homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Sun Oct 22, 2017 7:25 am
Not a member? Guests can only see part of the forums. To see the whole thing (and add your voice!), just register a free account by following these steps.

All times are UTC+01:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 92 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Extra-Topical Funding
PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 1:46 am
Posts: 678
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I can't think of anything witty right now...so...RIX
Okay, I want everyone's opinions on extra-topical funding. In other words, suppose a team cuts the Urban Housing Initiative to fund their reform of the Criminal Justice System. How can the AFF defend this? How can the NEG attack this? Who's correct? Is extra-topical funding legit?

_________________
http://siftingthroughmythoughts.blogspot.com/

08-09 | Thomas/Young | Broke to Regionals
09-10 | Brake/Thomas | Broke to Nats
10-11 | Black/Thomas | Won Regionals, 7th at Nats
11-12 | Comfort/Thomas | Won 2 Qualifiers, Won Regionals
12-13 | LD Debater | 3rd overall in RIX, 7th at Nats


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 4:54 am
Posts: 321
Home Schooled: Yes
No matter how you look at it, they are reforming something other than the CJS.

So, it's not legit.

_________________
Caleb Howell (Alumnus), former President of In Veritate Victoria (Derby, KS).


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 6:10 pm 
Offline
Easiest Person to Kill with a Witty Comeback

Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 2:36 am
Posts: 973
Home Schooled: Yes
1. Extratopical mandates bad
If you have to pull in a reform from outside of the resolution, then the resolution is not sufficient on its own.
2. Fairness
I have seen teams win, not because they're case was a good idea, but because they cut some really stupid program. Basically, aff won because, even though they're case was stupid, it wasn't as stupid as the program they were cutting. It sways the judge in favor of the Aff and basically is an extra-topical advantage, even if not presented in advantage form.
3. Bad debate form
Extratopical funding is a crutch, and a legitimate case, where the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, does not need it.

_________________
- Region 6 Alumnus


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 6:19 pm 
Offline
Cupcake
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:08 pm
Posts: 1211
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Illinois
Someone who is against "extra-topical" funding explain to me how either:

a) A tax raise (one form of "normal means"), or

b) A budget priority shift, and thus defunding the lowest down program (another form of "normal means")

don't qualify as extra-t.

_________________
Drew Chambers
LinkedIn


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 6:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 3:44 pm
Posts: 117
Home Schooled: Yes
Drew wrote:
Someone who is against "extra-topical" funding explain to me how either:

a) A tax raise (one form of "normal means"), or

b) A budget priority shift, and thus defunding the lowest down program (another form of "normal means")

don't qualify as extra-t.

Are you talking about the Stoa resolution or the NCFCA resolution? Because under the stoa resolution, a tax raise is completely topical this year. :)

_________________
David Christensen
Stoa: Mars Hill Speech and Debate Club (AZ)
Christensen-Napier, 2011-2012
Christensen-Napier, 2012-2013
Christensen-Ford, 2013-2014


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 6:31 pm 
Offline
Cupcake
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:08 pm
Posts: 1211
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Illinois
Zenith DC wrote:
Drew wrote:
Someone who is against "extra-topical" funding explain to me how either:

a) A tax raise (one form of "normal means"), or

b) A budget priority shift, and thus defunding the lowest down program (another form of "normal means")

don't qualify as extra-t.

Are you talking about the Stoa resolution or the NCFCA resolution? Because under the stoa resolution, a tax raise is completely topical this year. :)


:roll:

NCFCA

_________________
Drew Chambers
LinkedIn


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 7:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 1:46 am
Posts: 678
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I can't think of anything witty right now...so...RIX
Drew wrote:
Someone who is against "extra-topical" funding explain to me how either:

a) A tax raise (one form of "normal means"), or

b) A budget priority shift, and thus defunding the lowest down program (another form of "normal means")

don't qualify as extra-t.


This is personally, my view. cutting a program as funding isn't the same as a mandate and is simply the specification of which program is getting defunded.

In the real world, no one rejects the planned construction of a highway JUST because the funding is going to come from a tax on cigarettes, an unrelated topic. The funding is simply the means. Of course, I disagree with an AFF team who claims advantages, solvency, etc. from funding.

_________________
http://siftingthroughmythoughts.blogspot.com/

08-09 | Thomas/Young | Broke to Regionals
09-10 | Brake/Thomas | Broke to Nats
10-11 | Black/Thomas | Won Regionals, 7th at Nats
11-12 | Comfort/Thomas | Won 2 Qualifiers, Won Regionals
12-13 | LD Debater | 3rd overall in RIX, 7th at Nats


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 9:04 pm 
Offline
Easiest Person to Kill with a Witty Comeback

Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 2:36 am
Posts: 973
Home Schooled: Yes
Drew wrote:
Someone who is against "extra-topical" funding explain to me how either:

a) A tax raise (one form of "normal means"), or

b) A budget priority shift, and thus defunding the lowest down program (another form of "normal means")

don't qualify as extra-t.

Maybe they are extra-topical. However, Aff can't try claim advantages from.

_________________
- Region 6 Alumnus


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 9:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 1394
Home Schooled: Yes
Usually, teams spec funding because they're afraid of hitting spending arguments/squirreling out of net benefits. It ends up being a "well yeah, I guess our plan doesn't really work, but AT LEAST WE'RE NOT WASTING IT ON FARM SUBSIDIES!" plea in the 2AR.

Instead of theory, however, there are alternative strats that are usually much more successful:

1. point out that the money is only appropriated for a year, so their funding fails after a year
2. argue that the program they're cutting doesn't have enough money for what they want to do, especially if THEY don't know how much money they need
3. argue that the program they're cutting is fantastic (most aff teams have like two cards on why farm subsidies are bad)
4. run non-topical CP to cut whatever they're cutting, and then run your spending argument

The real question is why you'd want to spec funding in the first place. If your program SHOULD happen, it shouldn't matter where the money comes from. Plus, if your case is really good, neg may spend the entire time attacking your funding, which takes the focus off of your case. You'd much rather talk about wrongfully convicted exonerees with no compensation than the harms of farm subsidies.

_________________
Andrew Min
ahmin@princeton.edu
Arete Speech & Debate, NCFCA, Class of 2011


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 1:46 am
Posts: 678
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I can't think of anything witty right now...so...RIX
andrewmin wrote:
Usually, teams spec funding because they're afraid of hitting spending arguments/squirreling out of net benefits. It ends up being a "well yeah, I guess our plan doesn't really work, but AT LEAST WE'RE NOT WASTING IT ON FARM SUBSIDIES!" plea in the 2AR.

Instead of theory, however, there are alternative strats that are usually much more successful:

1. point out that the money is only appropriated for a year, so their funding fails after a year
2. argue that the program they're cutting doesn't have enough money for what they want to do, especially if THEY don't know how much money they need
3. argue that the program they're cutting is fantastic (most aff teams have like two cards on why farm subsidies are bad)
4. run non-topical CP to cut whatever they're cutting, and then run your spending argument

The real question is why you'd want to spec funding in the first place. If your program SHOULD happen, it shouldn't matter where the money comes from. Plus, if your case is really good, neg may spend the entire time attacking your funding, which takes the focus off of your case. You'd much rather talk about wrongfully convicted exonerees with no compensation than the harms of farm subsidies.


I agree with this post totally...except for the last part. I've made a living off of funding args and so have some very good teams (Aluri/Lonon comes to mind). What you argue that in the real world: the US budget is so bloated that any additional spending is financially irresponsible - therefore, unless you make your plan budget-neutral, raise new revenues, or cut an existing program, you're not being fiscally responsible. After all, that's what the Tea Party argues. Coincidence that NCFCA judges sympathize with the tea party?

_________________
http://siftingthroughmythoughts.blogspot.com/

08-09 | Thomas/Young | Broke to Regionals
09-10 | Brake/Thomas | Broke to Nats
10-11 | Black/Thomas | Won Regionals, 7th at Nats
11-12 | Comfort/Thomas | Won 2 Qualifiers, Won Regionals
12-13 | LD Debater | 3rd overall in RIX, 7th at Nats


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:19 pm 
Offline
Meeshmoosh
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 7:53 pm
Posts: 339
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Region 8 w00t
The way I would normally set it up is to ask in Cross X.

Is taking money from one program and using it to fund your plan a reform to the USFG's Criminal Justice System?

If they answer "No" Then they just admitted their plan is Not Topical

If they answer "Yes" than they effectively illustrate the principle that when you take money from a different program and use it to reform the criminal justice system, that is a reform, and is just as much a mandate as what they label their mandates as. So cutting a program and using it's funding is most definitely a reform.

Then you go to a double bind either
1. They keep the funding and remain Extra T, vote Neg
or
2. They lose the funding, lose solvency, vote Neg.

_________________
-Ryan

Bosh Bebb wrote:
What do you guys think about disenfranchising all white people? That could be legit, too. I think there's lots of advocacy for it.


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 1:46 am
Posts: 678
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I can't think of anything witty right now...so...RIX
Foxtrot wrote:
The way I would normally set it up is to ask in Cross X.

Is taking money from one program and using it to fund your plan a reform to the USFG's Criminal Justice System?

If they answer "No" Then they just admitted their plan is Not Topical

If they answer "Yes" than they effectively illustrate the principle that when you take money from a different program and use it to reform the criminal justice system, that is a reform, and is just as much a mandate as what they label their mandates as. So cutting a program and using it's funding is most definitely a reform.

Then you go to a double bind either
1. They keep the funding and remain Extra T, vote Neg
or
2. They lose the funding, lose solvency, vote Neg.


I fail to see why if they answer NO, they admit their PLAN is NOT TOPICAL.

_________________
http://siftingthroughmythoughts.blogspot.com/

08-09 | Thomas/Young | Broke to Regionals
09-10 | Brake/Thomas | Broke to Nats
10-11 | Black/Thomas | Won Regionals, 7th at Nats
11-12 | Comfort/Thomas | Won 2 Qualifiers, Won Regionals
12-13 | LD Debater | 3rd overall in RIX, 7th at Nats


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:26 pm 
Offline
Meeshmoosh
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 7:53 pm
Posts: 339
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Region 8 w00t
I'll give an example to help illustrate.

In R8 we have the case IIP. The teams with their case take funding from various areas, to refund the IIP program. That is their plan, Refund the IIP program. Basically their plan is taking money from one program and using it to fund another program.

So again you ask them

"Is taking money from one program and using it to fund your plan a reform to the USFG's Criminal Justice System?"

That is what their plan is doing, so if they answer no, than they are admitting that their plan is not a reform to the USFG's Criminal Justice System.

_________________
-Ryan

Bosh Bebb wrote:
What do you guys think about disenfranchising all white people? That could be legit, too. I think there's lots of advocacy for it.


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:56 pm 
Offline
Guardian of the Black Room
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 3:05 am
Posts: 871
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: 127.0.0.1
[First, a little rant]
My pet peeve on topicality args:
Topical: Fulfills the res
Non-topical: Doesn't fulfill the res
Extra-topical: Fulfills the res, but then does other stuff too.

Just because you go outside of the resolution doesn't mean that you aren't fulfilling the resolution. (Now, it can be impacted to be that if you need to do stuff outside the res, then the res isn't good enough, and therefore you're denying the res. This isn't really a topicality argument, though...)
[/rant]

Foxtrot wrote:
<SNIP>
Is taking money from one program and using it to fund your plan a reform to the USFG's Criminal Justice System?
If they answer "No" Then they just admitted their plan is Not Topical
<SNIP>

This doesn't have to always be true. For example: (note, I'm trying to relate this to the NCFCA res, but as I don't know much about CJS, the example is probably awful)
Mandate: Increase the number of U.S. Federal Courts by 50%.
Funding: Salaries for the justices will be made through cuts to Housing and Urban Development.
Is this case topical? (Yes, it does does fulfill the resolution--increasing the number of Federal Courts reforms the CJS.) Is the funding extra topical? (Yes, HUD changes != CJS reform)

Now, can you really expect an AFF to always have a purely topical funding source (no extra-t)? I don't think so--even using general federal revenues would not be a CJS reform.

I'm fine with extra-t funding, as long as no advantages are claimed from the nature of the source.

//Andrew

_________________
"The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head that splits"
- G.K. Chesterton


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:10 pm 
Offline
Meeshmoosh
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 7:53 pm
Posts: 339
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Region 8 w00t
anorton wrote:
[First, a little rant]
My pet peeve on topicality args:
Topical: Fulfills the res
Non-topical: Doesn't fulfill the res
Extra-topical: Fulfills the res, but then does other stuff too.

Just because you go outside of the resolution doesn't mean that you aren't fulfilling the resolution. (Now, it can be impacted to be that if you need to do stuff outside the res, then the res isn't good enough, and therefore you're denying the res. This isn't really a topicality argument, though...)
[/rant]

Foxtrot wrote:
<SNIP>
Is taking money from one program and using it to fund your plan a reform to the USFG's Criminal Justice System?
If they answer "No" Then they just admitted their plan is Not Topical
<SNIP>

This doesn't have to always be true. For example: (note, I'm trying to relate this to the NCFCA res, but as I don't know much about CJS, the example is probably awful)
Mandate: Increase the number of U.S. Federal Courts by 50%.
Funding: Salaries for the justices will be made through cuts to Housing and Urban Development.
Is this case topical? (Yes, it does does fulfill the resolution--increasing the number of Federal Courts reforms the CJS.) Is the funding extra topical? (Yes, HUD changes != CJS reform)

Now, can you really expect an AFF to always have a purely topical funding source (no extra-t)? I don't think so--even using general federal revenues would not be a CJS reform.

I'm fine with extra-t funding, as long as no advantages are claimed from the nature of the source.

//Andrew


Going off your last sentence is where my biggest problem with extra-t funding lies. You say you're fine with it as long as no advantages are claimed from the nature of the source. However in all cases with any funding, you are claiming advantages from the nature of the source! All of you advantages only come about if you have the funding to implement your plan. In the example you gave, you are claiming the advantage of being able to provide salaries for justices from your funding source. Without your funding you do not have that advantage, but with your funding source you suddenly have that advantage.

_________________
-Ryan

Bosh Bebb wrote:
What do you guys think about disenfranchising all white people? That could be legit, too. I think there's lots of advocacy for it.


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 11:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 2:40 am
Posts: 1179
Home Schooled: No
Because the affirmative has the burden of defending something that lies within the bounds of the topic, they have license to propose and advocate topical action. In order that the merits of that action can be debated, their license extends to having the judge assume the minimal enabling mechanisms for their proposal proceed. The license is called "fiat."

"Fiat" only allows the debate to begin; once the plan is enacted, any flaws in its mandates are legitimate negative ground, and so are any unfortunate consequences that follow from its adoption. The proper impact for extra-topicality arguments is ground theft. Going beyond topical action and the minimal enabling mechanisms defeats the purpose of fiat, and when the extra-topical provision clearly is designed to neutralize a legitimate negative argument, it's a misuse of theory with a genuine impact.

Of course, in reality, the above argument is a gamble with theory-friendly judges, and almost unwinnable with any judge not sympathetic to theory arguments, which includes a lot of newcomers. You're far better off carrying evidence to debate why funding cuts to the program are a bad idea. If there are two or three very popular funding sources, just hit the library and get five or ten good cards impacting loss of the program, and you're set.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 1:04 am 
Offline
Guardian of the Black Room
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 3:05 am
Posts: 871
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: 127.0.0.1
Foxtrot wrote:
Going off your last sentence is where my biggest problem with extra-t funding lies. You say you're fine with it as long as no advantages are claimed from the nature of the source. However in all cases with any funding, you are claiming advantages from the nature of the source! All of you advantages only come about if you have the funding to implement your plan. In the example you gave, you are claiming the advantage of being able to provide salaries for justices from your funding source. Without your funding you do not have that advantage, but with your funding source you suddenly have that advantage.

I was careful in the wording of my last sentence. I'm fine with you claiming advantages from having a funding source, but not from the nature of the funding source.
Claiming an advantage from the nature of the funding source would be like so:
Made up plan wrote:
Plan:
Mandate: Increase the number of U.S. Federal Courts by 50%.
Funding: Salaries for the justices will be made through cuts to Housing and Urban Development.
Advantage 1: HUD is bad, cutting is good (with appropriate support)
...

Claiming advantages from having a funding source is really just a disad response. (NEG: Your plan runs a deficit! AFF: We have funding for that.)

I'd like to hear what you believe a topical funding source would be.
Sure, you could say that you can only take funding from current CJS programs, but what happens when the resolution is something like "Resolved: The United States Federal Government should reform its inter-planetary visa policy." (For this odd example, the status quo is really just "do nothing"...) There would be no topical funding sources, as there is no current program to cut. Sure, the example res is terrible. However, I'm sure there could be some instance where the resolution calls on the AFF to break new ground in such a way that there would be no current programs to cut for funding.

//Andrew

_________________
"The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head that splits"
- G.K. Chesterton


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 3:37 am 
Offline
Easiest Person to Kill with a Witty Comeback

Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 2:36 am
Posts: 973
Home Schooled: Yes
anorton wrote:
Just because you go outside of the resolution doesn't mean that you aren't fulfilling the resolution. (Now, it can be impacted to be that if you need to do stuff outside the res, then the res isn't good enough, and therefore you're denying the res. This isn't really a topicality argument, though...)

If this was true, then I could add a third mandate to my case of illegalizing abortion. Abusive? Yes. But not under your interpretation of topicality.

The important thing to recognize is that the resolution asks if the USFG criminal justice system should be significantly reformed. It asks nothing about anything outside of the resolution. If a case is legitimate and justified, the affirmative team should simply concede to the negative that taxes will be raised, programs will be cut, etc but the advantages outweigh. And if the advantages don't outweigh, then the case can't be that good.

Furthermore, aff (w/o extra-T funding) is not stating that subsidies and other government programs should not be cut, they are merely not including that in their plan because it doesn't answer the question of the resolution.

_________________
- Region 6 Alumnus


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 3:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 1389
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Austin, TX
Because in a business committee when you propose a bill to reform [criminal justice/product line], you put on blinders to every other policy and source of funding out there and it's up/down vote on the reform only.

Right. Nobody believes that. But the vote still comes down to reforming [the issue]. How is that logically possible?

Quote:
If a case is legitimate and justified, the affirmative team should simply concede to the negative that taxes will be raised, programs will be cut, etc but the advantages outweigh. And if the advantages don't outweigh, then the case can't be that good.

You should've seen semis between Comfort/Thomas and Lorence/Smith several weeks back. You'd be surprised how principled, Constitutional, and everything a neg can make such an issue.

If stopping abortion actually did something that helped your plan, like fund it, then yes, you'd be able to do that, and people would be expected to have the prescience to realize that THAT is not what they're voting for in the plan.

Edit: and a good neg is going to point out the jedi mind tricks going on

_________________
Upside Down Debate. The book that teaches you the deeper why of debate, from the ground up.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 1:46 am
Posts: 678
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I can't think of anything witty right now...so...RIX
Here's the deal. At this point, I have now argued against normal means funding 7 times and won at least one judge on it in each round (because I'm including out rounds).

The fact is that NCFCA judges in my experience in R8 and R9 care a lot about fiscal responsibility and require some basic facts:
1. How much money
2. Where the money will come from

Judges continually write on their ballots to me that they are looking for budget-neutral cases. This almost by definition allows for extra-T funding. In my view, the plan is what you're taking advantages out of. In other words, you should not be voting AFF because they are cutting Obamacare to fund their plan. Obamacare is just the funding source.

So I'm not really sure I understand the truth about extra-T funding. All I know is that judges practically require it and do not like plans involving GFR alone.

When Sheaffer/Wright argued Extra-T on us in finals, not a single judge voted on funding. They all felt it was a non-issue.

So all that to say, I'm not really sure I understand the theory underpinnings pro or con extra-T funding but I do know what judges are looking for.

My THEORY view on extra-T funding: The judge is deciding about whether to pass a plan. They want to make sure it's affordable. The AFF defends the plan and offers a possible budget cut to make the plan feasible. The judge, representing Congress has the ability to make the plan feasible by defunding something else and redirecting the funds. He isn't making a policy change - he's making a decision about limited funds and PRIORITIZING which program is more important to fund. So the AFF always chooses a gov program which is easy to justify defunding. Since I don't care about fiat power, I don't see anything wrong with the judge deciding to fund this. After all, the money is coming from somewhere and a fiscally responsible judge has to take the money from somewhere and that money will end up coming from an already funded program. The AFF has the burden to show which program as part of presenting a well-laid out plan.
The aff cannot claim advantages however, because advantages can only stem from the plan. But they can claim the advantage of being budget-neutral.
If extra-T funding is argued, the response is the above. I tried this and the judges agreed.

_________________
http://siftingthroughmythoughts.blogspot.com/

08-09 | Thomas/Young | Broke to Regionals
09-10 | Brake/Thomas | Broke to Nats
10-11 | Black/Thomas | Won Regionals, 7th at Nats
11-12 | Comfort/Thomas | Won 2 Qualifiers, Won Regionals
12-13 | LD Debater | 3rd overall in RIX, 7th at Nats


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 92 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 Next

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited