Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.RoundClass[63]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[55]

Details

Caselist.RoundClass[63]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2017-04-13 00:42:14.76
	1	+2017-04-13 00:42:14.0

Caselist.CitesClass[55]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,7 @@
	1	+====TURN: Rights based approach overlegalizes the situation- that makes the system ineffective, more unproductive, and diverts attention from other solutions.====
	2	+**Fitzpatrick and Watts.** Suzanne Fitzpatrick and Beth Watts School of the Built Environment, Center for Housing Policy The Right to Housing for Homeless People.
	3	+But there are counter voices. Enforceable legal rights such as a right to housing may be thought to contribute to the ‘juridification of welfare’, such that social policy becomes ‘over-legalised’, frustrating its fundamental purposes (Dean, 2002, p.157). There may also be practical limitations to legal rights-based approaches, with Goodin (1986), for example, highlighting the costs and difficulties faced by service users attempting to realise those rights. According to this view, legalistic approaches are fundamentally flawed as they place the burden of responsibility for ensuring that rights are met in the wrong place, redistributing power to those people least likely to be able to use it: In purely rights-based systems, the rights holders alone have legal standing to complain if officials fail to do their correlative duties. It seems to be sheer folly, however, to make their getting their due contingent upon their demanding it, since we know so well that (for one reason or another) a substantial number of them will in fact not do so. (Goodin, 1986, p.255)
	4	+
	5	+====TURN: Rights based models are adversarial and divert focus from important solutions.====
	6	+**Fitzpatrick and Watts 2** Suzanne Fitzpatrick and Beth Watts School of the Built Environment, Center for Housing Policy The Right to Housing for Homeless People.
	7	+Moreover, enforceable legal rights may be viewed as not only inefficient but also unnecessary, with good progress on addressing homelessness seeming to have been made in a number of countries in their absence. In Ireland, for example, a legal rights-based approach was explicitly rejected in favour of a social partnership model that appears to have worked reasonably well in reducing levels of homelessness (O’Sullivan, 2008). Irish commentators argue that rights-based frameworks encourage an adversarial rather than a problem-solving approach on the part of both local authorities and advocates (O’Sullivan, 2008), directing power and resources into the hands of the legal profession and away from service provision (see also De Wispelaere and Walsh, 2007). Bengtsson (2001) also raises doubts about the benefits of legalistic rights to housing by highlighting the distinction with the more programmatic (or social) approach found in universalistic housing and welfare systems, such as in Sweden. In these universalistic systems, he explains, ‘instead of granting citizens the formal right to go to court and try to play trumps’ (p.265), the state intervenes in the ‘functioning of the general market in order to make it fulfil better the housing needs of all households’ (p.261).

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2017-04-13 00:42:24.429

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Andrew Adames

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Winston Churchill BY

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+63

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+4

Team

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

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+8 - Case Offense - Rights Based Approach - 1NC - NSDA District Round 4

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+NSDA District