Jayhawk Debate Institute Summer 2011 <File Name>

Framework <3

Jayhawk Debate Institute Summer 2011 <File Name>

Need a Plan Text 1NC[1/2]

Interpretation: The affirmative must instrumentally defend the resolution with a topical plan text
The topic is defined by the phrase following the colon the USFG is the agent of the resolution, not the individual debaters Websters Guide to Grammar and Writing 2000
http://ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/colon.htm Use of a colon before a list or an explanation that is preceded by a clause that can stand by itself. Think of the colon as a gate, inviting one to go on If the introductory phrase preceding the colon is very brief and the clause following the colon

represents the real business of the sentence, begin the clause after the colon with a capital letter. Should denotes an expectation of enacting a plan American Heritage Dictionary 2000 www.dictionary.com 3 Used to express probability or expectation The United States federal government is the government in Washington D.C. Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia 2000 http://encarta.msn.com The federal government of the United States is centered in Washington DC. Violation: The affirmative does not instrumentally affirm the resolution with a topical plan text. Instead, they [___]

Jayhawk Debate Institute Summer 2011 <File Name>

Need A Plan Text 1NC[2/2]

Standards: A. Ground: Defending an instrumental affirmation of the topic is key to predictable disadvantage, counterplan, case, and kritik limits. We do not have evidence to debate personal plans, advocacies, or other positions. This destroys all of our resolutional arguments.

B. Education: Discussing the resolution is key to our education; we can always learn about their advocacies in a different activity or by ourselves, but only through debate can we learn about the topic. This destroys debate and sets a shallow standard for the activity in the future. Rejecting their political advocacy in this instance is key to setting a precedent.

C. Debates Intent: The affirmative destroys the discussion of policies, and destroys our ability to compare the effects of policies on the statuos quo or a ompetetive policy option. This destroys the function of debate.

Voter:

If we prove that their interpretation is detrimental to debate, and they failed to meet the resolution that was given, you vote negative. This is the best way to preserve the purpose of debate, education, and our predictable limits.

Jayhawk Debate Institute Summer 2011 <File Name>

Jayhawk Debate Institute Summer 2011 <File Name>

Onto Before Policy

Jayhawk Debate Institute Summer 2011 <File Name>

Framework <3

Jayhawk Debate Institute Summer 2011 <File Name>

Need a Plan Text 1NC

Interpretation: The affirmative must instrumentally defend the resolution with a topical plan text The topic is defined by the phrase following the colon the USFG is the agent of the resolution, not the individual debaters Websters Guide to Grammar and Writing 2000
http://ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/colon.htm Use of a colon before a list or an explanation that is preceded by a clause that can stand by itself. Think of the colon as a gate, inviting one to go on If the introductory phrase preceding the colon is very brief and the clause following the colon

represents the real business of the sentence, begin the clause after the colon with a capital letter. Should denotes an expectation of enacting a plan American Heritage Dictionary 2000 www.dictionary.com 3 Used to express probability or expectation The United States federal government is the government in Washington D.C. Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia 2000 http://encarta.msn.com The federal government of the United States is centered in Washington DC. Violation: The affirmative does not instrumentally affirm the resolution with a topical plan text. Instead, they [___] Standards: A. Ground: Defending an instrumental affirmation of the topic is key to predictable disadvantage, counterplan, case, and kritik limits. We do not have evidence to debate personal plans, advocacies, or other positions. This destroys all of our resolutional arguments. B. Education: Discussing the resolution is key to our education; we can always learn about their advocacies in a different activity or by ourselves, but only through debate can we learn about the topic. This destroys debate and sets a shallow standard for the activity in the future. Rejecting their political advocacy in this instance is key to setting a precedent. C. Debates Intent: The affirmative destroys the discussion of policies, and destroys our ability to compare the effects of policies on the statuos quo or a ompetetive policy option. This destroys the function of debate. Voter:

Jayhawk Debate Institute Summer 2011 <File Name>

If we prove that their interpretation is detrimental to debate, and they failed to meet the resolution that was given, you vote negative. This is the best way to preserve the purpose of debate, education, and our predictable limits.

Jayhawk Debate Institute Summer 2011 <File Name>

Ontology Before Policy

Ontology is a pre-requisite to any kind of policy making Loukis 7
Euripidis, AI&Law in eGovernment and eDemocracy PART II, An Ontology for G2G Collaboration in Public Policy Making, Implementation and Evaluation (http://www.springerlink.com/content/m0p7166qjk874627/export-citation/) This paper concerns the development and use of ontologies for electronically supporting

and structuring the highest-level function of government: the design, implementation and evaluation of public policies for the big and complex problems that modern societies face. This critical government function usually necessitates extensive interaction and collaboration among many heterogeneous government organizations (G2G collaboration) with different backgrounds, mentalities, values, interests and expectations, so it can greatly benefit from the use of ontologies. In this direction initially an ontology of public policy making, implementation and evaluation is described, which has been
developed as part of the project ICTE-PAN of the Information Society Technologies (IST) Programme of the European Commission, based on sound

theoretical foundations mainly from the public policy analysis domain and contributions of experts from the public administrations of four European Union countries (Denmark, Germany, Greece and Italy). It is a horizontal ontology that can be used for electronically supporting and structuring the whole lifecycle of a public policy in any
vertical (thematic) area of government activity; it can also be combined with vertical ontologies of the specific vertical (thematic) area of government activity we are dealing with. In this paper is also described the use of this ontology for electronically supporting and structuring the collaborative public policy making, implementation and evaluation through structured electronic forums, extended workflows, public policy stages with specific subontologies, etc., and also for the semantic annotation, organization, indexing and integration of the contributions of the participants of these forums, which enable the development of advanced semantic web capabilities in this area.

Jayhawk Debate Institute Summer 2011 <File Name>

10

Abstract This paper concerns the development and use of ontologies for electronically supporting and structuring the highest-level function of government: the design, implementation and evaluation of public policies for the big and complex problems that modern societies face. This critical government function usually necessitates extensive interaction and collaboration among many heterogeneous government organizations (G2G collaboration) with different backgrounds, mentalities, values, interests and expectations, so it can greatly benefit from the use of ontologies. In this direction initially an ontology of public policy making, implementation and evaluation is described, which has been developed as part of the project ICTEPAN of the Information Society Technologies (IST) Programme of the European Commission, based on sound theoretical foundations mainly from the public policy analysis domain and contributions of experts from the public administrations of four European Union countries (Denmark, Germany, Greece and Italy). It is a horizontal ontology that can be used for electronically supporting and structuring the whole lifecycle of a public policy in any vertical (thematic) area of government activity; it can also be combined with vertical ontologies of the specific vertical (thematic) area of government activity we are dealing with. In this paper is also described the use of this ontology for electronically supporting and structuring the collaborative public policy making, implementation and evaluation through structured electronic forums, extended workflows, public policy stages with specific sub-ontologies, etc., and also for the semantic annotation, organization, indexing and integration of the contributions of the participants of these forums, which enable the development of advanced semantic web capabilities in this area.