Premier Debate – Specification Theory Drill Prop

A, Interpretation: The affirmative must specify in the text of their case what type or types of plea bargain they abolish. There are three possible types,

Find Law no date.Find Law, a legal encyclopedia of sorts, “Plea Bargains: In Depth” [Premier]

What Types of Plea Bargains Are There? There are generally three types of plea bargains recognized:Charge Bargaining: the most common form of plea bargaining, the defendant agrees to plead guilty to a lesser charge provided that greater charges will be dismissed. A typical example would be to plead to manslaughter rather than murder.Sentence Bargaining: far less common and more tightly controlled that charge bargaining, sentence bargaining is when a defendant agrees to plead guilty to the stated charge in return for a lighter sentence. Typically this must be reviewed by a judge, and many jurisdictions simply don't allow it.Fact Bargaining: this is the least common form of plea bargaining, and it occurs when a defendant agrees to stipulate to certain facts in order to prevent other facts from being introduced into evidence. Many courts don't allow it, and in general, most attorneys do not favor using fact bargains.

B, Violation: You did not specify a type of plea bargaining. CX does not check the violation since (1) you had an opportunity to do so and didn’t, so it’s your fault, and (2) that hurts pre-round prep since I don’t find out your advocacy until CX.
C, Standards:
(1)Ground – I don’t know what I can run when the aff is vague. Hurts my strategy since I’ll err on the side of caution, especially hurts counterplans and disads that may apply to one type of plea bargain but not others, like the traffic counterplan, which is a form of charge bargaining only. They can shift in the 1AR if they’re vague, which kills my ground. Also prevents high-quality weighing in the NC since I can’t weigh against impacts we can’t measure due to vagueness. And here’s proof we need a stable definition to debate,

Guidorizzi 98 Douglas D., “Should we Really Ban Plea Bargaining: The Core Concerns of Plea Bargaining Critics,” 47 Emory L. J. (1998) Hein Online. [Premier]

No standard definition of plea bargaining exists among practitioners. The definition of "plea bargaining" varies depending on the jurisdiction andon the contextof its use.9 However, to identify the core problems of plea bargaining,we must first settle on a definition that encompasses the broad range of practicesthat may be considered plea bargaining. Black's Law Dictionary provides a general definition that serves as a useful starting point to highlight the[There are] common misunderstandings of what constitutes plea bargaining. Black's defines plea bargaining as:

(2)Clash – in depth debates about one type are better, which my interp encourages. Means we learn more about the details of the topic. Also impacts to resolvability since a judge can’t decide a debate where one side says charge bargaining bad and the other side says sentence bargaining good. That causes judge intervention, which is unfair since it takes the debate out of our hands.
D, Voters
(1)Fairness- your ballot asks who did the better debating, not the better cheating which is impossible to evaluate if someone has a structural advantage.
(2)Education- it’s the reason we debate, the only lasting impact, and the reason schools fund us.
Use competing interpretations; my standards determine what is reasonable and other definitions are self-serving and arbitrary.
Drop the debater: the substantive level of the debate is skewed, you’ve claimed advantages by running the unfair arguments that have altered my time – it’s unfair if you read a million unfair arguments and kick them when I read theory.