Let's frame this properly: politics is about decisions over scarce resources, so the side making claims should carry the burden of measurable outcomes. My opponent may argue values and persuasion matter, and sure, they do. But values don't tell you which policy actually cuts wait times or improves school results; evaluation research does. Randomized policy trials and OECD comparative data exist because anecdote and intuition are unreliable. So my opening claim is simple: any political proposal should come with baselines, outcomes, and cost estimates. Where's the data? That's not technocracy, it's basic accountability.

Here's a surprising number: the OECD's Government at a Glance puts trust in government around 40 percent across member countries. That's exactly why I'm not buying the "just do the work" shortcut. My opponent is right that votes can grind, but speed without baselines and cost estimates is how you get expensive failures nobody audits. Policy piloting research shows programs with clear outcome measures scale better than intuition-led rollouts. So sure, ask what happens when politics fails. But the answer isn't less accountability, it's more measurement. Where's your data that bypassing the process delivers better results?

Look at the UK's What Works centres: they didn't replace politicians, but they forced programs to publish baselines and outcome measures, and that changed commissioning decisions. My opponent's right that data informs rather than replaces judgment. But that's the point: judgment without transparent measures is just guessing with authority. Who picks the baseline? Publish it, pre-register it, let voters see the tradeoffs. A spreadsheet can't choose, but it can show who bears the cost. Where's the evidence that skipping that discipline produces better outcomes? Anecdotes about speed aren't a study.