Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
CYoungner_1A_1N

Best Answers to ESPEC

Recommended Posts

Im wondering if anyone knows of some carded answers to E Spec-as far as like about what implementation or enforcement actually means or about policy making

 

also, what do you think are some of the better analytics to make here besides counter interping and answering ground loss/predictability/education.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont think that answers it tho, i mean, thats the argument you can and probably should make that fiat assumes implementation, but i want arguments beyond that i guess, besides the whole counter interp. counter standards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

almost certainly, the shell includes the use of elmore. simply point out that the negative interp does not match the warrants of elmore. elmore demands a great deal more than simply the agent of enforcement or the means of enforcement. therefore the negative's own interp is not based on an analytically justified argument and merits no evaluation whatosever.

 

furthermore, the negative's selection of enforcement as the key division of ground in the round based on elmore is arbitrarily selected and subject to immediate and unforeseen change by the negative, no different than the fluctuating means of enforcement supposed by the affirmative plan text. if the merits of e-spec shell are upheld by the negative, they must simultaneously apply to the shell itself, just as a critique which links to the alternative sinks the critique.

 

lastly, the use of fiat is correct. see previous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The type of implementation that Elmore is talking about isn't practical in the policy debate. He's talking about how congressional legislation has to specify implementation, cuz when the congress makes blanket policies without enforcement measures (NCLB is a prime example), they don't get enforced and don't work.

 

Even the fastest of debaters couldn't rattle off an entire legislative bill in real life in 8 minutes. The implementation that Elmore is talking about never fits into the way that debate rounds are established.

 

Normal means answers this question, though. Normal means says that however they currently enforce policies is how they enforce this one. Normal means, even if you can't explain it, is always the best interpretation of enforcement because 1) It's more practical - it's asinine to change the way policy is implemented just to dodge offense in the debate round, 2) Provides the best education - normal means means that we debate about enforcement measures actually published now - access to literature allows predictable debates that yield good education of policy enforcement, and 3) Provides the most ground. All of the DA's the neg has assumes a normal means enforcement by the advocates of the plan in the first place.

 

Elmore's warrants are answered via normal means - explain what it is folks. It's not hard to go to, like, the Senior Corps website and see how they enforce their policies.

 

However, I will disagree with Ankur. Fiat doesn't get you the assumption that local branched offices of the government enforce plan. Fiat only assumes that Congress passes - to assume otherwise essentially fiats away problems with any policies, such as beauacratic issues, lack of enforcement at local levels (you can't just fiat that cops wouldn't be racist so that civil liberties topic plantexts work, for instance), etc. Fiat assumes plan passes - normal means empirically is how they're enforced, which one can logically come to the conclusion that it's empirically considered the best model of enforcement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An argument I've always found useful against this Elmore evidnece (since it's being discussed here) is that his claims are descriptive rather than predictive or prescriptive. He's just highlighting the importance of enforcement through some ridiculously large percentage that lacks factual basis. He isn't saying that the specifics are needed to discuss an action's desirability. It doesn't impact what happens without SPECIFICATION. Also, I echo Ankur above a little but rather that he's discussing the mechanisms of governmental function. No debate could (or probably even should) get down to the micro-level discussion that would satisfy his thirst for policy wonkish information.

 

Also, I have found "Harms education more important than solvency education" is a good argument to tack onto to some counterinterp or some other piece of offense to use as a tie-breaker. This is especially useful for K affs looking to get off of the procedural flows as fast as possible while leveraging their impacts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...