Production and distribution of City Club forums and ideastream public media are made possible by PNC and the United Black Fund of greater Cleveland, Inc.. That was so fine.

I'm going to do it again.

Good afternoon and welcome to the City Club of Cleveland, where we are devoted to conversations of consequence that help democracy thrive.

It's Friday, March 8th.

My name is Tom Lucchese and I'm a partner with the law firm of Baker and Hostetler.

And on behalf of my firm and its partners and its employees, I am pleased to introduce the 2024 High School Debate Championship.

It's the final round of competition for the North Coast District of the National Speech and Debate Association, which good luck to both of our debaters here today.

This event is part of the City Club's continuing commitment to young people in our community and that Baker and Hostetler, we support this event as a way to celebrate the memory of our late partner, Patrick Jordan.

There will be a picture of Patrick coming up in a minute.

It's one of my favorite pictures of him, and it captures his essence.

Pat was at the firm for a short period of time, beginning in 1987.

Most of you, none of you students were born in 1987.

In fact, some of your parents probably weren't born in 1987.

But Pat was with the firm from 87 when I first met him until 1995, when he unfortunately passed away, leaving behind his wife and daughter who was one year old at the time.

Pat's wife is here with us today.

Sharon Sobel, Jordan.

Pat's brother, Tom Jordan.

Pat.

Sister.

Maggie Keeney.

And Tom Jordan's son, Tip is here with us today.

And this is a day that we we really remember Pat and his essence of and frankly, most of us remember Pat every day.

Pat was larger than life.

And you guys are all savvy with the Internet.

I'm sure you've seen the speech I give every year about Pat, talking about how he negotiated with a restaurant owner in town to take over the business, to buy out the restaurant owners business, and how it was hotly contested and hotly debated.

And yet when they were done, they reached a resolution and they parted as friends and they were lifelong friends after that point.

And that that embodies Pat, that embodies his personality, embodies his style.

I don't know if you saw the president on TV last night for the State of the Union address, but the president said that we are at a crossroads.

Never in the history of the United States, in the recent history, at least of the United States, has been has democracy been so challenged?

We are on the precipice and debate and arguing is prevalent throughout the community.

When we were younger and back in the eighties and the nineties and when Pat was around, he was an arguer, he was a fierce arguer, and we would debate everything.

Lunch lunches were nothing but constant arguments among friends, and we would argue we didn't have the Internet, we couldn't fact check.

We would just make stuff up.

You would you would argue.

And the sheer force of personality sometimes would prevail.

And that was often Pat was almost always Pat, a big guy who was left handed.

And he would just wave that arm and dismiss your arguments like they were nothing.

But we've lost, as the president pointed out last night, we have lost the ability as a nation to have debate in a reasonable and measured manner.

And today's debate, I think, will remind us that you can present argument without attacking the other party.

You can rely upon facts and research and hard work rather than misinformation and fake news and innuendo to make your points.

And you can respect your opponent and respond to your opponents.

Differences of opinion with reason and eloquent words rather than harassment and vindictiveness and going back against each other.

And this is a big problem in the country right now.

It's a problem that your generation is going to be greatly affected by.

I don't want to preach too much, but I blame the Internet.

Everybody is on their phones.

It's very easy to be critical of other people, and that's carried over to face to face conversations, which is really it's un-American.

It's inappropriate and it's counterproductive.

So as we watch these two people, Brooke and Max, debate today, just keep in mind the broader principles we're going to have.

They're both winners.

Someone's got to be deemed the champion.

But at the end of the day, just keep in mind the broader principles and the implications for society as you young people go out into the world.

Keep in mind, the lessons you've learned as you as you debate.

Pat would be really, really honored to know that some 29 years after his passing, I think I did the math right.

We're still remembering him and remembering him in this manner.

So today's competitors will square off in a Lincoln-Douglas style debate.

And I know Dan knows nothing about debate, but I know even less.

But it emphasizes logic, ethical values and philosophy.

This style of debate is named after the famous 1858 debates between candidates Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas.

I don't know who won that.

I know who won the presidency.

I know who won the debate.

But joining us today as our on air commentators are Mike McIntyre, who's been introduced.

He's the executive director of Ideastream Public Media, and last year's runner up, Caitlin Ernst with Laurel School, who will now introduce our judges, the competitors, the resolution and explain the debate format.

Caitlin I'd first like to thank the City Club of Cleveland, as well as the law firm of Baker and Hostetler for supporting today's championship.

The City Club debate is such an incredible opportunity for US high school debaters and we are endlessly grateful for their support of our activity.

Lincoln-Douglas debate is a one on one debate in which we discuss policies and government actions through the lens of philosophy.

Typically, debates concern themselves with deciding whether or not certain actions or state of affair are moral or immoral to do so.

Each debater will introduce a value.

What we as a society should value above all else.

Then they will offer a value criterion, a mechanism to achieve that value.

Finally, the debaters will offer contentions, arguments and evidence as to why affirming or negating the resolution will achieve that value in the value criterion.

Throughout the debate, each debater will offer rebuttals as to why their position is true and the opponent's is false in hopes of convincing the judges to vote in favor of them.

Today, our finalists will debate the topic resolved.

A primary objective of the United States criminal justice system ought to be rehabilitation.

The debaters will be Mack Zuckerman on the affirmative, a senior at Solon High School, coach by Trina Cashew and Matt Hill, as well as Brooks met Chew On the Negative, a sophomore at Hawkins School coached by Robert Shirts and Eva Lamberson.

Judging today's debate are Corinne Lashley, the speech and debate coach at Chagrin Falls High School, Rich Cowlitz Austin, a Hall of Fame speech and debate coach at Laurel School.

And finally, artist Arnold, the third managing director at Huntington National Bank and City Club board member.

And now over to Mack MacIntyre.

Caitlin.

Caitlin working her way over here so that we can have a conversation.

What we're going to do here is try to explain for those who aren't regular debate watchers, and that's not anybody here in this audience.

They're all debate oriented.

But if you're listening on the radio, watching on television, we're going to try to explain the process.

And part of our duty to is to fill in the time, because the debaters have time to prepare each one of their arguments, the affirming and the negating arguments.

And so when they're doing that in the rebuttals, etc., we'll be able to talk a little bit and I don't know anything about it, but is going to be able to give me some information.

She was amazing last year.

And Caitlin, it's good to see you again.

Not only were you the runner up here at the City Club, but you also were the state champion last year.

I was, yeah.

Pretty awesome.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Let's hear it for Caitlin.

We are going to be hearing from, as you just mentioned, Max Zuckerman of Solon High School.

He's affirming.

And Brooke, come at you from Hawkins School.

She is negating.

So that would mean Max is up first.

And if you're ready, Max, why don't we get you up and and get started?

Is anyone not ready?

All right, let's begin now.

I affirm resolved the primary objective of the United States criminal justice system ought to be rehabilitation.

I value justice defined us to each their due because a government's sole purpose is to protect the dues of citizens justice is paramount in today's debate.

To achieve justice, we must first look at the idea of preventing dehumanization defined by Oxford as the denial of human dignity for three reasons.

First, human dignity is the foundation of all other ethical considerations.

Tierra, 20, explains that human dignity requires a priority of consideration even before freedom, responsibility, solidarity and other factors.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights further is that the recognition of the inherent dignity of all is the foundation of justice.

Second, dehumanization is the root of injustice.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains that we have a duty to never treat humans as a means to an end.

Violating this duty, by definition, constitutes a failure to give each their due.

And third row 11 explains that human dignity is deeply embedded in constitutional law.

If the criminal justice system is to abide by the Constitution, it must prevent dehumanization.

I also offer to quick observations.

First, the Neda writes that each debater has the equal burden to prove the validity of their side of the resolution.

As a general principle, not any specific policy.

And second, rehabilitation does not mean no punishment.

Instead, Douglas, 22, finds that rehabilitation ought to be conceived as an aspect of or in addition to punishment.

Thus, the burden of the negative is to prove that the punishment ought to be weighed over any chance of rehabilitation.

Contention one The focus on punishment has led to dehumanizing conditions within the criminal justice system.

There are 24 fines that today nearly 2 million people are incarcerated, warehoused in cramped spaces that lack fresh air, healthy food, natural light and proper health care.

Prisons are run with little to no public oversight leading to abuse.

Unfortunately, incarcerate aided people, endure humiliating treatment, inhumane conditions and abusive interactions which lead to significant trauma and harm people's efforts to thrive once they leave prison.

A nationwide study by the Institute on Drug Abuse in 2020 outlined that 85% of the prison population has a substance use disorder and are at a higher risk of overdose following release.

Bender 18 furthers that nearly half of incarcerated individuals do not hold a high school diploma.

For these two reasons move only 21 analyzed that the unemployment rate among the formerly incarcerated is higher than unemployment at any point in U.S. history.

Thus, Zook has 14 term analyzes that most prisoners will fail unless they are provided with meaningful rehabilitative programing.

An internal revision must take place.

For a person to change their ways.

Contention to the focus on imprisonment has led to a dehumanizing cycle of crime and mass incarceration.

A 2023 report by the Department of Justice explains that the get tough on crimes approach where offenders are punished rather than rehabilitated, has been counterproductive.

The number of offenders in prisons has increased, and the crime rate is growing because mass incarceration causes a vicious cycle creating more crime.

Schrager, 15, explains that putting more people in prison not only ruins lives, but also creates a more new crime than it prevents.

Harvard Professor Banerjee, 21, explains that within three years of their release, two out of three former prisoners are rearrested and more than half are incarcerated again.

Each year in prison increases the odds that a prisoner re-offend.

Turning small offenders into career criminals.

Being a convicted felon disqualifies you from housing voting and reduces the odds of post-release employment by 24% each year.

Being in prison and out of the labor force degrades legitimate skills and exposes you to criminal skills, making crime a more attractive alternative upon release.

Ultimately, incarceration ruins innocent people's lives and encourages crime, forcing people to become career criminals.

Contention three.

Rehabilitation Prevents Dehumanization.

First, recognize the end goal of the criminal justice system.

Per the Department of Justice, the main goal behind punishment is to protect future crime.

Prevent?

Excuse me?

Offenders must develop skills and work on their mental health to be reintegrated into society.

This is best achieved through a rehabilitative system.

As Smith oh nine finds that the evidence for effective intervention spans over two decades and encompasses hundreds of studies on the topic of offender treatment outcome.

And the results have been replicated with remarkable consistency.

Treatments adhering to the principles of effective intervention are effective in reducing recidivism.

And an empirical analysis of American rehabilitation programs, say GAF Ho 17 finds that the recidivism rate for inmates dropped from 49% to 20% and noted a recidivism rate for incarcerated mothers more than four times lower than those that were not exposed to the same programs.

The same is true around the world.

Dow 20 finds that Norway's criminal justice system serves as proof that a focus on rehabilitation increases job training, raises employment and reduces crime.

There are large spillovers for criminal networks that provide additional benefits in terms of crime reduction, even in societies where extreme punishment in the norm is the norm.

Rehabilitation has proven effective.

A multi-year study on Singapore by Wing 16 finds that since the launch of Singapore's rehabilitation efforts, Singaporeans are generally more willing to foster relationships with ex-offenders and companies are more open to hiring them.

In turn, recidivism rates have lowered substantial.

Without enough assistance, ex-offenders often find themselves isolated and destitute, often resorting to deviant activities.

Thus, Foot 17 concludes that the criminal justice system must offer the chance to live a life without crime by helping change the context in which criminals find themselves in, which can only be achieved through rehabilitation if the system is constructed in this way, crime will be lessened, society will be safer, and victims and offenders will be helped, thereby preventing dehumanization and achieving justice.

Thus, I affirm across great.

I'll begin time on my first word.

So let's look to your framework and your value criteria, and we tell us that in today's debate we look to preventing dehumanization.

So is this just as a principle that we should treat people in ways in which, for example, their autonomy isn't like infringed upon?

I guess that is part of it.

But in general, we find that in almost every case where dehumanization occurs, it is directly linked with hatred and violence.

And most mass moral atrocities that we can think of are directly caused by dehumanizing.

Looking to things like reducing like hatred and violence, etc.. Sure, that's part of it.

Sure.

So let's go to your observation.

You say that we should be debating this as an equal burden of a principle, not a policy.

Does the resolution ask us to only look at how we would work as a principle independent of how it's implemented in the United States?

Implementation may have part of it, but the point of this observation is to say that we're not looking at say, okay, what does Obama think about the criminal justice system or Biden or someone else looking at the general idea of criminal justice and what an ideal in a utopian society, what a criminal justice system ought to look like.

Let's go to your first contentions.

So you talk about overcrowding.

What is the root cause of why we see, like a lot of people funneled into prison or overcrowding in general?

There is a lot of different root causes.

I'm not sure I can pinpoint one specific thing.

I'm sure part of it is like the context in which people come from.

Part of it might be like the like their economic status are like their social status.

Social background, church.

Let's look to it like yours to specific warrants.

You talk about substance use disorders and sort of education.

So how would we see that rehabilitation like like effectively removes the overcrowding issue or like stops mass incarceration just because we're giving people these opportunities.

So I'm glad you asked that.

Part of that is the Zuko's 14 evidence I give you, which tells you that we need an internal revision to take place.

Otherwise we have these issues just continuing, which is what happens right now in the status quo.

And then the second part, most of the solvency is in the contention three, where we find a person off of 17, 20 and wing 16 that not only have different programs such as like in North Dakota and Oklahoma, have they already worked?

That's the Chicago events, but also internationally in Norway, that's DOL.

And in Singapore that's where these all.

Over the country examples.

So I guess we're just looking at two like decreasing recidivism in this contention.

That's part of it.

But we also find that this type of stuff is also very closely related to the dehumanization that occurs in my contention one and two.

Sure.

So let's look take a specifically dehumanization as a concept.

So you talk about like how people are being limited for opportunities and things, I guess just directly in the affirmative.

What are like the root causes or main things that caused humanization in prison?

Sure.

So the main things that cause that are a these poor like the poor conditions that's of ARRA 24 and the Institute on Drug Abuse.

And then b this idea of the vicious crime cycle where this focus on punishment essentially that we see right now doesn't actually prevent crime, it actually exacerbates it.

That's our own department of Justice telling us we need something to change.

Okay, so let's look, I guess, to the cycle of repeat offending or recidivism.

So you talk about how a lot of people are funneled back into the system.

How does the affirmative affirmative uniquely sovereigns issue when we look to things like social backgrounds that are often root causes of why people enter?

Sure.

So again, it comes back to the contention three, which tells us that only through the rehabilitation system can we see recidivism rates dropping.

We see this for the different groups that you're talking about.

I give you in the sake of evidence, the incarcerated mothers, their recidivism rates dropped by over four times.

We saw a 2.5 X reduction in rates per the same evidence.

So all of these issues are being solved.

Sounds good at time.

Yeah.

All right, so we've got some time for preparation for the next step here.

Let's find out from.

I'm Mike McIntyre, by the way, and I'm with Caitlin Ernst to find out a little bit about what we just heard.

Lincoln-Douglas is one of many debate styles.

Can you explain what we just saw and how to distinguish that from other kinds of debate?

Absolutely.

So the key difference between Lincoln-Douglas debate and other forms is that it's focused primarily on values.

That is at the beginning of Marx's speech.

He said, My value is justice, my value criterion, preventing dehumanization.

So the debaters aren't just trying to prove whether or not a policy is effective or not, but rather if it is moral.

And then how?

What we saw here was the affirmative constructive that Max did, and then the cross-exam examination from Brooke in her cross, what she trying to do.

Essentially, Brooke is trying to poke and prod into Max's constructive and find the weak spots within it.

So she might agree that it has problems, but she's asking if the affirmative can actually solve for them.

And these things are obviously ruled by a clock.

Max had 6 minutes.

There was 3 minutes for the cross.

You heard Brooke say, okay, right.

And move on to the next thing.

Part of that is it's her time.

Definitely.

So you're in a very tight time frame in that we only have 3 minutes.

So if you have a large number of questions you want to ask, you might have to cut off your opponent.

So let's talk about the evidence.

At one point when he was asked about what he had said, he said, I refer you back to the piece of evidence that I gave.

So I would think that in debate and in this kind of format, I know you are, but what am I is probably not a good argument.

Instead, they're pointing to debate evidence that they've gathered.

How does that evidence get gathered and what are they referring to?

Definitely evidence is really crucial in law debate.

So essentially the month or so before the actual debate on the topic happens.

Debaters will be preparing for this, although be researching on Google or even an academic journal is trying to find substantive evidence as to why their claims are true.

And they got a topic recently, right?

This is a new topic starting in March.

This is a new topic, correct?

Yeah.

Last year when you were debating, it was about open borders, resolve, justice requires open borders for human migration.

That's something we're still talking about today in the country.

In fact, across the world.

What these guys are dealing with is real world stuff.

Absolutely.

The topics of our debates are really key to the political debates happening in our country and beyond.

So do you wish the debates that are happening in our country were a little more like these?

Part of me definitely does.

It makes it a lot more simple when you're like moderated by time frames and you actually have to provide evidence.

When you talk about actually providing evidence, that means doing research.

That means doing the work.

Yes.

And when Brooke is ready, are you ready to go, Brooke?

Okay.

So we're going to suspend here.

We'll pick this up a little bit later.

But now is coming up is Brooke.

Yes.

And she is going to be delivering the negative, constructive.

And then for the judges, I paused that at 230.

Is everybody ready for the negative, constructive and the negative rebuttal to the affirmative case?

Great.

If everybody's good to go, I'll begin time on my first word.

I negates because the resolution asks us to examine what a government ought to do.

I value justice in today's debate, defined as giving each their dues the same as my opponents.

But the criterion in today's round ought to be minimizing societal suffering.

Prefer this criterion for the following two reasons.

First, minimizing suffering is a prerequisite for older human values and a society with high amounts of suffering.

Other human values cease to develop because humans with the desire to deliberate or uphold any values other than those directly concerning their immediate survival and well-being.

For instance, someone suffering a starvation might justify theft in order to reduce their suffering.

Second, just governments must act to the overall benefit of society.

As Bhullar, BYU explains that since public policy is never going to tradeoffs and inherently imply winners and losers, they must be to the overall advantage of society.

Thus, my first contention is these social safety nets.

Rehabilitation programs would be incredibly costly.

Draining government expenditures as prison inside 23 explains, the rehabilitation programs require government funding program expenses, paying salaries, expanding existing facilities, all overall representing a major capital expenditure with over 2 million inmates nationwide.

The article finalizes that the total annual cost for comprehend of rehabilitation programs could exceed $10 billion.

Dangerously, allocating resources to prison reform as a primary objective.

Results in trade offs.

Damaging social welfare programs.

In an analysis of a National Bureau of Economic Research Study, CO 13 details that empirically prison improvements come at the expense of welfare assistance and other government relief for those in poverty.

Statistically, there is a clear link that higher prison spending lead to less welfare spending.

This study examined 12 states where court rulings required sweeping prison reforms in those states or diminished welfare expenses that remained even once the reform orders were lifted.

That means increasing spending and corrections may take resources from where they're more important.

As the give and take between prison reform and welfare is self-evident, spending more money on one part of the budget leaves less money for other portions.

Hurting social welfare programs would be detrimental to societal well-being, increasing the suffering of the least well off of our nation.

As McCartney and Gertner, 23, explain that social safety net programs provide economic support to those facing financial hardship.

99 million people participated in social programs offered by the government in one year alone.

Additionally, slashes to government welfare programs would spike crime rates, funneling more Americans into the criminal justice system in the first place.

That's why Oxford University Press in 2022 finalizes that.

When we saw governments terminate cash, welfare benefits, the increasing number of criminal charges by 20%, seeing an increase in income generating crimes and making the annual likely of incarceration increase by 60%.

My second contention is unjust labor.

Rehabilitation programs often take place as dangerous physical labor as the Bureau of Justice Assistance explains.

The rehabilitation programs, such as the Prison Industry Enhancement Certification Program places people who are incarcerated in work environments, paid minimum wages and given chances to supposedly developed skills to increase their potential for rehabilitation.

While seemingly positive labor to rehabilitation is inherently unjust, coercing prisoners to partake in physical work and punishing those who don't.

Thus, a shift to rehabilitation programs would justify the continued and increased exploitation of the incarcerated, fueling the vicious cycle of harmful prison conditions.

As BURNETT, 22, explains that prison labor is rationalizes rehabilitation and notions of prison reform offer up labor forces short of working protections under the banner of rehabilitation.

This metric of rehabilitation programing exploits the underprivileged using moral improvement as a justification for horrific physical labor.

Lopez, 15, describes these conditions, finding that rehabilitation in the form of cheap prison labor is where tens of thousands of Americans are paid.

Far below the minimum wage, sometimes less than a dollar for an hour's work, and is seen as strictly exploitation.

Public private relationships with companies allow them to use inmates for physical labor.

And there are moral and ethical questions behind the practice when we implement a system like rehabilitation.

For these two reasons, I negate and move on to my opponents case, starting on their value criterion of preventing demonization.

They tell you that we should look to human dignity overall as the root foundation.

We agree on largely similar value criterion and that we should look to overall welfare in reducing things that Max tells you and cross such a suffering in society.

That means when you weigh under this framework, you look to the side that's best able to do that, which is inherently going to be the negative.

Then on their observations, they tell you that we have an equal burden as a principle and not a policy.

But remember that we still have to debate out the implementation of a government policy action.

We have to look to how implementing rehabilitation would shake out in the status quo because the resolution asks us to examine what the United States government ought to do for their primary objective, but secondly, tell you that we shall still punish people in a world of the affirmative.

But remember that we can still seek a balance of both in the affirmative.

To uniquely prove to you, White ought to be the primary objective above all.

You can go to their first contention where they tell you that we see incarcerated people in a lot of overcrowding and dehumanization conditions.

But as an overall response, we see that these dehumanizing conditions still happen in either world.

Remember that they pin down the problem overcrowding to you.

Instead, we would see more people funneled into the criminal justice system.

When we see incarceration increase in a world where we no longer have these welfare programs operating at their best efficiency.

That's the Oxford University evidence that tells you very clearly that incarceration increased by 60% in a world war.

We saw slashes to welfare programs, which means the problem is best solved by the negative.

But second, we see that we have in 21 tells you specifically the recidivism and repeat offending rates are already dropping fast.

That's because we've seen the drop considerably in the return to prison rate and people are less likely to return to prison in the past decade.

That's because we've seen specific changes in the behavior of the criminal justice system.

Investment in reentry programs and overall declining arrests for minor offenses.

That means when you look to specific arguments like their substance abuse disorder arguments and also their arguing about education, we see that the government is effectively rolling out programs for reentry and being able to reintegrate people into society without having to pursue rehabilitation as their primary objective.

That means we can have a balance of both, but that only comes in the negative world where we look to things like maintaining social welfare programs, but also very specifically that this evidence outlines that we are already shifting towards reentry programs in our current world to reintegrate criminals back into society in meaningful and effective ways without rehabilitation as our first objective.

But on their second contention, they tell you that we see recidivism dropping fast.

Remember that the idea of career crime or we see that recidivism is already dropping fast.

But on the idea of creating career criminals, we see that this still happens in either world.

They don't prove to you uniquely how they suffer the unsafe conditions of prisons for example, overcrowding will happen.

Whether or not you affirm or negate what you do.

You look to the world that's best able to reduce the number of people who enter the system in the first place.

But on the specific warranting of overall having drug abuse and seeing things like employment, we would say that overall Human Rights Watch 15 finds that the Bureau of Prisons sabotages substance abuse rehabilitation programs.

So affirming fails to actually do this effectively.

That's because whenever the government has tried to implement these programs towards certain prisons in the United States, we haven't seen them actually implement effective drug rehabilitation programs and people still struggle at the same rates, which means if you want to keep people out of the system to begin with, you negates.

But then this is also a hyper specific case of drug studies and education, which we can do in either world.

That doesn't mean that it has to have rehabilitation first.

But on their last contention, specifically looking at recidivism, we see that Bojo 21, tells you that looking at a meta analysis of the 30 best recidivism studies to date, there's no clear impact of rehabilitation because it fails to address the root social issues that put people in prisons in the first place.

That's why we would also see that we have to uphold things like these social welfare programs.

But finally, there are examples of other countries like Norway in dehumanizing issues won't be the same in the current world because the United States has fundamentally different government and country operating systems than the ones that they talk about, which means you're going to be negating and I'm ready for cross-examination.

Okay.

We're not ready.

Okay.

Let's begin.

Now let's talk about your criterion.

Why do people suffer?

Sure.

So we see that people suffer when there are different things that they like implement.

The government, for example, passes policies that mean foot suffering, which is why we should look to ways that we're best able to reduce them.

And we just can't find out.

How do we evaluate that?

We're minimizing suffering.

Is it like a societal level?

Is it individualized.

On a societal level?

But we see that includes looking to an individualized level because we have to make sure that the majority number of citizens are able to live a life that is overall flourishing and well-being.

As a government actor, we have the obligation to be.

Do okay, that's fine.

Let's move on to your contention.

One, let's talk about this funding point.

You say that the total cost would be $10 billion a year.

How much money does the U.S. spend every year.

On the prison system.

In general?

I don't offer specific 6 trillion.

Why can't the US spend $10 billion if they spend 6 trillion a year?

So if you look to 6 trillion, that's how the government spends.

Obviously, the government funds a lot of different sectors and a lot of different things that aren't specifically the prison system.

But when you look to the prison system and evaluate this debate in a vacuum of the prison system specifically, that is a significant part of money they do take away directly from social welfare programs that study that tells you even in the past, we've still seen those trade offs.

That's fine.

Well, let's look to the example of Norway, which I give you one case.

Sure.

Norway, we would agree, has great welfare programs and they also have rehabilitation.

As I talk about why can't the two co-exist if they literally.

Like I tell you at the end of my speech, a lot of different governments that you bring up, like Norway and Singapore, have fundamentally different like operating bases of how they actually function as a government than the U.S. does.

For example, Norway has a way smaller population than the United States does.

So when they fund something like a prison system, they don't have to put so many resources towards them.

Okay.

Also is the issue that the U.S. population is too large or what is it unique about the U.S. that Norway doesn't have or the U.S. can't allocate their budget without sacrificing lives?

Its population is a really big thing.

If the United States has 300 million people compared to Norway's much smaller country, that's obviously a worse issue.

But second, the specific analysis on the social welfare argument is that we've seen the United States empirically look to slashing welfare programs when they implemented prison reform court orders.

Okay.

So study.

So let's talk about the specific evidence.

So what what evidence tells us that specifically, if we increase funding towards rehabilitation, we must specifically cut from welfare.

So that's the Bureau of Economic Research Study.

That tells you specifically when we look to an empirical level, we've directly seen that when the court ordered prison reforms towards different states like California.

This is looking back in the past.

In the past, when we've looked at rehabilitation, it's led to drops in welfare.

We've seen yeah, we've seen direct trade offs.

So why would we assume that if we completely restructure our criminal justice system to instead prioritize rehabilitation, that the same thing would happen when we're operating under different system?

So it's a really simple link level that would just mean that we're spending more money on the criminal justice system, which means we're directly diverting resources to where the government has always looked to slash first, which is the social welfare programs, the states that's finally clean.

On your contention, too, you talk about how rehabilitation causes this forced labor.

Is that all rehabilitation or just one type?

Sure.

So that's an example of a rehabilitation program specifically.

But is it like every type of rehabilitation does that or like some.

Specific example of rehabilitation programs in the United States like the implement ones you talk about that forced people into you for the coerced labor rather than looking to more effective rehabilitation systems.

As time.

This was the 2024 High School Debate Championship at the City Club of Cleveland.

The citadel of free speech.

Brooke, come at you from Hawk in is negating and Max Zuckerman from Solon is affirming.

And Caitlyn I mentioned this last year, but you were too busy preparing for your next cross.

But I had some experience decades ago with high school debate at Saint Edward High School.

It was policy debate where you're part of a two man team at that time.

And Tom Lucas, you mentioned this earlier.

There was no Internet, our research involved and there was no cell phone.

Our research involved looking up magazines, Mother Jones magazines, all kinds of other sources, copying that out and putting it on cards.

Tell me how research goes today, the amount of work that goes into it and how you're able to get the evidence.

Definitely.

So I can say I actually use Mother Jones for this topic as well.

So by and large, the process is very similar other than it just happens online so often your research into the topic and start with a simple Google search, just understanding the background and the context behind the resolution, and then you'll start to dig a little deeper.

So understand what policies have been implemented in the past, what the effects of those have been, and then hopefully finding empirical evidence to support your positions, as we've seen our debaters do today.

How hours would you say you log doing something like that?

Too many.

So for a topic like this and these two debaters getting the information, what a month ahead of time is that when you know what the what the topic is going to be.

Correct about a month.

And so a month ahead of time, you get it during that month.

And by the way, the topic tonight, if you hadn't heard it at the beginning or today, if you hadn't heard it earlier, resolve the primary objective of the United States criminal justice system ought to be rehabilitation.

When you get that, your first step, you said, is to Google it.

You're not just taking a wiki entry and saying, okay, I'm done.

So what kind of work does it take to get to the point where you feel like you can even make an argument?

Yeah.

So for me, I always like to find studies where I can believe in the position.

So not necessarily that I agree with it, but that I agree with the validity of the study that I've seen an example in which the positions I'm advocating for have been proven true.

As soon as I can find that, then I start to feel a bit more comfortable.

So you can believe in the argument or believe in where it comes from, from both the positive and the negative.

That to me seems a little discordant.

How are you able to say yes, there should be rehabilitation or no, there shouldn't?

Definitely.

So the topics we debate in Lincoln-Douglas are really broad in that if you're negating, you don't necessarily have to say that rehabilitation is bad, but rather that it shouldn't be a primary objective.

Because of that, there's a lot of room within the topic that you don't necessarily have to resort to the common political talking points, but rather to find a point that you feel comfortable in defending.

Does it matter at all who your opponent is?

Do you do you know about their record?

You look that up.

Do you try to be specific to whatever their particular style is?

So in an average debate, you will not know who you're debating until you walk in the room with them.

So because of that, it's kind of hard to adapt once you see them, but you can start to adapt your strategy as you go into rebuttal.

If one person speaks faster, you might speak a little slower.

In this case, it's not a normal debate.

And so you do know who your opponent is.

Does that make any difference?

For some debaters?

It may.

They may know what the oh, what the voters may have done in the past and they may prep against that.

All right.

On the oh means that Max is ready.

Max, take it away.

Okay.

And we're now ready.

All right.

Oh, my phone.

All right, let's begin now.

We agree on justice.

So let's talk about the Criterion debate.

My opponent says that our criterias are similar.

I disagree.

They're not.

They don't give you any attacks on dehumanization.

So all three warrants stand on my opponent's side of the four three attacks.

First, they tell you that I asked my opponent, why do people suffer in cross examination?

And they say there is a lot of reasons.

What I tell you is that the root cause of suffering is dehumanization.

If we look at most moral atrocities, all genocides, all war crimes, etc., they happen because we dehumanize our opponents.

That's why people suffer, prefer mine because it's a prerequisite.

Then on the second point, if we look at the prerequisite point, this isn't a reason to value this as a criterion.

For instance, breathing is a prerequisite to being alive.

But that doesn't mean that breathing should be the criterion.

That would be ridiculous.

And third, the way we evaluate this is on a societal plane rather than individuals.

My opponent says that we look at the majority this is literally dehumanizing people because we're reducing people to a statistic.

We're saying, okay, 10 million people were saved this year.

That's reducing people to a statistic, their numbers in a machine.

My opponent is literally dehumanizing these people with her own impacts.

Let's move on to the contention one on the social safety net.

First on the funding point for overview responses.

First, the U.S. has the strongest economy in the world.

If other countries like Norway can afford rehabilitation, then we can too.

Second, human dignity will always triumph over any monetary gain.

Third, San José finds that that rehabilitation reduces the financial burden on offenders and criminals, ensuring that they do not go into poverty.

This not only promotes the rights of individuals, but boosts the national economy.

And fourth, the Department of Justice finds that it's cost effective to have rehabilitation programs in correctional facilities.

Economic prosperity occurs from rehabilitation because job training and literacy training promote economic stimulation.

On some specifics, on the $10 billion a year card.

That's ridiculous because the U.S. spends 6 trillion a year.

So there is no reason why we can't allocate some of the budget without kind of cutting the social safety net.

Norway is a living example of how it's possible to have both.

It's not necessary to have this tradeoff, as my opponent makes it out to be.

So the impacts don't actually occur under the contention to about unjust forced labor.

A few overview responses.

First and most importantly, turn this argument as NPR finds that the Constitution bans slavery except as punishment for crime.

Forced labor is literally happening right now in the negative world.

If anything, it's exacerbated.

Second, turn this argument again.

Look at the binary evidence that I give you.

One case which goes on responded to which finds that the current system disqualifies criminals from jobs, entrenching the dehumanizing crime cycle.

Third, the F word solves this issue as both the doll evidence and the winning evidence find that internationally rehabilitation leads to increased job opportunities preventing dehumanization.

On some specifics, my opponent's entire quarantine here talks about specific rehab labor coercion programs.

That's not all.

Rehabilitations work, too.

For example, a knife.

A knife can be used to stab someone, but it can also be used to cut bread.

My opponent is cherry picking this one specific example of rehabilitation and saying that the entire system is unjust as a result.

You can't let them over generalize this.

Let's move on to my side of the fold on my on my contention one my opponent just cross applies her welfare contention saying that we actually funnel more more criminals into the system with welfare.

Look to my responses there.

Then they say that my examples of the Institute of Drug Abuse and the Bender card are specific and they happen in either world.

It's not specific because the zouk is 14 evidence the solvency goes dropped, which tells you that we need an internal revision to take place, which only happens in the affirmative world to solve anything on the contention too, on the point about career crime.

My opponent says that career criminals are in the affirmative because the affirmative doesn't solve.

My opponent drops the Smith nine evidence in the contention three, which tells you that over two decades of studies, hundreds of studies tell you that rehab reduces recidivism.

They give you one single card.

I give you hundreds of studies, prefer my evidence.

Then they tell you this Human Rights Watch point about how drug abuse programs are sabotaged.

This is because we're not focused on on the rehabilitation program right now.

This is coming from the status quo.

If we work to fundamentally revise our program, then we actually get the impacts that I talk about, the impacts the Banaji card goes dropped, which tells you that all of these negative impacts such as incarceration, crime, disqualifying from housing, voting and jobs happen in the negative and they're soft in the affirmative under the contention.

Three, they give you one response here.

The one point about how recidivism is dropping because of investments.

If that's true, then this turns my opponent's entire contention.

One, because investing into the prison system through rehabilitation drops recidivism.

And yet my opponent tells you that it actually corrupts welfare for them to pick a side because there's no actual clear link there.

The foot evidence and the evidence still stand.

Thus I affirm.

2024 High School Debate Championship.

We just heard the first affirmative rebuttal.

Now there's some prep time that Brooke has when she then presents her negative rebuttal.

I asked this question last year, Katelyn of Ella Jewell, who is the commentator here with me from Kinston High School.

She was a 22 2022 high school debate champion.

And I asked her, do you have a preference for which side?

And she said she likes the negative because there was a little bit more room for her to make her arguments.

Do you care or is there a side you like better?

If the coin was flipped, would you pick one or is it based on the topic?

My opinion definitely changes every round.

There's no clear advantage to either side in that the affirmative has the advantage of speaking first and last, and the negative has the advantage of speaking for longer.

So depending on the round and how it goes down, you may prefer one side or the other.

I can say last year at this debate I spent maybe a good 10 minutes picking which side because I just couldn't decide.

Did you win the coin flip?

I did.

And you picked the negative.

Negative?

Well, we have coaches that are here today.

Trina Castro and Mat Hill are here from Solon High School and we have Robert shirts and Eva Lamberson from Hawkins School.

First of all, let's hear it for them, for the coaches and all the coaches here.

Can you can you tell me, Caitlin, a little bit about what role coaches play in this process?

Or are they just like hyping you up to do a great job?

Or are they basically like X's and O's telling you how to how to get it done?

Yeah.

So coaching is absolutely fundamental.

So speech and debate.

I'm lucky that my coaches are here as well.

Rich Carlisle Because he's currently judging as well as Rachel Rothchild.

I would be absolutely nowhere without them.

Awesome.

All right.

Brooke is ready.

Okay, so this is the second negative rebuttal.

The order of my speech is going to be going down the affirmative and responding to some things on my opponent side of the floor and then going down the negative.

Is that where to work for everybody?

Is everybody ready?

Perfect.

I'll begin time on my first word, starting with both the frameworks my opponent first tell you that are like value criteria and are different in the fact that I don't place any specific attacks on the warrants.

But remember that in Cross Mack's tells you himself that we're still looking to things like decreasing suffering in either world.

That means upholding respect for humans, which ultimately collapses to my framework of looking to ways we're best able to reduce suffering.

Then they tell you that the root cause of suffering is dehumanization.

Remember that we only respect people as humans.

We look to their innate worth by reducing the suffering that's imposed on them.

That means when we debate a government action, we have to look to the way that the government is best able to evaluate tradeoffs and policies by implanting things for the overall well-being of society.

Don't let them overcomplicate this framework to you.

It's really simple, and it's our government operates and that's really effective in either world.

But then they tell you that it shouldn't be pure because it to minimize suffering and reduces people's statistics.

But it's not purely a numbers game.

We aren't looking to whether or not 60% are doing well and 40% or we're looking to when we pass policies.

The most amount of people who are numbers, who are able to benefit is overall what we do as a government.

That means we're not specifically looking to these like harsh number lines that they try to draw to you, but ways that we're able to best promote societal welfare.

It's a very simple framework.

Don't let them change that for you.

But I would still win under the dehumanization framework and you'll still be negating, but go over to the affirmative.

Specifically, they tell you on their first contention that the reason why we still do increase drug treatment because not enough in the status quo.

Remember the evidence that tells you that we can still increase these things and have specific programs like drugs and drug treatment without having to look to rehabilitation as a main system, they still fail to prove to you why it has to be the primary objective, and we can't pursue it as a secondary objective.

Now, the balance of the both worlds where we aren't diverting all of our resources towards this, but then they tell you that the status quo is rejecting these drug programs because of our current system in the way it operates.

But the Human Rights Watch evidence is really specific in telling you that a lot of the times the prison to implement these drug rehabilitation programs don't actually see it work effectively because we overlook overall look to massive court orders.

The Bureau of Prisons sabotages these things and doesn't look in ways that they're able to best agree and uphold these policies.

That means when you affirm we're still going to see ineffective policies in the rehabilitation system in either world, and they can't prove to you why the implementation now would uniquely be effective.

But then they give you a couple of examples and repeat these things about Norway and Singapore and other countries.

Remember where I tell you that the United States is comprised of over 300 million people.

Norway's a significantly smaller country.

Make them prove to you by implementing a system in a way, way smaller country on a different continent which shake out the exact same in the negative world in the United States, the answer is that they can't prove that to you because we would be highly ineffective in the United States and the implementation would uniquely fail for the reasons I offer you in the negative case.

And I'll explain further.

But then their second contention, they tell you that it reduces risk, fit incentives.

I mean, they give you a hundred studies, but the evidence is you really specific many analysis that actually looks derivatives, recidivism studies as a whole and tells you that these things don't actually decrease recidivism rates when we implement rehabilitation.

That's because it fails to look at the unique social issues and socioeconomic factors that funnel people into the criminal justice system in the first place.

To begin with.

That means you wouldn't engage to actually address these factors.

We will still see people being put into prison in high rates in the affirmative world because we aren't solving for the facts as to why people actually get into the prison systems in the first place.

The only way you can do that is with a negative ballot.

Remember that Knox agrees himself in Cross that the reason why people get put into the system is because of background social factors.

The only way you solve for that is by negating.

But then they tell you specifically that we see that the recidivism investments, if they're already happening, I have to pick a side in the debate, but they misconstrue what the evidence actually tells you.

It tells you that it's investing outside of the prison system to reentry programs.

That means once people leave prison, they are placed in reentry programs that operate outside of the criminal justice system to reintegrate people into society in effective ways.

Make them prove to you why this isn't effective and b, why we wouldn't be able to implement this in a world where we don't have to pursue rehabilitation as the primary objective.

Remember, they do not give you specific warrants as to why it has to be our first objective, which means you can look to a balance of both worlds, which only happens in the negative worlds.

But then we would say that the evidence is still really specific in telling you that recidivism doesn't actually decrease because we see that they don't focus on these root social issues.

The one key piece of evidence that Max fails to respond to in his last rebuttal is the fact that these social welfare programs make the likelihood when they're terminated increase the likelihood of incarceration by 60%.

That is a very high number.

That tells you directly when we see trade offs with these social welfare programs, we see decreases in the way that are, increases in the way that the government criminal justice system operates and more people incarcerated and more people funneled into the system.

But finally, they still try to extend these issues of dehumanization.

Remember that the issues of overcrowding and making people, career criminals still happen.

They just tell you, no, it's better.

And the world is rebuilt.

Haitian, but failed to tell you why.

I'll tell you right now that overcrowding is still going to happen unless we look to actually keeping people out of the prison system.

Would you do by negating but you're going to move over to the negative where you can still place your ballot very easily?

On my first contention of tradeoff, which is the first place you can vote in today's round, which is looking to social backgrounds, they tell you that it's like we have the strongest economy globally, but that doesn't mean we don't still have tradeoffs when we pass policies.

The U.S. government has to make policy decisions all the time, and they still have to look to ways where they're able to cut back funding, to increase funding in other sectors.

They tell you that it's still very cost effective because it solves for things like employment.

But remember that the bullet evidence is really specific in analyzing that even after we made the money back to these prison reforms programs, those slashes were permanent.

That's because they already took away the funding and didn't put it back into the system, which means these are near permanent damages to these social welfare programs in the status quo.

You try to overcomplicate this for you and tell you that the United States spent $6 trillion each year.

Remember that the more we add to this budget, we are gradually slashing these social welfare programs that are really effective in decreasing the criminal justice and incarceration rate by 60%.

That is a heavy statistic that my opponent cannot fail to provide you how much recidivism even changes by.

But finally, we would see that the only empirical study in this round that tells you what happened when we looked at prison reform in the past is my evidence on the national bureau Economic Research that says in 12 states we saw prison reform court orders, we saw direct slashes to these social welfare programs.

Finally, they tell you, I'm in labor contention that it's a cherry picked example, but we would say that it expands in the affirmative world because we actually looked at these specific programs of rehabilitation expanding.

But either way, you can vote very soundly on this social welfare contention.

That's 99 million people who rely these programs and 99 million reasons for you to negate.

You're listening.

In the 2024 high school debate championship, we now have a little bit of preparation time for the second affirmative rebuttal that Max will deliver and in that time, I wanted to ask you, Caitlin, when the Cavaliers, Max Drew made a three quarter point three shot basket to win a game, he knew as soon as it left his hand it was going to be nothing but net.

I wonder if you have any of those kinds of senses when you're in a debate that you've just won it with this shot.

So I'm sure there's definitely some debaters who feel that way.

I am definitely not one of them.

So you'll hear the debaters give what I call key voting issues of reasons as to why they thought they won the debate.

Now, of course, both debaters will have these.

And if you're like me, you're always thinking about the opponents.

Way to win.

Let's talk a little bit about strategy.

If you're listening on the radio on WKSU, you'll be watching on television.

These guys are going, if you were listening to a podcast, it would be like one and a half or two times speed.

They're not going so fast.

You can't hear them.

But it's also not casual speech.

There's a reason for that.

They've got to get this information in.

The judges aren't necessarily listening for style.

They're listening for points.

Absolutely.

So you may have heard the debaters reference the flow.

This references all of the points that debaters have made.

And it's really crucial the debaters.

Don't forget to mention a point.

Max appears to be ready up on the stage.

All right.

Go ahead, Max.

Okay.

When not ready.

Okay.

Let's begin now for the last time.

Let's make it very clear the difference between minimizing, suffering and dehumanization.

My opponent says that we agreed in cross cross-examination that we're looking at suffering in general.

I very clearly said that that's part of it, but that's not all of dehumanization.

Then my opponent says that we look at the overall well-being and in cross examination they say that in general we try to benefit the majority.

But if we're looking at the majority, we're boiling real human beings down to 51% versus 49%.

We're not treating people face to face on an individual plane under this framework.

We're not actually preventing dehumanization by minimizing suffering.

We do it the other way around preventing dehumanization, minimize the suffering, not vice versa.

Then they say that it's not just a numbers game because we try to help them most and we try to give them most the benefit.

But that's literally a numbers game.

They contradict themselves.

They're on some specifics on the key voters first and most importantly, this idea of dehumanization.

What if my opponent's biggest points in this past in this past round has been that we funnel more people into the prison system because of welfare and yet a few points go dropped onto the welfare point first.

And most importantly, the Department of Justice tells you that it's cost effective to have rehabilitation programs in correctional facilities.

They tell you that this funding wasn't actually put back into the program.

The problem is because our current system isn't structured to prioritize rehabilitation, obviously it won't go back into the program if the program prioritized as punishment, which all of my evidence, especially Smith Online, tells you that it's a bad thing to do.

Obviously it's not put back into rehabilitation because we don't prioritize rehabilitation in the affirmative.

This would never have happened.

Then they tell you about Norway.

They tell you that we have different governments and they tell you that I never give you a reason to believe that this would be cross applied in the U.S..

I give you three different reasons why we should classify this.

First, they say of for evidence.

Who tells you that in the U.S., rehabilitation programs have led to recidivism going down by 2.5% and by four times four for incarcerated mothers.

Then the Smith evidence telling you that hundreds of studies find that rehab reduces recidivism.

And then finally in cross-examination, I tell you that the North Dakota and Oklahoma implemented Norway's policies and it literally worked per watt, say Scavo and Smith tell you all three of these go dropped.

So yes, we can use the doll and the wing evidence in today's debate.

Then on some more specifics.

The second key voter issue is going to be this point about welfare and costs.

My opponent says that we have this 60% chance of incarceration if welfare goes down, but they miss the point that welfare doesn't necessarily have to go down if literally see examples of Norway, of Singapore, of in the status quo, how rehabilitation causes recidivism rates to go down without great cuts to welfare.

We literally see it happening elsewhere.

So there's no reason to prove that this will happen in the United States.

The third point, the third key voter is going to be this idea of labor.

My opponent extends this contention with 10 seconds left on the clock.

They don't respond to any of my three responses.

Let's look at them really quick.

First and most importantly, the NPR tells us that we literally have slavery as a result of punishment in prisons.

Right now, this issue is worse in the negative, and it's in the affirmative.

Then the Banaji, the doll and the wing evidence all turn this by telling you that the current system disqualifies criminals for jobs and entrenches the dehumanizing cycle of crime.

Whereas the solvency per dollar and wing tell us that internationally and domestically rehabilitation leads to increased job opportunities preventing dehumanization.

There's no reason to believe that the economy will collapse.

If anything, we help more under either framework in the affirmative.

Thank you.

Okay.

Congratulations, Brooke and Max.

That was an incredible debate.

Please join me in giving them both a round of applause.

Again, my name is Dan Waltrip.

I'm the chief executive here at the City Club.

And while our judges are finishing.

Their final tallies and we prepare the.

Awards, I want to just take.

A moment to to once again, thank our our partners at Baker Hostetler.

Who who help us put this on every year.

In memory of Pat Jordan.

Thank you so much for being a part of this today.

And every year.

We really appreciate your support.

Thank you so much.

And I also want to ask both of you a few questions.

If we if we can do this sort of sideline conversation.

You both seemed extremely passionate.

And I've watched these debates now for 11 years or so.

And you seem a bit more passionate, both of you.

About this issue than than.

Some other topics in.

Previous years.

Brooke, I was wondering, is this a particularly important issue to you or did.

You feel more passionate about this.

Than you feel about other things?

You've debated other.

Topics, I would say not specifically.

I think that it's definitely a really interesting topic because going into it, a lot of people thought there is a very large skew to the affirmative because rehabilitation does sound great.

But after doing some more research, I ended up really liking the negative side, so I'm happy.

That's what I ended up with in this debate.

It's really interesting to look at like the implementation, but I think like I enjoy all topics on pretty much the same level.

I just really like getting into the deeper research on this topic, sort of looking at how the implementation of things actually work in our system.

Tom Lucas, you, Baker.

Hostetler is going to help us to announce the winner of the 2024.

High school debate Championship.

Okay.

Today's winner is Max Zuckerman Solon High School.

Yeah.

Which would make a runner up or a runner up is.

Brooke him at you?

Congratulations to both of our competitors.

Congratulations to the schools once again.

Thank you to Baker Hostetler for your support of City Club programing.

Thank you all so much.

Have a wonderful weekend.

Our forum is now adjourned.

Don't do this one.

Good job.

For information on upcoming speakers or for.

Podcasts of the City Club, go to City Club dot org.

Production and distribution of City Club forums and ideastream public media are made possible by PNC and the United Black Fund of Greater Cleveland, Inc..