The Instigator
Johnicle
Pro (for)
Winning
23 Points
The Contender
LakevilleNorthJT
Con (against)
Losing
15 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/2/2009 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,316 times Debate No: 7191
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (8)

 

Johnicle

Pro

Good luck to my opponent in this round, and for the remainder of this tournament. Now, let's get to this debate!

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

I. Value- Societal Welfare
---My value corresponds to the utmost valuable thing of society, the welfare of it. In other words, my value looks to how well of society is, the more well off we are, the more value we achieve. This value must be the focus of this debate, particularly when the debate is focused on the very thing that puts our societal welfare at risk... criminals. Within this debate, I will show how rehabilitation helps society for misdemeanor crimes MORE than jail time.

Thus, my resolutional analysis is simple: Whoever gains the most net-beneficial societal welfare will be more valuable and ought to be victorious within this debate.

II. Criterion- Integration
---If I can show that integrating these criminals back into society will benefit the welfare, you will find that the pro side must therefore win. Throughout my case, I will show how jail time fails to integrate, and thus loses societal welfare, but moreover, I will show how rehabilitation will be not only more successful, but will help even non-criminals' societal welfare. Finally, I will show that just the attempt at integration is what we OUGHT to do, thus upholding the value even without success.

III. The Pro side (re)integrates the criminals back into society and thus gains societal welfare.

A. Recidivism rate is at an all time high.
-From: http://www.ojp.gov...
---"In a 15 State study, over two-thirds of released prisoners were rearrested within three years"
---This just goes to show how we have a serious problem that needs to be fixed. Obviously the jail time isn't doing any good. We ought to do something to prevent this.

B. Rehabilitation gives a better chance for criminals to be re-integrated back into society.
-From: http://beehive.govt.nz...
---"What this package does is fund a number of initiatives aimed at reducing re-offending rates by expanding rehabilitation and reintegration services. Rehabilitation addresses the underlying causes of offenders' criminal behaviour. Re-integration helps prisoners settle back into the community after their release. These services work hand-in-hand to make the community safer."
---This is exactly what we ought to do. Our goals should be aimed at helping the criminal, and therefore, help our society. And as this evidence points out, it does, and will work. The furthers the reason why we ought to do it and it shows how simply having jail time will be ineffective as far as societal welfare and integration goes.

IV. Rehabilitation provides more jobs.
---In this economic situation, it is necessary that we provide more jobs. This rehabilitation will increase counseling jobs. This increases the societal welfare as well. Now, you may ask yourself, don't you take away security jobs. However, this is not true, this is because there is still need for a holding facility for people such as drunks that need to stay over-night. Not to mention, we could use them on the streets as policemen anyway.

V. The goal of misdemeanor punishment ought to be integration.
---When we put a felon in jail, it is generally because he is not safe in the community. The goal of that is to keep them off the streets respectively. However, you ought not apply this same concept to misdemeanor crimes because they are not a major threat to our society, rather, they have been misguided. It therefore makes sense that we integrate them back into society, which ought to be the goal of misdemeanor punishment. Will it always be successful? Well, probably not. But just the attempt at it shows that we care about A) The victim and B) The society. Throwing them in a cell doesn't show we care, helping them through their assumable tough life does.

-In the end, societal welfare MUST be the ultimate goal. And since jail time fails, we ought to replace this for rehab which will effectively integrate these criminals back into society. Not to mention that more jobs will be created. All of this just goes to show that, In the United States, misdemeanor jail time ought to be replaced with significant rehabilitation.

I therefore urge you to vote pro!

I now stand ready for my opponent's case and refutation!
LakevilleNorthJT

Con

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.
Debate Round No. 1
Johnicle

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate and good luck!

OFF-CASE 1

My opponent contends that ought implies moral importance and that morality can never exist.-->

1) Ought could imply morals AND pragmatism.
---Lucky for me, I achieve both. I am moral when I look out for the community and reach out to the culprits, yet I am pragmatic in looking to the recidivism rates and realizing that something needs to be done, not to mention the jobs being created. Yet my opponent offers no alternative, the thing that you must therefore accept is either A) High recidivism rate or B) Rehabilitation efforts. As I've shown, rehab is the pragmatic AND moral solution.

2) Morality is something we strive for.
---I will never contend that morality is achieved, rather, I contend that achieve MORE of it. Morals, and values, can only be increased, not solved.

3) THIS IS WHAT LD IS INTENDED FOR!
---My opponent doesn't only ask you to reject my case, but essentially asks you to reject LD as a whole. LD is ‘value' debate and my opponent gives NO value to the negative side of this resolution. The default vote EVEN HERE is Affirmative.

OFF-CASE 2

My opponent starts out by saying that anyone that engages in value debate ought to be rejected. But right here he uses ‘ought' which according to his OWN ARGUMENT means a vote for the other person (because ought is value which is bad (supposedly)). This either means that A) You accept these off-cases and vote against my opponent for contradicting himself, or B) You drop these RIDICULOUS off-case arguments.

Again he says that morals and values are unachievable and bad. Cross-Apply my arguments from before against this and realize that morality is something we strive for. Shoot for the stars, even if you can only land on the moon. My opponent basically says that since we can't get to the stars we should give up, but affirmative can AT LEAST get you to the moon, which is better than nothing.

-These off-case are irrelevant to this round. DROP THEM.

CONTENTION 1: VALUE- Societal Welfare

1) My opponent offers no valuable ground for the negative side and why jail time is superior to rehabilitation. This fails the key issue for LD debate and must be voted on.

2) The off-case he describes settle for nothing as ok, but if we go beyond what exists today, we can find ourselves in a world not necessarily with PERFECT morals, but at least more than we started with.

3) More Societal Welfare is upheld on the Affirmative side. If anything must be looked to first, it should not be these horrific off-case, but rather, who is striving to help the society first and foremost.

CONTENTION 2: Criterion- Integration

1--> The criterion is good because it helps us achieve something that is valuable for our society!

2--> I don't justify how integration is good? Did you even read my case? With this integration we get good means (jobs) AND good ends (societal welfare). You have yet to justify why jail time is good, and until you do, ONLY pro can win.

3--> Criminals want back into society and obviously don't want to be in jail again. What we must therefore do is give them the best chance to achieve those goals. Will we be perfect? Probably not, but at least we can better our system to improve where we have fell behind. And even if we do not fix any criminals, you still must vote pro because of the economic boost from the job market being helped.

4) My opponent doesn't integrate, he decimates. He is willing to shun criminals into a second category and forget about them. This does nothing for our societal welfare and is just something you ought not vote for.

CONTENTION 3:

1--> I do show how integration is good.

2--> Unturn. Isolation of criminals will happen on pro OR con. The difference, is that pro tries to un-isolate while con just accepts the isolation as fact. EVERYONE makes mistakes and we screw ourselves over when we live on a 1-strike system. ESPECIALLY for misdemeanors!

3--> Mistakes still need to be dealt with. I have an uncle who drank and drove. He is a good and honest man, yet he needed to go through the rehabilitation cycle to not just HOPE that he didn't do it again, but to know (at least to the greatest degree imaginable)

4--> It is common knowledge that the recidivism rate is high through jail time. The few states is an example and this is easily stretched to America. Not to mention if he was so sure that I was wrong, then he should have given counter-evidence. I see none.

5) Flow through my rehabilitation gives a greater chance for integration. This shows how we can get these criminals to be regular citizens once against and overall benefit everyone in our society.

CONTENTION 4:

1--> I don't need a warrant. With more rehabilitation methods, more jobs will be created (common knowledge). Running a jail takes few to no workers while rehabilitation provides not only jobs, but high quality jobs (counseling).

2--> At this substantial increase, it is obvious that more counselors would be needed. Furthermore, the counselors that exist now exist in schools, mental facilities, etc. They have their job already. Counseling is not a universal job that everyone does every type. This means that unique job opportunities would arrise.

CONTENTION 5:

1--> Dealt with already.

2--> NO! This argument rests on the assumption that criminals did something bad and need help to be back into society. All of them? No (uncle). But we need to be SURE!

3--> Unturn. Cross-apply the recidivism rate evidence. How many of those criminals 'got their head back on'? I know one thing for sure, more criminals would have 'gotten their head back on' if there would have been rehabilitation (dropped argument WITH evidence).

This is what is important. The welfare of the society must be weighed. AS SOON as that is done, the only way to vote is PRO!

Thank you and I await your next speech!
LakevilleNorthJT

Con

LakevilleNorthJT forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Johnicle

Pro

I would like to first point out that any new arguments in the final speech must be disregarded. Therefore, if he is to beat me, it has to be with arguments already made. With that, I will go to Crystallization (voting issues in favor of PRO):

1. Value- Societal Welfare
---I am the ONLY one in this debate to offer a value. In LD debate, values have essential importance (just read the first line of this link: http://en.wikipedia.org...)... Even if you do not accept this, you must accept the fact that I am still the only one that gets any good (and moral) ground out of my side of the debate. I have shown several times the value achieved in rehabilitation over mitigated and useless restitution. Thus, the only logical side to vote for is PRO.

2. Criterion- Integration
---This, if anywhere, is where I show diversity of the CON side. Everyone's goal is societal welfare, but as shown through the evidence, recidivism rates are high, and only rehabilitation can solve it. Since this is the ONLY evidence brought up, it is flowed through. And it makes sense, why should these criminals care when society turns their back on them. It has been shown throughout history that when you attempt to help someone or give them encouragement, they succeed more often. And even if you don't believe that, I still shown it through evidence.

3. More Jobs
---I really don't need this to win. But it is still nice how there can be A) the same amount of security guards, and B) Jobs on top of this through the rehabilitation methods. Not only that, but high quality jobs. It is just one more benefit on the path to societal welfare.

4. Reach for the more logical way to achieve the GOAL.
---The only method put forth to decrease the recidivism rate IS my criterion (and side really). HIS STANCE is actually what created the high recidivism rate. And since he gave no argument as to how his side could help it or my side could hurt it, we really ought to do this. Again, "Just the attempt at it shows that we care about A) The victim and B) The society. Throwing them in a cell doesn't show we care, helping them through their assumable tough life does."

---Finally, I would like to point out that I did not directly refute my opponents points. This is (obviously) because they were all dropped. I therefore urge you to consider my proposition above my opponents, both for the reason that my case shows improvement in the system, and his case just says that I am dumb (or something like that because of some random books). I showed how this is ridiculous and I showed how he contradicted himself immediately after. His refutation after that falls, and even if it stood, I still give better ground.

For these reasons, I urge you to vote PRO!

Thank you for this round and good luck!
LakevilleNorthJT

Con

LakevilleNorthJT forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
Good Luck!
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
JohnicleLakevilleNorthJTTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
JohnicleLakevilleNorthJTTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter Plato votebomb
Vote Placed by Pluto2493 5 years ago
Pluto2493
JohnicleLakevilleNorthJTTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
JohnicleLakevilleNorthJTTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
JohnicleLakevilleNorthJTTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Vote Placed by LakevilleNorthJT 7 years ago
LakevilleNorthJT
JohnicleLakevilleNorthJTTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by zach12 8 years ago
zach12
JohnicleLakevilleNorthJTTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Vote Placed by Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
JohnicleLakevilleNorthJTTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70