction and insufficiency, from verbal solutions, from bad a priori reasons, from fixed principles, closed systems, and pretended absolutes and origins. He turns towards concreteness and adequacy, towards facts, towards action and towards power. That means the empiricist temper regnant and the rationalist temper sincerely given up. It means the open air and possibilities of nature, as against dogma, artificiality, and the pretence of finality in truth." Remember that the offs logically function before evaluation of the AC and he has to beat them both before he can even have a chance of winning. AC: I will adress the AC via a line by line approach. I. Value- Cross Apply Offs. II. Integration 1. The whole criterion is based around the value, he doesn't give you a specific reason about why the crierion itself is good. 2. Criminals are bad people as they harm society in some way. Thus integration cannot be a goal. Always prefer my interpratation on this level because Johnicle doesn't justify why integration is good at all in his last speech. 3. There is no reason as to why criminals will be willing to integrate into society. III. Pro reintegrates. 1. His last speech doesn't show in any way why this integration is good. Don't let him justify this in his next speech. 2. Turn: Rehabilitation decreases reintegration because it isolates criminals from society even more and forces them to be labeled as "crazy" and of needing "change insofar as it forces them to be rehabilitated. 3. The resolution is specifically talking about misdeameanors. In this case rehabilitation is unnecessary insofar as the criminals may be completely be in tune with society and could have simply made a mistake. 4. The study he gives is very narrow and only focuses on a certain amount of states. IV. Jobs. 1. This is an assertion. He gives absolutely no warrant. 2. We already have counselers. Increasing rehabilitation would simply give the counselers more work to do. V. Ought to be Integration. 1. Ought can't exist as per the Nietzsche off case. 2. Rests on the assumption that criminals have tough lives. There is no reason ata all why that is true. 3. Turn: Reintegration is better acheived by jail as criminals can get their heads on straight and realize what they arre doing is wrong. Thus, you ought to negate the resolution. Remember that the AC is evaluated after the neccesary but insufficient burden and the kritik of value debate.