Resolved: In the United States, misdemeanor jail time ought to be replaced with significant rehabi

I'll go NC then AC I contest his definition of "significant". His definition gives a part of it, however the "meaning" msut come from something, so in this case you must default to aff's definition which is "fairly large" [Observations] 1. Rehabilitation does not exist with jail --> The resolution is using a US framework, and in the US rehabilitation is used in conjunction with jail, thus for this round I must prove that rehabilitation ought to be prioritized, but I do not have to prover sole rehabilitation. 2. Rehabilitation doesn't always work --> I never said it is absolute. Jail doesn't always work either, e.g. escaping from prison. nothing is absolute 3. Retribution --> Aff. doesn't have to prove total abolishment of jail V: Societal Welfare --> Ok, value for the round --> He does not however say how continuing governmental normality helps societal welfare --> He argues that the status quo shows no flaws. This completely contradicts what he says under his contentions. However, I will bring that up alter in my speech. VC: Justice --> His definition of justice is circular. He says justice determines just conduct, but he never explains what justice is. --> I agree with premise a under justice. I.e. justice is for the greater good. --> I disagree with premise b: He says the perpetrator gets away with the crime, however again, the affirmative is not abolishing jail time, I am just arguing that rehabilitation should be a priority. --> In premise C hen argues status quo, but that is no reason to negate I will prove a disadvantage within the status quo. C1 - Amy Winehouse Point (Rehabiltiation doesn't work) --> This contention is wrong for the following reasons: 1. It is inconsistent. He argues that the status quo is fine w/o rehabilitation, however he then says that 70% of people recommit crimes. 2. It is flawed. He jumps to a horrible conclusion. At this point rehabilitation is not prioritized in the US system. He jumps to the conclusion that the people recommitting crimes came from rehabilitation. This could be and false. What he doesn't tell you is that the 70% includes all criminals, rehabilitated for not. 3. (Turn) The affirmative in this case is more desirable because it changes the status quo in which we can now prioritize the rehabilitation system and see if it is successful. C2 - Not Replace 1. Status Quo is superior Ok, major points agaisnt neg's case: 1. He argues Societal Welfare but he never proves why the status quo is efficient is archiving this. 2. His point can be turned because it gives the US avenue to prioritize rehabilitation as a means to promote societal welfare. 3. His point that I am advocating rehabilitation as a pure form is mitigated by his own assertion of the status quo within the US framework [Defense] Observations "1-The AFF cannot claim flawed resolution, the way it is written is the way it ought to be debated, interpretation can vary but under no circumstances can we claim a flawed resolution." --> I'm sorry if my words came out odd. I was saying that the literal wording of the resolution is contradictory to the US status quo, thus we must assume US framework. And you have asserted the status quo thus we can both agree to this ob. 1 "2-The AFF advocates two different things in his obv and contention II" --> Um no, I am saying that jail and rehabilitation is used in conjunction. I.e. the aff doesn't have to prove abolishment of the jail system, rather to prove rehabilitation prioritization w/ jail. "3-The status quo contends jail time as a norm." --> Indeed. However the US only sues rehabilitation w/ jail time. V: Societal Welfare "1-We aren't protecting S.W. a.We allow for an unsuccessful tactic to be passed and thus hurts S.W to a greater degree" --> We will see when I come down to my contentions 2-The purpose of punishment consists of retribution but not in the from of rehab. Jail time is a successful aspect that the status quo works off and achieves the greater S.W --> Again, I am not abolishing jail. --> Obviously the status quo isn't good (view turn on C1) VC: Lessening Recidivism "1-Rehab [cross apply contention I NEG] doesn't' work." --> Cannot be empirically determined because the US has not prioritized the system as of yet. --> (Warrant) Europe has significantly lower crimes rates then the US, and guess what? They prioritize rehabilitation. 2-Effectiveness is crucial when measuring who upholds S.W best. --> It is effective 3-Burden upon state increases. --> I would argue no, on the fact that rehabilitation lowers recidivism, thus the government does not have to recapture them and put them through jail again. C1 - Misdemeanor Criminals have a better chance of being rehabilitated "1-it should be noted that the aff doesn't provide zero warrants in his numbers in comparison to the jail time success rate." --> He uses a double-negative thus saying that I do provide warrants. --> He never provides a warrant on the success of the status quo --> Extend my stat on the fact that he never refutes it, and it proves that changing the status quo will lead to less recidivism (Cannot attack it in his next speech) "2-The jail success rate provides outstanding numbers" --> lol, look to the 70% recidivism rates within the status quo that he provided --> He never provides an "outstanding number" at all in this round "3-There isn't a way to teach people morals [i.e. not stealing] through rehab. They ought to sit in a cell and think about what they have done. Rehab achieves nothing." --> Interesting, he says that rehabilitation doesn't do anything, however he says go sit in a cell. That provides solvency for the attack proposed by the negative........not. C2 - Conjunction use 1 - the aff cannot declare two punishments. --> Rehabiltiaiton isn't a "punishment". It is a restorative mechanism in conjunction with punishment. 2 - use of both nearly proves that a perpetrator can get away with least amount of jail time. --> What is your warrant for that? 3 - the negative allows for 2 legitimate areas of analysis [cross apply cont. 1and2]that detail why it's wrong to declare the use of both when the resolution says replace with. - --> Ob. 1 argues a different resolutional interpretation, one that you link into when you assert the status quo. Thank you ladies and gentlemen, plus judges.