Prisoners should be required to work while serving their time

I will begin by correcting my opponent on several of the issues he brings to our attention. If my opponent would carefully read my previous statements he would realize that I was claiming that he had yet to supply me with any acceptable plan to back up his proposed argument. If one is to argue for a change in policy, one must clearly state a proposed change. It is then the opposition's duty to argue against the change. My opponent asks for a change in the current system regarding how the cost of living for prison inmates should be alleviated from taxpayers, but he had not declared how we should go about alleviating this cost. When he did make suggestions I responded with why those solutions were inefficient in alleviating the cost for taxpayers, and not necessarily attainable ideas due to constraints of public safety and so on. This brings me to the issue that my opponent seems to think those commenting on this topic and I can't grasp, which is the idea that we fear prisoners will be taking jobs from free citizens. The fact that my opponent does not understand the full breadth of his proposal makes it difficult to go beyond where we are currently at a stand still. The idea of a self-sustaining farm where inmates can raise their own crops to feed themselves is a great idea, however it will only solve part of the issue of maintaining inmates living costs. Some sort of commissioned work will still be necessary to sustain the cost of electricity, clothing, housing, maintenance, etc. Obtaining jobs where inmates can earn an equivalent to an income is still necessary to cover these other costs. Which takes me back to the comment on the solar panels to generate electricity, which still incurs more costs in the long run. Or one of your new links that directs readers to an article about inmates running a DMV call center, which is a clear example of prisoners being used as cheap labor in favor over hiring free individuals to do the same job. And their low wage is still ineffective in covering the cost that is required to currently sustain an inmate. My opponent also reference the work-release program of Washington St., which yes claims a positive cost/ benefit impact, but only small percentages of inmates are eligible for this program. This really doesn't count towards the cost of keeping an inmate in prison either, because they are housed off prison grounds according to the site. This site also lacks evidence to support its claim of a positive cost/ benefit, and it does not clearly inform readers about how the program works and to what it is comparing itself too in order to generate that statistic. Lastly, these prisoners are also working at mainstream positions and are not self-sustaining while in prison. My opponent also mentions minimum wage amounts compared to the cost of keeping an inmate. I once again don't disagree with the fact that if free individuals can live off an income that is half of what it cost to keep one inmate that means we are spending too much on inmates living costs in general. Plus he hasn't valued in the government assistance that families at this poverty level often receive, and it is still our taxes that cover these aids as well. But this debate is not about how we can cut specific living costs, such as cutting cable or similar, but how we can make prisoners more self-sufficient in order to cover their own living costs while incarcerated. In conclusion, I reaffirm my statement that my opponents plan is inefficient because it has not offered a suggestion to how we can make prisoners more self-sufficient across the board. Self-sustaining farms are a great start, however a proposal for an effective plan for total self-sustainment is necessary to this argument that prisoners should have to cover the burden of their own cost of living while in prison. I hope perhaps this time I have made myself even clearer about why I make the claim that this idea is inefficient at this point.