@Sharkfin "Yes, funding is extra-topical. But we shouldn't consider it a voting issue because funding is a necessary part of the affirmative plan.' Does this reflect your belief?"
I believe that funding (whether its extra-topical or not) shouldn't be a voting issue in a debate round. It also creates a storm of definition clashing during a debate, which detracts from the purpose of forensics. I personally believe that extra topical funding in a technical and competitive sense doesn't make a case non topical. By making funding a voting issue, it handicaps the affirmative team, detracts from debate, drives the judge berserk, and simply kills the point of arguing. It also ties the affirmative to a minuscule amount of Funding flexibility...
For example, the Department of Justice (Which operates the CJS) receives just under $30B a year. If extra topical funding is a voting issue, then the aff can't move hardly any $$$ around to help their plan. Want to build forty new prisons? Sorry, but our Department's budget can't afford a $15 Billion expenditure.
By allowing the freedom of funding choice, a better debate round is created.
1.) The affirmative team can be more flexible in their funding options
2.) The judge will be spared from a round of frivolous time wasting and unconvincing $$$ args. (which is often times employed by teams who are desperate for an argument.)
3.) Funding arguments would be based more off DAs and Solvency rather than topicality. For example, I could argue that cutting $500 Billion from the Department of Defense (yes, highly unrealistic) would result in worsened national security, etc etc etc... instead of ranting about how "The aff isn't topical! The aff isn't topical!"
Matt: I think most people here (with the exception of myself, which I'll get to in a moment) agree with you. One of the beneficial parts of a discussion like this is that it allows us to see those points on which we disagree, as well as the points on which we agree. Don't be afraid to say that you agree with a particular part of a post-- it'll help everyone as we move forward with this discussion.
Here's what I think you should be saying, and I think you've got at least part of it: "Yes, funding is extra-topical. But we shouldn't consider it a voting issue because funding is a necessary part of the affirmative plan." Does that accurately reflect your belief?
(yes, no-- if not, what specific phrase do you take issue with?)
Assuming you said yes to the above, here's my basic argument, which I posted a few pages back:viewtopic.php?f=13&t=13082&p=412285&hilit=#p412285
Unless the resolution has something to do with monetary policy, all the funding sources cited above would be extra topical
First off, you're actually talking about fiscal policy-- not monetary policy.
Second, because using GFR for funding is still writing law relevant to the CJS, it's still topical, but avoids the false dilemma built by specifying your funding.
(you may notice my argument is built less off of a "it's not topical, it should be voted down" position, and more directly a position of "it's abusive, therefore it should be voted down.")
Running topicality is so 2012...