homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Tue Oct 17, 2017 12:20 pm
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 Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 6:24 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
Dr_Pepper wrote:
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.

Would you lose the case on topicality? No. Would you lose it on solvency? Maybe. The neg should request that the extra-t mandate be dropped, and any advantages that stem from it. Then debate the now wholly topical case.

In my viewpoint:
Determine extra-t mandates by evaluating every mandate individually to see if they uphold the res by themselves. Ones that do not are extra-t.
When I say "wholly topical," I mean a topical case with no extra-t mandates.

//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 7:11 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
Masked Midnight wrote:
This does make good sense. However, it does magnetize the debate to funding/prioritizing rather than the case. For instance, under your theory, there's adequate ground for confrontation on issues such as "can the money be redirected without compromising the other program?" and "is there enough capital to cover your plan cost?". Since most cases don't give harms based on programs whose funding gets cut, the judge doesn't have any basis to warrant a conclusion on the 'inefficiency' of the funding source; making prioritization difficult.


Well, in the real world, no one considers plans in a vacuum. They always consider cost, funding, and prioritization. Debate doesn't have to be different. After all, we're trying to simulate the real world with the stipulations being:

1) The AFF affirms the resolution
2) the NEG negates the resolution

To me, this restricts mandates to be only topical, and NEG CPs to be non-topical. The four stock issues and disadvantages are the ways you measure topicality or affirmation of the resolution. (see the other thread about this). Other than those considerations, I really don't care about any other theoretical argument - I'm focused on the real world.

_________________
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: Tue Mar 27, 2012 7:15 pm 
Offline
Easiest Person to Kill with a Witty Comeback

Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 2:36 am
Posts: 973
Home Schooled: Yes
My question is: why does the debate round need any extra-topical funding source? The only reason I can think of is to cop-out of the disadvantage of the plan costing money.

Furthermore, is taking funds from something like subsidies even real-world? Once the money has been appropriated, is it even possible to reappropriate it? Could all of the money not be used yet? And don't the amounts of money in subsidies vary by year, depending on what the budget committee decides?

_________________
- Region 6 Alumnus


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:26 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
Dr_Pepper wrote:
My question is: why does the debate round need any extra-topical funding source? The only reason I can think of is to cop-out of the disadvantage of the plan costing money.

The aff case has to be complete to be considered in the round. A key element of every real-world plan is how it's going to be paid for. Thus, funding is important. Depending on the resolution, every funding source could be extra-t. Thus, extra-t funding is important.

Dr_Pepper wrote:
Furthermore, is taking funds from something like subsidies even real-world? Once the money has been appropriated, is it even possible to reappropriate it? Could all of the money not be used yet? And don't the amounts of money in subsidies vary by year, depending on what the budget committee decides?

Sure. You just have to do your homework and make sure the funds haven't been used yet.

//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 9:05 pm 
Offline
Easiest Person to Kill with a Witty Comeback

Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 2:36 am
Posts: 973
Home Schooled: Yes
anorton wrote:
Sure. You just have to do your homework and make sure the funds haven't been used yet.
That explodes the topic, requiring negative teams to have to research much more than the issue at hand. Then, they'll further have to custom-tailor their research to individual cases. This entirely defeats the purpose of having a resolution.

_________________
- Region 6 Alumnus


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:47 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
Dr_Pepper wrote:
That explodes the topic, requiring negative teams to have to research much more than the issue at hand. Then, they'll further have to custom-tailor their research to individual cases. This entirely defeats the purpose of having a resolution.

No, because the aff cannot claim advantages from what they're taking funding from.
As neg, I would create set of disads to run on cutting just about anything (in generic terms: i.e. Social Security, HUD, Subsidies, etc), and then use basic economics to attack their funding source with logic/common knowledge.

//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: Wed Mar 28, 2012 1:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2010 1:09 pm
Posts: 390
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: wandering down the rabbit hole
I personally think this argument is getting waaaay too nit-picky and debater-ish. If you get a judge who is a long time alumni or something, maybe this argument will work, but any normal parent or community judge would most likely think this argument is silly and distracting from the real issues and the case at hand. [I hate debate theory arguments because they are so dumb...just debate real world impacts and arguments please:'(]
Debate the merits of the real case instead of being like "well, the funding isn't topical!!" I hate rounds which digress into debating about whether or not the aff team has fiat!!! or whether the neg team can run a topical cp!! instead of talking about the issues and the case that was presented. So distracting and so debater-ish. Normal means isn't topical either so 95% of cases aren't topical this year I guess.

_________________
The world may be broken but hope is not crazy.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:04 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
Masked Midnight wrote:
Amodeum wrote:
Well, in the real world, no one considers plans in a vacuum. They always consider cost, funding, and prioritization. Debate doesn't have to be different. After all, we're trying to simulate the real world with the stipulations being:

1) The AFF affirms the resolution
2) the NEG negates the resolution

To me, this restricts mandates to be only topical, and NEG CPs to be non-topical. The four stock issues and disadvantages are the ways you measure topicality or affirmation of the resolution. (see the other thread about this). Other than those considerations, I really don't care about any other theoretical argument - I'm focused on the real world.

I understand that real world is important, but it doesn't address the digression of debate. Your philosophy would naturally require the AFF to have an extension ready to debate funding solely as a link to Solvency. This is the point when you find yourself debating GHGs (random programs) ect. instead of Criminal Justice. As I said earlier, prioritization is a good thing...but I haven't seen a case to date that gives reasons why the alternative program has enough money to cut effectively. This would be important for prioritizing if AFF plan X supersedes SQ program Y.

And I like debate theory. ;)


When the neg argues whether the program is worth cutting, they're really arguing the AFF plan isn't as important as the program it replaces. But ultimately, my point is that any plan that spends anything ends up replacing something or spending into debt. Option 2 isn't good. So ultimately, in the real world, when a person presents a plan, and another guy says but "this will mean we'll defund X program - we need to talk about that", it's illogical to say "oh no, that's not the focus of this debate." Well it IS. The debate is whether it is worth passing the plan and you can only prove that if you can prove it's worth more than the program it's now replacing since I already pointed out every program displaces something else. See? In the real world, this isn't a digression. It is basic cost-benefit analysis. As for the "the AFF doesn't have enough money to cut effectively", that's a valid point and NEG teams should argue it more often. However, if you can just go straight-up and argue the plan itself stinks, why bother on the question "is the plan BETTER than the displaced program?". That's why funding is an important question, but also a NEG judgment call. Why go into funding if you have 15 straight-up points?

But if the AFF plan is ookkaay but not amazing and they're canceling a program that is actually beneficial, it's a good place to argue funding in order to talk about cost-benefit analysis.

_________________
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: Wed Mar 28, 2012 3:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 4:33 pm
Posts: 13
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: True Carolina
Then there's always the 'TP debate is the same as congress' argument so you could say: "congress cuts funding from unrelated programs to support new ones on a regular basis. It's how the USFG works. We're reforming a system of the USFG, so we should reform it how it usually goes about being reformed."

_________________
Dovel/King- R9

I hate signatures, but love irony.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 3:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 1389
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Austin, TX
RyanDovel wrote:
Then there's always the 'TP debate is the same as congress' argument so you could say: "congress cuts funding from unrelated programs to support new ones on a regular basis. It's how the USFG works. We're reforming a system of the USFG, so we should reform it how it usually goes about being reformed."


I'm in total agreement with Susanna and Daniel.

With that said, there ARE decent arguments that come back at this interpretation.

Example: Congress gets in the same quagmire all the time. They put unrelated stuff in bills (ban online poker transactions in the Port Security Act of 2006; cut funding from X program in bill on totally unrelated Y program) that affects the vote. So people don't vote because of ONE provision in the bill. Or they vote for the bill BECAUSE of the one unrelated provision ;)

albiet these are usually not "supportive" mandates but are primary

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2012 10:55 pm 
Offline
Easiest Person to Kill with a Witty Comeback

Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 2:36 am
Posts: 973
Home Schooled: Yes
Amodeum wrote:
When the neg argues whether the program is worth cutting, they're really arguing the AFF plan isn't as important as the program it replaces. But ultimately, my point is that any plan that spends anything ends up replacing something or spending into debt. Option 2 isn't good. So ultimately, in the real world, when a person presents a plan, and another guy says but "this will mean we'll defund X program - we need to talk about that", it's illogical to say "oh no, that's not the focus of this debate." Well it IS. The debate is whether it is worth passing the plan and you can only prove that if you can prove it's worth more than the program it's now replacing since I already pointed out every program displaces something else. See? In the real world, this isn't a digression. It is basic cost-benefit analysis. As for the "the AFF doesn't have enough money to cut effectively", that's a valid point and NEG teams should argue it more often. However, if you can just go straight-up and argue the plan itself stinks, why bother on the question "is the plan BETTER than the displaced program?". That's why funding is an important question, but also a NEG judgment call. Why go into funding if you have 15 straight-up points?
There is NO way for a Negs to prep debating the costs and benefits of a particular case if the plan can reform something outside of the resolution. That is what is at stake, plain and simple. Good debaters compare the costs of the aff plan with the benefits of the status quo. They CANNOT prepare to consider both if Aff can cut anything outside of the resolution as a source of funding.

Now, I know you all want to make things real-world. However, if you pursue real-world too much, then there will be no resolution, no debate round, and no debate league, because those things don't exist in the "real world." Things like ground shifting would probably become legitimate as well. However, we must sacrifice certain aspects of "reality" to work on critical thinking and communication in a controlled environment.

If Aff can have a plan that requires reforms outside of the resolution, then the resolution becomes meaningless.

_________________
- Region 6 Alumnus


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 4:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:28 pm
Posts: 2888
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I'm not lost! I'm locationally challenged. -John M. Ford
SusannaC wrote:
I personally think this argument is getting waaaay too nit-picky and debater-ish. If you get a judge who is a long time alumni or something, maybe this argument will work, but any normal parent or community judge would most likely think this argument is silly and distracting from the real issues and the case at hand. [I hate debate theory arguments because they are so dumb...just debate real world impacts and arguments please:'(]
Debate the merits of the real case instead of being like "well, the funding isn't topical!!" I hate rounds which digress into debating about whether or not the aff team has fiat!!! or whether the neg team can run a topical cp!! instead of talking about the issues and the case that was presented. So distracting and so debater-ish. Normal means isn't topical either so 95% of cases aren't topical this year I guess.

I won all but one O-spec that I ever ran-- community judges were the most amenable to it, because the argument does, in fact, have clear impacts. Debaters who argue strictly theory arguments are doing it wrong.

First, here's more or less how I ran it:
"Hi judge. So the affirmative's funding is not from the criminal justice system. Let's not pretend that this is less of a mandate than any other mandates-- the affirmative is arguing that we should cut funding from X as much as they are arguing that we should reform Y. Clearly, the aff is not underneath the resolution. Given that you vote for the resolution when you cast your ballot, your vote will put the affirmative's plan in effect without their funding source. Given that their case will not work without funding, as they admit in CX, it is now an unfunded mandate that will have no effect and not change anything but the wording of the law. Furthermore, if you allow the affirmative to do this, they can literally put any mandate in their case that cuts funding from something-- say, Planned Parenthood-- something that clearly gives the affirmative an illegitimate advantage. Would you vote for their plan if it cut funding from PP? Sure you would-- even if the affirmative didn't explicitly argue that they're limiting abortion funding (indirectly). You should not allow the affirmative to get away with this-- vote neg because (A) their plan doesn't work under the resolution, and (B) it gives an illegitimate advantage."

All of that said, I recognize that I'm assuming three things: (A) supporting mandates are not held to the same standard as regular mandates, and (B) that the judge votes to affirm the resolution, and thus the jurisdictional argument is true, and (C) potential abuse is a legitimate argument.

There's another reason I highly, highly dislike specified funding: it creates a false dilemma. As someone mentioned earlier, the aff can just come back and say "Well, yeah, our plan may be worthless, but at least we're not spending it on NASA's research on the evolutionary origin of life!" Should the neg be expected to present a CP to cut such funding every time someone specifies funding, so as to eliminate the false dilemma? Of course not. We should be arguing the merits of the plan-- not the merits of the plan vs. the merits of something else that is completely outside the reasonable neg research burden (teapot museum, anyone?).

_________________
There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full.
- Henry Kissinger


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 2:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 1389
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Austin, TX
Quote:
There is NO way for a Negs to prep debating the costs and benefits of a particular case if the plan can reform something outside of the resolution. That is what is at stake, plain and simple. Good debaters compare the costs of the aff plan with the benefits of the status quo


...

Maybe, just maybe, you can come up with an argument besides "their plan costs too much". As that is the ONLY argument affected by the source of funding, besides the DA they hand you on a silver platter from cutting something or raising taxes, your statement is hyperbolic at best.

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 5:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 3:06 pm
Posts: 1058
Home Schooled: No
Location: Texas
Sharkfin wrote:
SusannaC wrote:
I personally think this argument is getting waaaay too nit-picky and debater-ish. If you get a judge who is a long time alumni or something, maybe this argument will work, but any normal parent or community judge would most likely think this argument is silly and distracting from the real issues and the case at hand. [I hate debate theory arguments because they are so dumb...just debate real world impacts and arguments please:'(]
Debate the merits of the real case instead of being like "well, the funding isn't topical!!" I hate rounds which digress into debating about whether or not the aff team has fiat!!! or whether the neg team can run a topical cp!! instead of talking about the issues and the case that was presented. So distracting and so debater-ish. Normal means isn't topical either so 95% of cases aren't topical this year I guess.

I won all but one O-spec that I ever ran-- community judges were the most amenable to it, because the argument does, in fact, have clear impacts. Debaters who argue strictly theory arguments are doing it wrong.

First, here's more or less how I ran it:
"Hi judge. So the affirmative's funding is not from the criminal justice system. Let's not pretend that this is less of a mandate than any other mandates-- the affirmative is arguing that we should cut funding from X as much as they are arguing that we should reform Y. Clearly, the aff is not underneath the resolution. Given that you vote for the resolution when you cast your ballot, your vote will put the affirmative's plan in effect without their funding source. Given that their case will not work without funding, as they admit in CX, it is now an unfunded mandate that will have no effect and not change anything but the wording of the law. Furthermore, if you allow the affirmative to do this, they can literally put any mandate in their case that cuts funding from something-- say, Planned Parenthood-- something that clearly gives the affirmative an illegitimate advantage. Would you vote for their plan if it cut funding from PP? Sure you would-- even if the affirmative didn't explicitly argue that they're limiting abortion funding (indirectly). You should not allow the affirmative to get away with this-- vote neg because (A) their plan doesn't work under the resolution, and (B) it gives an illegitimate advantage."

All of that said, I recognize that I'm assuming three things: (A) supporting mandates are not held to the same standard as regular mandates, and (B) that the judge votes to affirm the resolution, and thus the jurisdictional argument is true, and (C) potential abuse is a legitimate argument.

There's another reason I highly, highly dislike specified funding: it creates a false dilemma. As someone mentioned earlier, the aff can just come back and say "Well, yeah, our plan may be worthless, but at least we're not spending it on NASA's research on the evolutionary origin of life!" Should the neg be expected to present a CP to cut such funding every time someone specifies funding, so as to eliminate the false dilemma? Of course not. We should be arguing the merits of the plan-- not the merits of the plan vs. the merits of something else that is completely outside the reasonable neg research burden (teapot museum, anyone?).


First I am playing devils advocate....There is no bigger proponent of "normal means" funding than me, I simply do not understand why teams use specified offset for funding, it is completely silly. However funding arguments is general are usually a big time suck if as the neg you can chose between an on point argument and funding chose on point every time! Now to the argument at hand.

The negative claims our funding is not from the criminal justice system 1) why would we want to take funding away from the criminal justice system and create a deficit in another area of the criminal justice system that were are trying to improve...that would lead to forcing us to then reform another area of the justice system that might be working just find, it also puts all affs in a bind of only offering revenue neutral plans in other words no additional money could be spent to improve the criminal justice system that is simply too big a burden and not what is intend by the resolution if it was that important the resolution would state that and the negative should not win the point by simply implying that is what the resolution means when it is not stated explicitly, most improvements in matters a complex as the US criminal justice system will require some level of funding. 2) the aff is not claiming the advantage of any benefit from cutting X, this is important because we acknowledge that claiming an advantage to be outside the resolution would not be acceptable but to clarify for you further judge any advantage claimed outside of the resolution would simply be severed from the aff plan so if the two advantages we have outweigh the status quo an aff ballot would still be warranted. To summarized in direct refutation to the neg assertions a) we are under the resolution, as it does not state "revenue neutrality" and the aff assumption that money would be spent outside of criminal justice funds is just as valid if not more so than the neg claim we should steal from the criminal justice system and create more problems b) we are not claiming an advantage outside the resolution and even if we were it would be severable and our other advantages would still stand

Sorry I don't have time to double check everything I basically just regurgitated on the page....but that would be the idea anyway


Bottomline....Aff don't write specific offsets for funding and Neg to run funding arguments unless you have nothing on point


Last edited by Coach Carter on Thu Mar 29, 2012 7:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2012 7:18 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
Coach Carter wrote:
Sharkfin wrote:
SusannaC wrote:
I personally think this argument is getting waaaay too nit-picky and debater-ish. If you get a judge who is a long time alumni or something, maybe this argument will work, but any normal parent or community judge would most likely think this argument is silly and distracting from the real issues and the case at hand. [I hate debate theory arguments because they are so dumb...just debate real world impacts and arguments please:'(]
Debate the merits of the real case instead of being like "well, the funding isn't topical!!" I hate rounds which digress into debating about whether or not the aff team has fiat!!! or whether the neg team can run a topical cp!! instead of talking about the issues and the case that was presented. So distracting and so debater-ish. Normal means isn't topical either so 95% of cases aren't topical this year I guess.

I won all but one O-spec that I ever ran-- community judges were the most amenable to it, because the argument does, in fact, have clear impacts. Debaters who argue strictly theory arguments are doing it wrong.

First, here's more or less how I ran it:
"Hi judge. So the affirmative's funding is not from the criminal justice system. Let's not pretend that this is less of a mandate than any other mandates-- the affirmative is arguing that we should cut funding from X as much as they are arguing that we should reform Y. Clearly, the aff is not underneath the resolution. Given that you vote for the resolution when you cast your ballot, your vote will put the affirmative's plan in effect without their funding source. Given that their case will not work without funding, as they admit in CX, it is now an unfunded mandate that will have no effect and not change anything but the wording of the law. Furthermore, if you allow the affirmative to do this, they can literally put any mandate in their case that cuts funding from something-- say, Planned Parenthood-- something that clearly gives the affirmative an illegitimate advantage. Would you vote for their plan if it cut funding from PP? Sure you would-- even if the affirmative didn't explicitly argue that they're limiting abortion funding (indirectly). You should not allow the affirmative to get away with this-- vote neg because (A) their plan doesn't work under the resolution, and (B) it gives an illegitimate advantage."

All of that said, I recognize that I'm assuming three things: (A) supporting mandates are not held to the same standard as regular mandates, and (B) that the judge votes to affirm the resolution, and thus the jurisdictional argument is true, and (C) potential abuse is a legitimate argument.

There's another reason I highly, highly dislike specified funding: it creates a false dilemma. As someone mentioned earlier, the aff can just come back and say "Well, yeah, our plan may be worthless, but at least we're not spending it on NASA's research on the evolutionary origin of life!" Should the neg be expected to present a CP to cut such funding every time someone specifies funding, so as to eliminate the false dilemma? Of course not. We should be arguing the merits of the plan-- not the merits of the plan vs. the merits of something else that is completely outside the reasonable neg research burden (teapot museum, anyone?).


First I am playing devils advocate....There is no bigger proponent of "normal means" funding than me, I simply do not understand why teams use specified offset for funding, it is completely silly. However funding arguments is general are usually a bug time suck if as the neg you can chose between an on point argument and funding chose on point every time! Now to the argument at hand.

The negative claims our funding is not from the criminal justice system 1) why would we want to take funding away from the criminal justice system and create a deficit in another area of the criminal justice system that were are trying to improve...that would lead to forcing us to then reform another area of the justice system that might be working just find, it also puts all affs in a bind of only offering revenue neutral plans in other words no additional money could be spent to improve the criminal justice system that is simply too big a burden and not what is intend by the resolution if it was that important the resolution would state that and the negative should not win the point by simply implying that is what the resolution means when it is not stated explicitly, most improvements in matters a complex as the US criminal justice system will require some level of funding. 2) the aff is not claiming the advantage of any benefit from cutting X, this is important because we acknowledge that claiming an advantage to be outside the resolution would not be acceptable but to clarify for you further judge any advantage claimed outside of the resolution would simply be severed from the aff plan so if the two advantages we have outweigh the status quo an aff ballot would still be warranted. To summarized in direct refutation to the neg assertions a) we are under the resolution, as it does not state "revenue neutrality" and the aff assumption that money would be spent outside of criminal justice funds is just as valid if not more so than the neg claim we should steal from the criminal justice system and create more problems b) we are not claiming an advantage outside the resolution and even if we were it would be severable and our other advantages would still stand

Sorry I don't have time to double check everything I basically just regurgitated on the page....but that would be the idea anyway


Bottomline....Aff don't write specific offsets for funding and Neg to run funding arguments unless you have nothing on point


This is pretty much exactly what I was going to write. Also, the anti-xtraT funding people: you guys continue to argue against extra-T funding by arguing against claiming ADVANTAGES from that funding. I'm in agreement, you can't vote on funding alone. You're debating the plan. the Funding is just THAT. It's HOW to make the plan feasible. That's the difference between MANDATES and enforcement or 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: Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 1070
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: NC
RyanDovel wrote:
Then there's always the 'TP debate is the same as congress' argument so you could say: "congress cuts funding from unrelated programs to support new ones on a regular basis. It's how the USFG works. We're reforming a system of the USFG, so we should reform it how it usually goes about being reformed."

debate partner! :D how long have you been on HSD? (by the way, love your avatar)

on topic...

Masked Midnight wrote:
Quote:
You're debating the plan. the Funding is just THAT. It's HOW to make the plan feasible. That's the difference between MANDATES and enforcement or funding.
Funding is needed for the Plan to work. Debating the mandates is just fine, provided that they have a base. Funding for a plan is the basis of overseeing the mandate(s)' efficiency. Naturally you can't mandate federal grants without a source of funding. Same principle applies here when the funding is EXTRA-T.

but if funding is extra-T, then we eliminate any plan that requires funding of any sort, which seems rash. it's obvious that whether you specify where it comes from or leave it up to "general federal revenue", funding isn't going to come from the rez. so the question is, why should we say GFR instead of a specific program. the only answer i've seen so far is that AFFs will whine about how "well our plan doesn't work but neither does [insert funding source]". sure, i can see that happening, but if it does, then it's NEG's job to tell the judge that by using that argument, the AFF is essentially claiming an advantage from their funding to give their case more weight. what it doesn't mean is that every team who specifies funding will abuse it like that, so we shouldn't ban it based on theory, but rather argue against abuse when it is abused.

of course, this whole discussion begs the question: why bother specifying a funding source anyways? which daniel sort of answered with the funding DA, but i remain unconvinced that funding DAs are all that great. i mean, the whole nature of funding DAs ignores the truth that congress does have a modicum of sense and allocates funds with reason. in other words, the funding from the AFF plan isn't going to come from an incredibly successful, necessary program because there are plenty of unsuccessful, unnecessary programs to choose instead. ignoring this treats congress under AFF in a completely different way than congress in real life.

so, in other words, my opinion on all this = arguments against funding should be used very rarely, and only in instances where AFF is clearly abusive. in every other situation, there are always much better arguments/DAs which will undoubtedly lead to debates that are more substantial, educational, and fun.

_________________
- Will

2010-11 | Freshman | Bardsley/King | IX | 13th at Regionals
2011-12 | Sophomore | Dovel/King | IX | Q'd to Nationals
2012-13 | Junior | Dovel/King | IX | 17th at Nationals
2013-14 | Senior | Dovel/King | IX | 5th at Nationals

Baylor University class of 2018


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:28 pm
Posts: 2888
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I'm not lost! I'm locationally challenged. -John M. Ford
kingwill wrote:
but if funding is extra-T, then we eliminate any plan that requires funding of any sort, which seems rash. it's obvious that whether you specify where it comes from or leave it up to "general federal revenue", funding isn't going to come from the rez. so the question is, why should we say GFR instead of a specific program

I've been meaning to address this for a little while.

You've gotta understand how the federal government allocates money. They have a bill (the omnibus appropriations bill-- though there are many appropriation bills, that the primary one), and they write lines into this bill detailing what $$ goes to what agency and under what provisions. You're not cutting some "GFR" funding. You're writing text into a bill in the same way Congress does all the time. Interestingly enough, if you do specify your funding this process still happens. To be more clear, your plan doesn't pass a bill that literally says "Redirect X monies to Y." No-- you make two separate and distinct changes to completely different parts of a law. You first cancel funding to X and then change another part of the law to allocate monies to Y. They're completely separate and distinct, and the only reason affirmatives specify funding is to cop out of justifying the actual worth of their case vs. the SQ policy and try to get the budget-neutral vibe in an illegitimate way.

It's not the changing of text into the omnibus bill that I object to-- it's the fact that you're changing something completely outside the reasonable negative research burden. (though certainly you should pull some cards on funding as Dr. Srader mentioned, but it's impossible (and I mean that quite literally) to find a defense for every bit of funding that might possibly be used.)

Amodeum wrote:
Also, the anti-xtraT funding people: you guys continue to argue against extra-T funding by arguing against claiming ADVANTAGES from that funding

Three responses:
(1) You do claim advantages from your funding. It's because of the monies that your case works. Your case only works because you have funding. Before you dismiss this argument offhand, keep in mind that by specifying your funding, you're implicitly claiming that your mandates are superior to what the monies are doing currently. Ergo, you're claiming that you have an advantage over the status quo because you use the monies more effectively.
(2) Let's be real. We're in the NCFCA. You cut funding from Planned Parenthood, NASA research on the evolutionary origin of life, the UN IPCC, etc., the judge is going to notice, even if you don't make a big deal about it.
(3) The only reason you're doing it is to spike the spending DA. From that perspective, you're eliminating a disadvantage (and by disadvantage I mean "something to properly weigh the cost of the aff plan") and putting yourself at an inherent advantage. You're eliminating a cost of your plan. That was my biggest beef with Daniel's Angel Coalition case-- they eliminated the primary cost of their plan by specifying their funding-- again, putting themselves at an inherent advantage.

Coach Carter wrote:
However funding arguments is general are usually a big time suck if as the neg you can chose between an on point argument and funding chose on point every time! Now to the argument at hand.

THIS.

Quote:
it also puts all affs in a bind of only offering revenue neutral plans in other words no additional money could be spent to improve the criminal justice system that is simply too big a burden and not what is intend by the resolution

I think I responded to the rest of what you said above, but I should clarify my argument: the O-Spec does not rule out using GFR as a funding source. Ergo, it doesn't have to be budget neutral.

_________________
There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full.
- Henry Kissinger


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:54 am 
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
@Sharkfin's 3 responses:

1) Every plan uses funding for the most part. Now, this would be okay if in a sensible scenario, there was money lieing around to be appropriated. But in a situation where we have so much debt and issues, every NEG can argue that VERY few plans can ever be worth spending that much when the money is desperately needed for things like Social Security, debt interest, etc. That's why the only fiscally responsible thing to do is:

1. Get revenue.
2. Defund something

And no, an AFF does NOT claim an advantage over the status quo because you're using the money more effectively. That's only if you can prove the plan is worth it. In other words, the stock issues must be proven and the plan must be worth it. The funding is only to prove to the judge that there is a program that could be cut that the judge (as the federal government) can defund to pass the plan in good conscience. At least, that's how I argue it. I'd disagree with any AFF who's claiming they should win because "it's still a better use than X".
2) Again, I return to the real world. People can be upset that funding and cost-benefit analysis comes into play, but in the real world, when proposing policies and budgets, that's how lawmakers look at things. It's never a "if we had unlimited money" scenario. Coach Carter already explained this in my opinion.
3) No, the reason isn't for a spike. You're proving that there is a way of making your plan feasible in the real world with the supposition that the judge is the federal government. Without any familiarity with the AC case, I'm not seeing your point. Let's say that their plan is very expensive and they don't have funding. You're going to argue spending. If he adds funding, you're going to argue that he's eliminated the cost of the plan. Well, duh. If that's the case, maybe it's a good plan. Now, if your argument is that it's not worth the money you're spending, that's a solvency point. Maybe it's time to try a minor repair/CP, or "Choosing a flawed plan isn't worth shifting from SQ" DA.

_________________
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: Sat Apr 07, 2012 8:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 1070
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: NC
could somebody who doesn't like "normal means" funding explain what's wrong with simply evaluating the benefits of a program against its monetary cost? if a program is worth what we pay for it, then we should pay for it, even if it means increasing taxes or whatever, right?

A company that wants to expand into China doesn't automatically pull out of Europe because there's some arbitrary limit on the size of its business; it invests in every opportunity that it thinks will be worth it.

That's the attitude we should have today. If there's a program that the American people, through our democratic system, agree will provide benefits greater than its costs, we should do it, independently of the existing spending level. And if there's a program that isn't covering its costs, we should kill it. This is obvious, but instead Washington seems locked in a debate about the total spending level and the total tax bill. And that's a recipe for bad decisions.

_________________
- Will

2010-11 | Freshman | Bardsley/King | IX | 13th at Regionals
2011-12 | Sophomore | Dovel/King | IX | Q'd to Nationals
2012-13 | Junior | Dovel/King | IX | 17th at Nationals
2013-14 | Senior | Dovel/King | IX | 5th at Nationals

Baylor University class of 2018


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2012 10:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:28 pm
Posts: 2888
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I'm not lost! I'm locationally challenged. -John M. Ford
Sorry for the late reply. This dropped off my radar.

Amodeum wrote:
@Sharkfin's 3 responses:
1) Every plan uses funding for the most part. Now, this would be okay if in a sensible scenario, there was money lieing around to be appropriated. But in a situation where we have so much debt and issues, every NEG can argue that VERY few plans can ever be worth spending that much when the money is desperately needed for things like Social Security, debt interest, etc.

That's not the tradeoff. If you don't write the aff plan into the budget, nothing additional goes to SS or debt interest. The neg can't weigh it against something that it wouldn't go to anyway (and if the aff lets them get away with arguing that, then that's the aff's problem).

Quote:
And no, an AFF does NOT claim an advantage over the status quo because you're using the money more effectively. That's only if you can prove the plan is worth it. In other words, the stock issues must be proven and the plan must be worth it. The funding is only to prove to the judge that there is a program that could be cut that the judge (as the federal government) can defund to pass the plan in good conscience. At least, that's how I argue it. I'd disagree with any AFF who's claiming they should win because "it's still a better use than X".

I beg to differ. You're removing the monetary cost to your plan. Let's play a hypothetical scenario: aff plan spends $10 million. They only get $5 million in benefit, but they take funding from a program that gives $2.5 million in benefit. Who wins? The aff of course-- they get a net benefit over the SQ even though they lose $5 million dollars. Regardless of whether you explicitly say it, you are weighing your program against an entirely unrelated program that the neg may or may not have evidence on.

Quote:
2) Again, I return to the real world. People can be upset that funding and cost-benefit analysis comes into play, but in the real world, when proposing policies and budgets, that's how lawmakers look at things. It's never a "if we had unlimited money" scenario. Coach Carter already explained this in my opinion.

Sure. It's a mess of exchanging one program for another. But here in the debate round, we need to set limits on the debate. You shouldn't force the negative to pull evidence on the benefits of a teapot museum in Massachusetts when you're supposed to be debating criminal justice.

Quote:
3) No, the reason isn't for a spike. You're proving that there is a way of making your plan feasible in the real world with the supposition that the judge is the federal government. Without any familiarity with the AC case, I'm not seeing your point. Let's say that their plan is very expensive and they don't have funding. You're going to argue spending. If he adds funding, you're going to argue that he's eliminated the cost of the plan. Well, duh. If that's the case, maybe it's a good plan. Now, if your argument is that it's not worth the money you're spending, that's a solvency point. Maybe it's time to try a minor repair/CP, or "Choosing a flawed plan isn't worth shifting from SQ" DA.

Ahah, here's the point that I wanted to reach-- it provides proof of my point. The aff here (particularly in the example I painted earlier) is forcing the negative to run a counterplan because they're stealing the neg's ground. The neg then has to reclaim that ground by running a funding hijack. Legitimate? No, and particularly so in a league where a counterplan is a risky move.

(if the case gets beat on a spending DA, perhaps the case shouldn't be passed.)

_________________
There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full.
- Henry Kissinger


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

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited