• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
COLUMBUS HIGH SCHOOL- 1 -Topicality2005-2006
INDEXResolved: The United States federal government should substantially decrease itsauthority either to detain without charge or to search without probable cause.
SPEC- ArgumentsASPEC…………2ESPEC…………3-6OSPEC………….7Extra Topicality Shell….8Effects Topicality Shell….9Resolved…10USFG…11Substantially….12Decrease means already in existence….13Authority= law….14Authority is not law….15“Its authority”….16Either means one or other…17Either means both…18Or…19Detain without charge…20Detain…21Probable cause…22Probable cause (brown v state)….23
 
COLUMBUS HIGH SCHOOL- 2 -Topicality2005-2006
ASPEC
A. InterpretationThe affirmative must specify an agent of action in their plan text.B. Violation:The plan only says “United States Federal Government”C.That's Abusive because :1.
 Decreased ground 
- it destroys negative strategies like agent CP which are key tonegative ground2.
 Kills education
- we can't learn about how policies are actually implemented or debateabout implementation.3.
2AC clarification is abusive
- the neg sets up the strat to the original lAC plan text – clarification in the 2AC makes them a moving target and destroys competitive equity4.
Specification is key to all negative ground 
.
Implementation is 90% of determining whether plan is a desired actionElmore, 1980
, Professor of public affairs at the University of Washington, (Politicalscience quarterly, pg. 605)Analysis of policy choices matters very little if the mechanism for implementing thosechoices is poorly understood. In answering: the question. "What percentage of the work of achieving a desired governmental action is done when the preferred analyticalternative has been identified?" Allison estimated that in the normal case, it was about 10 percent, leaving the remaining 90 percent in the realm of implementation.D. Voter – vote them down for reasons of fairness, education, and competition
 
COLUMBUS HIGH SCHOOL- 3 -Topicality2005-2006
E-SPECShell
A.They don’t specify enforcement in their plan.B.It’s bad:1.Ground loss – Without enforcement specified we don’t get specific links to DAs,Ks, or on-case arguments because 90% of the plan is in the implementation.Richard Elmore (public affairs at University of Washington), Polisci Quarterly,Volume 94, Number 4, Page 605, 1980:The emergence of implementation as a subject for policy analysiscoincides closely with the discovery by policy analysts that decisions are not self-executing. Analysis of the policy choices matters very little if the mechanisms for implementing those choices is poorly understood. In answering the question,“What percentage of the work of achieving a desired governmental action is donewhen the preferred analytic alternative has been identified?” Allison estimatedthat, in the normal case, it was about 10 percent, leaving the remaining 90 percentin the realm of implementation.2.They’re just fiating it. If they refuse to tell us what happens if someone doesn’tobey the plan, it gives us the same ground as if we simply assumed the plansolves. That destroys negative ground because we can’t make solvencyarguments, so our strategy has to be based on impact turns. We’ll always loseagainst some cases (racism, for example), or will have to run sneaky CPs.3.They don’t justify the resolution. They assume everyone in the US complies withtheir plan as a precondition to it being solvent. It’s not only extra topical (provingthe resolution is insufficient because action by the federal government isn’tenough) and it’s very unpredictable for the negative.D.It’s a voter 1.They don’t affirm the resolution – they prove that it alone is not enough.2.It deprives us of much negative ground and forces us into crazy strategies. Welose case arguments because we don’t even know what the plan does, andnegative ground is crucial to both fairness and education.
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...