| ... |
... |
@@ -1,0
+1,22 @@ |
|
1 |
+==1 – T == |
|
2 |
+Interpretation: The affirmative may only defend the that the United States extends housing assistance for homeless people |
|
3 |
+ |
|
4 |
+ |
|
5 |
+====A right to housing refers to a policy targeted exclusively towards the homeless, not everybody. The affirmative may only defend house creation/affordability for the homeless. Morris 10==== |
|
6 |
+ |
|
7 |
+Morris, 2010 ACADEMIC JOURNAL ARTICLE - Journal of Australian Political Economy, The Lack of a Right to Housing and Its Implications in Australia, By Morris, Alan, VOLUME/ISSUE: No. 65, PUBLICATION DATE: Winter 2010, |
|
8 |
+These advances in the sphere |
|
9 |
+AND |
|
10 |
+and focuses mainly on homelessness. |
|
11 |
+ |
|
12 |
+Extra – T spikes out of NEG links |
|
13 |
+ |
|
14 |
+====Legal precisions outweighs limits and ground —- it's a prerequisite to effective policy education. Shannon.==== |
|
15 |
+**Shannon 2** – Bradley Shannon, law at University of Idaho, January 2002 (Washington Law Review, 77 Wash. L. Rev. 65, Lexis |
|
16 |
+The second answer to the question why we should care about the use of proper |
|
17 |
+AND |
|
18 |
+** and, consequently, the progress - of the law.** |
|
19 |
+ |
|
20 |
+Predictability |
|
21 |
+ |
|
22 |
+Limits |