Summary

• Objects (0 modified, 0 added, 1 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[13]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[13]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,24 +1,0 @@
1		-====A Interpretation: the aff must specify the actor or group of actors that implements the aff advocacy in a delineated text in the AC.====
2		-====B Violation: this isn’t specified in the AC.====
3		-====C The standard is weighing ground: generalized debate about without agent spec is impossible.====
4		-A different actors have different obligations-
5		-B effects of the aff policy change
6		-
7		-====C) 90 of the plan is the procedure of implementation====
8		-**Elmore ‘80**, Professor of Public Affairs at University of Michigan, Polysci Quarterly Pages 79-80
9		-Analysis of Policy choices matters very little if the mechanism for implementing those choices is poorly understood. In the Normal Case, it was about 10, leaving 90 in the realm of Implementation.
10		-
11		-====That’s a substantive reason to vote neg- plan in the abstract as you defend it is impossible to implement or even happen which means only the status quo can have value.====
12		-
13		-====Three impacts to weighing ground:====
14		-A Debatability
15		-B Stable advocacy
16		-====C Policy education agent spec is key to nuanced debates over the merits of the aff policy.====
17		-**Cheshier** David M. (Assistant Professor of Communications and Director of Debate at Georgia State University) "Debating Agent Specification" The Edge
18		-Defenders of agent specification claim that permitting detailed designation of the part of the government which will implement the plan makes for better comparison. When the affirmative specifies the Bureau of Prisons as their implementing agent, debate is instantly made more concrete and focused on the benefits and consequences of certain action. And of course there is often a rich literature assessing the relative merits of this agency over that when it comes to mental health or oceans policy. Such literatures range from discussion of the respective costs of regulatory action as opposed to judicial enforcement to very detailed discussions about the problems likely to arise when one agency or an another undertakes enforcement actions in the area of the plan’s mandates. Whole academic disciplines concentrate their energies on the mechanics of regulatory process, and so no one should be surprised to find treasure troves of evidence defending the courts or regulatory agencies or various taxation mechanisms as best equipped to accomplish certain legislated outcomes.
19		-
20		-====D Voters====
21		-Fairness
22		-Drop the debater
23		-Competing interps
24		-No RVIs

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-2017-04-12 18:59:45.0

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Ryan Stephens, Bryant Andrade, Forgot Last one

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Reagan RV

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-49

Round

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Semis

Team

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Warren Okunlola Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-1 - Theory - A-Spec - 1NC - Brandeis Semis

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,0 @@
1		-Brandeis