Jump to content

Recommended Posts

In a lot of ISpec, Aspec procedurals, the shell includes the infamous Elmore in '80.

 

I understand that this is a poorly cut card, that in the rest of the article goes on to say that complete specification is necessary, so on and so forth.

 

Does anyone have a cutting, where it talks about the crazy specification requirements? Or perhaps a link to the full article?

 

-Nick

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No no, I'm not using this for the Aff side. I absolutely despise Spec arguments. I just wanted the card, so I could make people who run it look silly.

 

I am out to perserve what is "left of debate".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elmore, Prof. Public Affairs at University of Washington, PolySci Quarterly 79-80, p. 605, 1980

 

The emergence of implementation as a subject for policy analysis coincides closely with the discovery by policy analysts that decisions are not self-executing. Analysis of policy choices matter very little if the mechanism for implementing those choices is poorly understood in answering the question, "What percentage of the work of achieving a desired governmental action is done when the preferred analytic alternative 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

uhh... you dont need more than that. that version of the way the card is cut is more than sufficient to explain why elmore's evidence doesnt support neg hypothesis of agent etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have that cutting, but I was under the impression that Elmore went on to say TOTAL specification was necessary, rather than just the agent. Etc.

 

The Elmore card doesn't really go on to say that total specification is necessary like the card above says he's specfic to certain aspects of implementation. If you want to learn more about the Elmore article go to the U of C debate cite and look at the Espec file, I've tried looking for it on things like lexis to no avail. The file contains somemore Elmore cards that might help you find whatever your looking for. Also, I think that if you look at that card posted above the warrants are pretty clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that card there doesnt support the hypothesis that one must spec agent. or methods of implementation. it fails to specify either let alone anything. thus, any argument which can be conceived as a means of implementation, whether is enforcement, agent, funding sources anything... the card demands it. this portion of the elmore card doesnt exclude the possibility of A to Z spec. and neither does the rest of the article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that card there doesnt support the hypothesis that one must spec agent. or methods of implementation. it fails to specify either let alone anything. thus, any argument which can be conceived as a means of implementation, whether is enforcement, agent, funding sources anything... the card demands it. this portion of the elmore card doesnt exclude the possibility of A to Z spec. and neither does the rest of the article.

 

I'd argue depending on what specification I'm defending that the warrants like "decisions are not self-executing" and "poorly understood " all articulate the argument. Moreover, it says specifically that "Allison estimated that in the normal case, it was about 10 percent, leaving the remaining 90 percent in the realm of implementation," I don't know how any other conclusion besides specifity of certain aspects of implementation can be concluded. Specfifty allows us to access that ground and implementation education. Moreover, it's just a card to support our interp from a qualified person, which the aff/neg has nothing to way against, just defense. Also, not everything is a means of implementation the article is very specific on this point when it refers to what is necessary for policy work- read the above paragraph of what implementation he is talking about and as a whole what Elmore is talking about in the article. Lastly, simple put, not everything constitutes implementation I think there are good arguments for why what senators voted for the plan, what subcommite the plan went through, or things of that nature are not critical aspects of implementation-- if really implementation of plan at all. Also, weren't we supposed to be having this conversation via email, it's ok though, I understand that everyone's busy and on break now: so don't worry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd argue depending on what specification I'm defending that the warrants like "decisions are not self-executing" and "poorly understood " all articulate the argument. Moreover, it says specifically that "Allison estimated that in the normal case, it was about 10 percent, leaving the remaining 90 percent in the realm of implementation," I don't know how any other conclusion besides specifity of certain aspects of implementation can be concluded. Specfifty allows us to access that ground and implementation education. Moreover, it's just a card to support our interp from a qualified person, which the aff/neg has nothing to way against, just defense. Also, not everything is a means of implementation the article is very specific on this point when it refers to what is necessary for policy work- read the above paragraph of what implementation he is talking about and as a whole what Elmore is talking about in the article. Lastly, simple put, not everything constitutes implementation I think there are good arguments for why what senators voted for the plan, what subcommite the plan went through, or things of that nature are not critical aspects of implementation-- if really implementation of plan at all. Also, weren't we supposed to be having this conversation via email, it's ok though, I understand that everyone's busy and on break now: so don't worry.
That's stupid. Argue your specs (if you must) without using the Elmore card.

Elmore only mentions "implementation" specifically in this piece of evidence, putting you in a ridiculously obvious double-bind: (a) Elmore's theory doesn't refer to "agency of action," "funding" or any other source of specification arguments, meaning you lose any sort of ground loss analysis and the card becomes effectively worthless because it doesn't talk about ground loss anyways; or (B) you claim Elmore's ideas are inclusive of your specific specification position, meaning if you win the weight of Elmore, the aff is forced to specify everything defined by the word "implementation," winning them 100% loss of ground because they have to write a goddamned congressional bill and read it all in the 1AC, killing policy analysis and thus education.

Keep talking if you think Elmore's in any way justified. I'm dying to remove that card from debate as a whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's stupid. Argue your specs (if you must) without using the Elmore card.

Elmore only mentions "implementation" specifically in this piece of evidence, putting you in a ridiculously obvious double-bind: (a) Elmore's theory doesn't refer to "agency of action," "funding" or any other source of specification arguments, meaning you lose any sort of ground loss analysis and the card becomes effectively worthless because it doesn't talk about ground loss anyways; or (B) you claim Elmore's ideas are inclusive of your specific specification position, meaning if you win the weight of Elmore, the aff is forced to specify everything defined by the word "implementation," winning them 100% loss of ground because they have to write a goddamned congressional bill and read it all in the 1AC, killing policy analysis and thus education. Keep talking if you think Elmore's in any way justified. I'm dying to remove that card from debate as a whole.

 

Lol, ok.. I'll keep talking ;)

 

I don't think your double-bind argument is accurate off the a) how do we not lose any ground ? That doesn't make sense, it says that 90% of policy propasels is in the realm of implementation. That's ground the negative could have to attack the aff policy, the fact that he doesn't mention "you lose ground" spefically is irrevelant to the fact that he says that is what intailed in a policy. If we win that agent or funding or whaever is implementation ground we access that 90% that the aff/neg team hinders. off the B) you may go for this argument but it's just infinettly regressive which a good spec team is ready for. 2nd, don't throw debate jargon around half hazardly: " winning them 100% loss of ground" is not the impact to articulate you were right later on though when you said loss in education and predicablity because since they don't know what the neg will ask them they will spec everything. But more on the point like I said I think there are good arguments for why what congressional actors voted for the plan and such are not only not the implementation that Elmore is talking about if implementation at all. Also, i think the impact to your arguments are emperically denied I mean there used to be coherent specified plan text that didn't take 5 minutes of the 1AC years back. Not only that but when teams win that certain things are key aspects of implementation i.e agent or funding or whatever the losing team just adds that policy plank to the plan text you never see them specifing more. Lastly off of your dying to remove Elmore from debate hey... I'm dying to remove Rorty, but we all don't get what we want-- some things are just here to stay ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Elmore evidence is useful in debate rounds, but not as spec evidence. Really though, it has nothing to do with A-Spec. At all. Elsewhere in the article, he goes into what implementation means a bit more, but not much really. Get the E-Spec file from U of Chi, it'll give you an idea of ways you could possibly use it. Really though, aff or neg, this card shouldn't come up in a spec debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think your double-bind argument is accurate off the a) how do we not lose any ground ? That doesn't make sense, it says that 90% of policy propasels is in the realm of implementation.

You're missing the point, despite the fact that you're concisely stating it. Elmore says that 90% of policy is "implementation." But what exactly is "implementation?" He never says and there's no specific indication of what issues would be included in implementation. This means two things, specifically:

1. You have no authoritative evidence that agent of action (or whatever issue you're arguing) is within the realm of "implementation." This means you can't prove any specific connection between Elmore's analysis and the debate round.

2. You have no ground loss analysis. You must concede that while agency may be a portion of "implementation," it is nowhere close to 100% of the process of implementation--in fact, it's probably a small part of the implementation process. The lack of specific reference to "agency" or "funding" means you lose any value that this evidence has. The "90%" mentioned applies only to implementation, meaning you get ZERO analysis as to what ground you've lost.

So why read the damned card if it's getting you nothing?

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...

×
×
  • Create New...