homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Thu Oct 19, 2017 3:16 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: Sun Apr 08, 2012 1:11 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
kingwill wrote:
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.


But there are many financially irresponsible things that provide greater benefits than costs. For instance, let's say I'm a homeschooler dad and I'm contemplating getting a new car since the old one is broken down. However, I've bankrupted the family, I've maxed out the credit cards, I'm in danger of losing my property. Is this the time to make the purchase? No. I need to give up on the car even though I really need it. I just don't have the money. In other words, I have to lay down the principle - I'm not spending what I don't have. That's fiscal responsibility.

Now, suppose I say: "instead of using central heating, we're all going to just cover up and use a ton of blankets. I now have 8000 dollars which, even though it could go to paying off the debt, could be used to get the car WITHOUT any additional cost to myself.

The US needs to take a hard-line stance: We're not spending what we don't have. No matter what it is. Because if we just spend, we're accepting the idea that it's okay to spend wastefully. Instead, we need to clean up our mess and at least keep our plans budget-neutral.

@Sharkfin: I'd love to respond but it's pretty clear we each have our clearly-defined positions and I don't have the time. Shall we agree to disagree?

_________________
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: Sun Apr 08, 2012 4:18 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
Amodeum wrote:
@Sharkfin: I'd love to respond but it's pretty clear we each have our clearly-defined positions and I don't have the time. Shall we agree to disagree?

Sounds good.

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2012 9:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 1070
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: NC
Amodeum wrote:
But there are many financially irresponsible things that provide greater benefits than costs. For instance, let's say I'm a homeschooler dad and I'm contemplating getting a new car since the old one is broken down. However, I've bankrupted the family, I've maxed out the credit cards, I'm in danger of losing my property. Is this the time to make the purchase? No. I need to give up on the car even though I really need it. I just don't have the money. In other words, I have to lay down the principle - I'm not spending what I don't have. That's fiscal responsibility.

1. Yes, you should buy the car. IF the benefits outweigh the costs - in this hypothetical, possible benefits might include ability to get a job, which would more than pay off the investment in the car. Benefits > costs, so buy. On the other hand, if the benefits of the car don't outweigh the costs, you shouldn't get it. I.e. if you would foreclose your house if you bought the car, the cost of losing your house would outweigh the cost of buying the car. Costs > benefits, so don't buy. Point being: spending money to acquire a beneficial item is not inherently bad. It is bad if the cost outweighs the benefit, though.

2. The USFG is in a different situation than this hypothetical family, in that Congress has the ability to generate additional revenue through taxes. It's like saying "yes, the father should buy the car, because can just work to get the money."

Quote:
Now, suppose I say: "instead of using central heating, we're all going to just cover up and use a ton of blankets. I now have 8000 dollars which, even though it could go to paying off the debt, could be used to get the car WITHOUT any additional cost to myself.

Then you get hit with extra-T funding. :P not that I would run extra-T funding, but that's the cost of specifying funding...

Quote:
The US needs to take a hard-line stance: We're not spending what we don't have. No matter what it is. Because if we just spend, we're accepting the idea that it's okay to spend wastefully. Instead, we need to clean up our mess and at least keep our plans budget-neutral.

Spending =/= spending wastefully. That's my whole point. You said that if we spend, we accept wasteful spending, but what you should be saying is that if we spend, we're accepting responsible, cost-beneficial spending. Which is a good idea. As for being budget-neutral, it's a. non-unique and b. not mutually exclusive in that spending out of GFR does not automatically lead to a budget deficit. Under fiat, Congress still works and they still can cut programs (as they do) to make room for new programs (such as the AFF plan).

_________________
- 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: Sun Apr 08, 2012 11:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 5:08 pm
Posts: 14
Home Schooled: Yes
(Woo first post)
Here are my thoughts:
1. The purpose of funding is for the IMPLEMENTATION of your plan. As long as your using the funding to implement your plan it CAN be EXTRA-TOPICAL.
2. Using extra-topical funding can be no beuno. If teams use funding to delink out of Disadvs or claim advantages from their funding, I consider non-legit (topicality wise) and borderline abusive.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2012 11:14 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
yellow_debater wrote:
(Woo first post)
Here are my thoughts:
1. The purpose of funding is for the IMPLEMENTATION of your plan. As long as your using the funding to implement your plan it CAN be EXTRA-TOPICAL.
2. Using extra-topical funding can be no beuno. If teams use funding to delink out of Disadvs or claim advantages from their funding, I consider non-legit (topicality wise) and borderline abusive.


If you don't have funding, the neg could run a deficit d/a. So, any funding is delinking a d/a. Therefore, any extra-topical funding delinks a d/a.

_________________
"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: Sun Apr 08, 2012 11:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 5:08 pm
Posts: 14
Home Schooled: Yes
anorton wrote:
yellow_debater wrote:
(Woo first post)
Here are my thoughts:
1. The purpose of funding is for the IMPLEMENTATION of your plan. As long as your using the funding to implement your plan it CAN be EXTRA-TOPICAL.
2. Using extra-topical funding can be no beuno. If teams use funding to delink out of Disadvs or claim advantages from their funding, I consider non-legit (topicality wise) and borderline abusive.


If you don't have funding, the neg could run a deficit d/a. So, any funding is delinking a d/a. Therefore, any extra-topical funding delinks a d/a.

I'm sorry.
I realized that my post made no sense.
Let me be more specific.
If an Aff team wants to use funding to build something, then it's legit because in order to pass their plan of implementing a border fence to stop illegal immigrants, it's legit.
But if a Aff team wants to privatize social security so they abolish the payroll tax and then cuts spending so that they can pay people back then it's not because it's not topical because they will delink out of "hurt retirees" da's and claim advantages of retirees being paid back.
Does that make sense?


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2012 11:49 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
yellow_debater wrote:
I'm sorry.
I realized that my post made no sense.
Let me be more specific.
If an Aff team wants to use funding to build something, then it's legit because in order to pass their plan of implementing a border fence to stop illegal immigrants, it's legit.
But if a Aff team wants to privatize social security so they abolish the payroll tax and then cuts spending so that they can pay people back then it's not because it's not topical because they will delink out of "hurt retirees" da's and claim advantages of retirees being paid back.
Does that make sense?

I understand (I hold the same position), I was just being nit-picky... ;)

//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 May 15, 2012 6:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 1:18 am
Posts: 31
Home Schooled: Yes
Logically, I don't think that cutting funding from a different department is extra topical... Here are my reasons...

The Resolution calls us to reform the CJS. It exclusively states that the only thing you can reform is the criminal justice system. It does not however say you can't tinker with other things All it says is that you must REFORM the CJS. You can mess around with other Departments as long you don't fix anything.

If I were to cut $500 Million from the Department of Defense's budget to help build more prisons, that probably wouldn't count as a REFORM to the Department of Defense. THEY AREN'T REFORMING ANYTHING EXCEPT THE CJS.



Amodeum wrote:
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?

_________________
Running topicality is so 2012...



2012-2013...Fisher-Fisher
2011-2012...Fisher-Fisher
2010-2011...Fisher-Willenbrink



Top
   
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2012 8:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 5:08 pm
Posts: 14
Home Schooled: Yes
MattFish wrote:
Logically, I don't think that cutting funding from a different department is extra topical... Here are my reasons...

The Resolution calls us to reform the CJS. It exclusively states that the only thing you can reform is the criminal justice system. It does not however say you can't tinker with other things All it says is that you must REFORM the CJS. You can mess around with other Departments as long you don't fix anything.

If I were to cut $500 Million from the Department of Defense's budget to help build more prisons, that probably wouldn't count as a REFORM to the Department of Defense. THEY AREN'T REFORMING ANYTHING EXCEPT THE CJS.



Amodeum wrote:
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?

Agreed. However I'd probably run a DA that DoD's budget is already small enough. Cut something more useless. ;)


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2012 8:43 pm 
Offline
Cupcake
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:08 pm
Posts: 1211
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Illinois
I preface this by saying I could care less about the T of funding.

But no, your defense is incorrect. Here's why:

The resolution establishes what's topical. Anything outside of the resolution is non-topical (or extra-topical, if you prefer, though usually this refers to a topical + non-topical plan in its entirety).

Therefore, anything that is not a reform, is non-topical. Which would mean funding changes are non-topical. Then you're back to the defense of why it's OKAY they're non-topical.

Extra topicality is extra topicality. You can't say the resolution "allows" you to "tinker" with other things, because it doesn't allow you ANYTHING outside of itself.

You can't justify extra-topical funding with semantics, you have to call it like it actually is and then justify it from there.

_________________
Drew Chambers
LinkedIn


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2012 2:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 4:54 am
Posts: 321
Home Schooled: Yes
ExtraT funding debates are boring.

But, to truthfully add to the conversation:

The most legitimate funding I have ever seen was a case where the Aff's funding was "cuts from general federal spending". Totally T neutral. But they had a card that if cuts are made, it would be a cut to NASA funding. It got them out of any sticky T situations, and they also dodged the whole "OMG YOU COULD BE CUTTING FUNDING FROM OLD PEOPLE OR INCREASING THE DEBT!" mantra.

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2012 4:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 1:18 am
Posts: 31
Home Schooled: Yes
Drew wrote:
I preface this by saying I could care less about the T of funding.

But no, your defense is incorrect. Here's why:

The resolution establishes what's topical. Anything outside of the resolution is non-topical (or extra-topical, if you prefer, though usually this refers to a topical + non-topical plan in its entirety).

Therefore, anything that is not a reform, is non-topical. Which would mean funding changes are non-topical. Then you're back to the defense of why it's OKAY they're non-topical.

Extra topicality is extra topicality. You can't say the resolution "allows" you to "tinker" with other things, because it doesn't allow you ANYTHING outside of itself.

You can't justify extra-topical funding with semantics, you have to call it like it actually is and then justify it from there.



Yes, the Resolution DOES establish what is topical. To be topical, the affirmative team has to significantly reform the CJS (NCFCA) or the tax policy (STOA).
There is not one place in the entire resolution that says, "You can only reform this and you can't touch anything else." The Resolution states that ONLY the CJS must be reformed. However, it doesn't necessarily rule out the redirection of $$$ from other organizations or programs to help out with the reform. You can mess with anything else as long as it isn't reformed.

Here's an example of a cyber warfare (Russia) case I ran last year. Our plan called for $13 Billion more for cyber offensive and defense weaponry in the NCSD (National Cyber Security Division). This funding would be redirected from the Department of Defense's ballistic missile programs. We had evidence stating that the ballistic missile programs were overfunded and that a cut of about $15 Billion would be fine and would do no damage (or good). We weren't reforming the ballistic missile programs, we were just redirecting cash that wasn't needed to help our policy towards Russia.

Essentially, if you are reforming ONLY the CJS, then you are topical. You can mess around with other departments as long as you don't abolish or put the program into an improved form or condition.

_________________
Running topicality is so 2012...



2012-2013...Fisher-Fisher
2011-2012...Fisher-Fisher
2010-2011...Fisher-Willenbrink



Top
   
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2012 6:09 pm 
Offline
Easiest Person to Kill with a Witty Comeback

Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 2:36 am
Posts: 973
Home Schooled: Yes
MattFish wrote:
Here's an example of a cyber warfare (Russia) case I ran last year. Our plan called for $13 Billion more for cyber offensive and defense weaponry in the NCSD (National Cyber Security Division). This funding would be redirected from the Department of Defense's ballistic missile programs. We had evidence stating that the ballistic missile programs were overfunded and that a cut of about $15 Billion would be fine and would do no damage (or good). We weren't reforming the ballistic missile programs, we were just redirecting cash that wasn't needed to help our policy towards Russia.
If cutting funding to ballistic missiles is not a reform, then adding money to cyber security wouldn't be a reform either (making it non-topical).

_________________
- Region 6 Alumnus


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2012 6:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 3:52 am
Posts: 636
Home Schooled: Yes
MattFish wrote:
Essentially, if you are reforming ONLY the CJS, then you are topical. You can mess around with other departments as long as you don't abolish or put the program into an improved form or condition.

By claiming that the money is better used with your plan, that's exactly what you're claiming. You're using the redirection of funds as an unspoken internal link to your advantages.

Also "reform" isn't the brightline for what's fine for affs to do and what's not. Doing anything outside the rez triggers the normal T standards of predictability, limits and ground.

Like Drew said, fess up that it's extra/non topical, and defend it that way. Normally, I think nontopical funding is just fine. With the Stoa rez this year (ie, cutting spending to pay for a tax cut) I'm definitely on the side of those who view it as abusively nontopical (as opposed to non-abusive).


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2012 7:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 1:18 am
Posts: 31
Home Schooled: Yes
Our plan was redirecting money to the NCSD for the development of offensive and defensive weaponry. The plan was very similar to the Arctic Militarization case you and Jeffrey ran last year. We were performing a military buildup to strengthen our hand in diplomacy. So was Arctic Militarization. If you think that our case was non-topical, then Arctic Mil qualfies as well.





Dr_Pepper wrote:
MattFish wrote:
Here's an example of a cyber warfare (Russia) case I ran last year. Our plan called for $13 Billion more for cyber offensive and defense weaponry in the NCSD (National Cyber Security Division). This funding would be redirected from the Department of Defense's ballistic missile programs. We had evidence stating that the ballistic missile programs were overfunded and that a cut of about $15 Billion would be fine and would do no damage (or good). We weren't reforming the ballistic missile programs, we were just redirecting cash that wasn't needed to help our policy towards Russia.
If cutting funding to ballistic missiles is not a reform, then adding money to cyber security wouldn't be a reform either (making it non-topical).

_________________
Running topicality is so 2012...



2012-2013...Fisher-Fisher
2011-2012...Fisher-Fisher
2010-2011...Fisher-Willenbrink



Top
   
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2012 7:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 1:18 am
Posts: 31
Home Schooled: Yes
Look, you're coming from the mindset that money is the policy. That is not true. What's the point of having a policy if you can't pay for it?

If you aren't reforming or abolishing another non-topical POLICY, then the affirmative team is fine to redirect funding. If the amount of $$ they cut DOES actually effect a policy outside of the resolution, then the case is non topical.

Also, I'm not going to "fess up"... Sorry! :lol:

Flash of light wrote:
MattFish wrote:
Essentially, if you are reforming ONLY the CJS, then you are topical. You can mess around with other departments as long as you don't abolish or put the program into an improved form or condition.

By claiming that the money is better used with your plan, that's exactly what you're claiming. You're using the redirection of funds as an unspoken internal link to your advantages.

Also "reform" isn't the brightline for what's fine for affs to do and what's not. Doing anything outside the rez triggers the normal T standards of predictability, limits and ground.

Like Drew said, fess up that it's extra/non topical, and defend it that way. Normally, I think nontopical funding is just fine. With the Stoa rez this year (ie, cutting spending to pay for a tax cut) I'm definitely on the side of those who view it as abusively nontopical (as opposed to non-abusive).

_________________
Running topicality is so 2012...



2012-2013...Fisher-Fisher
2011-2012...Fisher-Fisher
2010-2011...Fisher-Willenbrink



Top
   
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2012 9:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 3:52 am
Posts: 636
Home Schooled: Yes
MattFish wrote:
Look, you're coming from the mindset that money is the policy. That is not true. What's the point of having a policy if you can't pay for it?

I don't even know what you mean by this. Funding absolutely is a policy. The point (as in, the intent or purpose) of a policy is separate from whether you can pay for it, which is a question of workability. You can't justify being nontopical with "well, if we couldn't be nontopical, then our plan wouldn't work," because (if the negative is competent) they'll have run educational/fairness standards which are more important than the pretend solvency of a plan.

Quote:
If you aren't reforming or abolishing another non-topical POLICY, then the affirmative team is fine to redirect funding.

I completely fail to see the reason to distinguish between "reforming or abolishing" a policy, or just doing anything to it. It's still an action that is dealing with policies the neg hasn't had a chance to research or predict.

Quote:
If the amount of $$ they cut DOES actually effect a policy outside of the resolution, then the case is non topical.

Um. Any spending cut will affect a policy, likely one outside the resolution.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2012 9:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 7:29 pm
Posts: 152
Home Schooled: Yes
MattFish wrote:
Look, you're coming from the mindset that money is the policy. That is not true. What's the point of having a policy if you can't pay for it?

If you aren't reforming or abolishing another non-topical POLICY, then the affirmative team is fine to redirect funding. If the amount of $$ they cut DOES actually effect a policy outside of the resolution, then the case is non topical.

Also, I'm not going to "fess up"... Sorry! :lol:


You're missing his point. By cutting funding from something and putting it somewhere else (what any specified funding source does in essence) you're creating a hidden internal link to your advantages, because you're implicitly claiming an aff vote is justified because you fund a better policy than the status quo does. And if you don't specify funding, your policy is just paid for out of the federal budget.

And redirecting funding IS reforming another policy. By pulling funding, your putting the program in a better state because it's "wasting" less money. Not claiming an advantage doesn't change your implicit claim. Also, there is no brightline for "reform" as Flash points out. The res says you're resolved:x. Doing anything outside of that is non/extra topical, regardless if whether its a reform. If your justification was correct, I could cut the funding of every program conservative judges hate to $1, never talk about the advantages, and it would be fine. But this is obviously abusive and would result in lots of undeserved wins.

If you do ANYTHING outside the resolution, its extra-topical. There are ways to argue this is fine, but you're going to lose if you argue that you're not extra-T because its not a reform. The resolution is a statement, you can't just pull words out and say they're the only limiting factors. There's nothing unique about reform in the resolution, and there are many resolutions that don't use it. I could just as easily say I need to reform things, as long as I only claim advantages from reforms of the topic area.

_________________
Come to Puget Sound Debate Camp!
debatecamp.pssda.net


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2012 10:47 pm 
Offline
Easiest Person to Kill with a Witty Comeback

Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 2:36 am
Posts: 973
Home Schooled: Yes
MattFish wrote:
Our plan was redirecting money to the NCSD for the development of offensive and defensive weaponry. The plan was very similar to the Arctic Militarization case you and Jeffrey ran last year. We were performing a military buildup to strengthen our hand in diplomacy. So was Arctic Militarization. If you think that our case was non-topical, then Arctic Mil qualfies as well.
I've kind of changed my mind about it. I think our other mandates were topical, but I don't think our funding was.

_________________
- Region 6 Alumnus


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2012 1:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 1:18 am
Posts: 31
Home Schooled: Yes
Okay then... Here's my response... Using YOUR logic, it would be nontopical to take funding out of the General Revenue because THE GENERAL REVENUE IS MANAGED BY THE TREASURY!!!

The Treasury and Federal Reserve is where all the $$$ comes from in our government. Using your logic, it would be extratopical to take funding from the General Revenue since it deals with another Department.

Using your thought process, there is no way any plan could be passed because you couldn't change anything in funding.



ZaR wrote:
MattFish wrote:
Look, you're coming from the mindset that money is the policy. That is not true. What's the point of having a policy if you can't pay for it?

If you aren't reforming or abolishing another non-topical POLICY, then the affirmative team is fine to redirect funding. If the amount of $$ they cut DOES actually effect a policy outside of the resolution, then the case is non topical.

Also, I'm not going to "fess up"... Sorry! :lol:


You're missing his point. By cutting funding from something and putting it somewhere else (what any specified funding source does in essence) you're creating a hidden internal link to your advantages, because you're implicitly claiming an aff vote is justified because you fund a better policy than the status quo does. And if you don't specify funding, your policy is just paid for out of the federal budget.

And redirecting funding IS reforming another policy. By pulling funding, your putting the program in a better state because it's "wasting" less money. Not claiming an advantage doesn't change your implicit claim. Also, there is no brightline for "reform" as Flash points out. The res says you're resolved:x. Doing anything outside of that is non/extra topical, regardless if whether its a reform. If your justification was correct, I could cut the funding of every program conservative judges hate to $1, never talk about the advantages, and it would be fine. But this is obviously abusive and would result in lots of undeserved wins.

If you do ANYTHING outside the resolution, its extra-topical. There are ways to argue this is fine, but you're going to lose if you argue that you're not extra-T because its not a reform. The resolution is a statement, you can't just pull words out and say they're the only limiting factors. There's nothing unique about reform in the resolution, and there are many resolutions that don't use it. I could just as easily say I need to reform things, as long as I only claim advantages from reforms of the topic area.

_________________
Running topicality is so 2012...



2012-2013...Fisher-Fisher
2011-2012...Fisher-Fisher
2010-2011...Fisher-Willenbrink



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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited