Policy Evaluation

Two criteria for policy evaluation:

1) Theoretical - If the policy were enacted perfectly as intended, would it deal with the issue at hand? How well does it address the problem? Does it fall within acceptable moral constraints?

2) Empirical - Can the policy be implemented successfully? How well can it be put into practice? If the policy has been passed, how well has it been doing so far?

If a policy could never actually solve the problem even if done perfectly, than its empirical considerations are moot. Attacking that side is therefore a much stronger objection. The problem is it tends to get into very fundamental concepts of right and wrong, which can be very abstract.

However, highlighting a policy's inability to be successfully implemented due to logistical difficulties or human nature - a more practical side - can be useful as a pragmatic and fact-based argument. "This policy is a great idea - but it'd cost more money to implement than exists in the world" is a very reasonable objection that most people can understand and side with.

I feel like often there are policy debates where two people will argue different support/objection grounds and end up talking crosswise at each other.