@kelleykrook Completely fair judgment I made several inherent strategical failures which I understand lost me the round I was clearly unprepared with my case or argumentation. Regardless I really appreciate you taking your time to judge this debate!
@kelleykrook Nice judgement and critique.
@drag0nbait it's all good, man. You look like you know what you are doing, so I'm sure you know what corrections need to be made.
@kelleykrook Good to see you back!!!!!
@gigi thanks Gigi! It's good to be back.
Crimes need consequences. Neg one this for sure.
@lernstorm thats true, however, when you side with pro, you are not saying that you never punish crimes, he is saying when you have to make a decision between the two, pick rehabilitation, because it is better for society, and better for the criminal, and doesn't just give us a philosophical satisfaction. my vote is for pro
@tantjams pro never gave a single statistic to actually prove that rehabilitation works. And when it is being valued above retribution it does mean that the punishment is going down and is being replaced with rehabilitation. Sure... Not the entire punishment, but rehab is being prioritized. I would have to still side with con. You have to look at it from the perspective of the victim as well.
@debatedebate Statistics in this tournament are heavily regulated so I understand him just resorting to logical analysis.
@debatedebate you do need to look at it through the lens of the victim, but in this debate round, the value was social peace, which looks at society, and not just the victim.
@tantjams right... But aren't victims apart of society?
@stoadebater11 sure, but the majority of society are not victims. also, you still have a choice to make right? like you can make a decision to help the whole society rather then the individual, even though individuals make up society.
@lewisoflime are sentences cut when criminals go through rehab programs?
If communism is bad because it has bad effects, then that application actually supports Pro. Pro is talking about how we judge the resolution by how to get the best effects (lower recidivism). If Rehabilitation creates better effects, then we should prefer that. If rehabilitation and/or communism create worse effects, then we consider that bad. Thus, the Communism application really hurts Con imo.Also I think it would have been nice if Pro would have cited a source on his recidivism numbers. Con doesn't contest the numbers so it isn't important, but that still does seem like a point that should have some sort of backup. But honestly, Con needs to contest this. If he doesn't, he loses almost by default.This is the second time I've watched Joe debate this topic as Pro, and both times, the Con just agrees that rehabilitation is far more successful at combating crime than retribution. So both Con's just admit that their side will lead to more people being hurt, raped, killed, etc. Under the values of human dignity/social peace, rather obviously, the less amount of crime, the better. Pro wins.
@sharkb8 Would've cited stats but we created the res and debate less than 24 hours before we started! Wanted to follow protocol so I just made the analysis based off common knowledge. Thanks for your feedback!
@lewisoflime yeah I getcha. I don't mean for the rule to stifle debate, it's just supposed to make it more doable for the opposition. And it worked out fine either way :D.