To be honest, Curlyfries (or whatever your name is), these diagrams don't give me a reason on planet earth why I couldn't redirect funding.
Yes, I agree with everything in that diagram. But let's remember...
1.) MONEY ISN'T A POLICY
2.) MONEY ISN'T A REFORM, SIGNIFICANT OR INSIGNIFICANT
3.) MONEY ISN'T THE US GOVERNMENT
Using your criterion, I would not be breaking any rule by using outside $$$ to pay for my mandates. It's simple logic.
This post is for MattFish. And anyone else who is confused with topicality.
The resolution is a summary of a list of parameters that the affirmative MUST operate WITHIN.
1. The USFG (The reform can ONLY be within or carried out by the USFG.)
2. should significantly (The reform can ONLY be significant.)
3. reform (The plan can ONLY be a reform.)
4. its criminal justice system (The reform can be ONLY within the criminal justice system.
There are other parameters. But this is the main idea of it.
I am a visual thinker. Maybe you are too. I made these diagrams to help explain Topicality to my students.
THIS is topicality.
Reforming anything but budgets that meet ALL resolutional parameters is as nontopical as sending Obama to the moon.
Remember what Drew said:
If the affirmative team does ANYTHING other than that, then the affirmative is acting outside of the resolution in some part.
Revising budgets clearly violates several components/moves outside of the bounds (or parameters) of the resolution. Again, there is reason why this is okay, but saying that it isn't non-topical isn't the way.
I hope the diagrams cleared this up for you, MattFish.
Running topicality is so 2012...