homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Tue Oct 17, 2017 12:16 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: 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
   
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2012 5:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 7:29 pm
Posts: 152
Home Schooled: Yes
No.

The fundamental difference is what congress does in the real world. Congress passes bills and pulls funding out of general revenue, they don't specify what's cut. Additionally, there is no impact to this supposed extra-T violation. The reason the extra T you're defending is theoretically a bad idea (I'm with flash as far as extra-T funding, your argument is just a bad reason for it) is that it changes the question of the debate to "Is plan better than what it cuts?" from "Is plan better than status quo". The new question is much harder for the neg to win, while the resolution really calls for aff to defend the original question, because it asks if we should reform x policy, not whether we should reform overall policy in a way that makes x policy better. General funding does not fall into this argument, because you're still questioning the addition of the new policy in a vacuum, ignoring the question of what's being lost to get that.

Additionally, you dropped my analysis that you could cut lots of "bad" programs to $1 to fund whatever you wants to get wins. That creates a debate that is fundamentally unfair. Making a new topicality interpretation taking the analysis to the other extreme based on logic used to defend a middle ground does not make that logic incorrect. I can still defend my interpretation as better for debate than either your interpretation or your "extension" of my interpretation, so it is still the best way to define topicality and extra-T

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat May 19, 2012 11:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 1:18 am
Posts: 31
Home Schooled: Yes
Look, you're making money into a policy or a system which just isn't true. If funding was an actual policy, then your arguments would be legit. But FUNDING AND $$$ IS NOT A POLICY.

If you are redirecting money, you are not reforming a policy. Straight and simple. If you redirect cash from a program that doesn't need it and directing it to the mandates under your case, then it absolutely fine. Money isn't a policy.

Finally, your point regarding "$1 Bad Program Cuts" missed what I was saying. Programs generally set forward the policy and are the policy. If you are ABOLISHING other programs, then yes, it would be non-topical. But since you are only removing unneeded funds, you aren't reforming THE PROGRAM. You are just redirecting funds away to your plan. $$$ isn't a policy.






ZaR wrote:
No.

The fundamental difference is what congress does in the real world. Congress passes bills and pulls funding out of general revenue, they don't specify what's cut. Additionally, there is no impact to this supposed extra-T violation. The reason the extra T you're defending is theoretically a bad idea (I'm with flash as far as extra-T funding, your argument is just a bad reason for it) is that it changes the question of the debate to "Is plan better than what it cuts?" from "Is plan better than status quo". The new question is much harder for the neg to win, while the resolution really calls for aff to defend the original question, because it asks if we should reform x policy, not whether we should reform overall policy in a way that makes x policy better. General funding does not fall into this argument, because you're still questioning the addition of the new policy in a vacuum, ignoring the question of what's being lost to get that.

Additionally, you dropped my analysis that you could cut lots of "bad" programs to $1 to fund whatever you wants to get wins. That creates a debate that is fundamentally unfair. Making a new topicality interpretation taking the analysis to the other extreme based on logic used to defend a middle ground does not make that logic incorrect. I can still defend my interpretation as better for debate than either your interpretation or your "extension" of my interpretation, so it is still the best way to define topicality and extra-T

_________________
Running topicality is so 2012...



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



Top
   
PostPosted: Sun May 20, 2012 2:50 am 
Offline
Cupcake
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:08 pm
Posts: 1211
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Illinois
Really all you're doing is showing violations of topicality.

Altering budgets is:

a) Not policy!

b) Not a reform!

c) Not the justice system!

Therefore...moving money does not meet the resolution! :D

In debate, we call this non-topical! When combined with a topical portion of a plan, the plan in it's entirety is considered extra-topical.

Now on THAT basis, defend why it's OKAY to be extra/non-topical with your funding.

_________________
Drew Chambers
LinkedIn


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun May 20, 2012 11:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 7:29 pm
Posts: 152
Home Schooled: Yes
MattFish wrote:

Finally, your point regarding "$1 Bad Program Cuts" missed what I was saying. Programs generally set forward the policy and are the policy. If you are ABOLISHING other programs, then yes, it would be non-topical. But since you are only removing unneeded funds, you aren't reforming THE PROGRAM. You are just redirecting funds away to your plan. $$$ isn't a policy.
But I'm not saying to abolish other programs, I'm merely reducing funds significantly. And those are unneeded funds because the programs are pointless anyway, or at least the judge probably thinks they are.

Also, what Drew said is correct and highlights that you still haven't given a good defense of your arbitrary distinction that you can take non-topical action as long as that action isn't a reform of policy

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2012 8:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 1:18 am
Posts: 31
Home Schooled: Yes
Drew, please stop jumping to conclusions. You missed my point entirely.

I agree with all violations of topicality you presented. But here is why I still believe that you can redirect funding from outside programs...

1. We agree money is not a policy. So how could I be reforming a non-topical policy by changing the direction of money?

2. We agree money is not a reform. So why is it non topical to redirect funding? The Resolution says REFORM. So if money doesn't reform, then what's wrong with moving it around?

3. I agree that money is not the criminal justice system. But you need money to fuel policies and other ideas. Even if money isn't the policy, the CJS does need it.




Drew wrote:
Really all you're doing is showing violations of topicality.

Altering budgets is:

a) Not policy!

b) Not a reform!

c) Not the justice system!

Therefore...moving money does not meet the resolution! :D

In debate, we call this non-topical! When combined with a topical portion of a plan, the plan in it's entirety is considered extra-topical.

Now on THAT basis, defend why it's OKAY to be extra/non-topical with your funding.

_________________
Running topicality is so 2012...



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



Top
   
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2012 8:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 4:54 am
Posts: 321
Home Schooled: Yes
...O.o

Oh my.

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2012 8:30 pm 
Offline
Cupcake
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:08 pm
Posts: 1211
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Illinois
Topicality doesn't hinge on the word reform.

If it's NOT a reform, then it's NOT topical.

If a plan or action doesn't meet ANY one aspect of the resolution, it's not topical. So once more, justify why it's okay to use a course action that's outside of the resolution as a plank of your plan.

I think you're on the right track when you say that budgets are necessary parts of any policy and thus it's okay to change them in order to provide solvency for a new cost in the form of your plan.

EDIT: You seem to be pivoting around the idea that the resolution doesn't LIMIT a team, it just provides the minimum. Most everyone else would disagree. The resolution is intended to exclusively limit an affirmative to the resolution itself. Anything outside of it is considered negative ground... Of course there are ways to argue otherwise, which I do frequently, but you haven't establish the warrants for such yet.

_________________
Drew Chambers
LinkedIn


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2012 8:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 1:18 am
Posts: 31
Home Schooled: Yes
Drew, here is my justification

The Resolution requires we...
a.) Reform... b.) Our reform be that of the CJS

Those are the two requirements.

Agreed?


Assuming you say yes, and considering your agreement over the idea that money isn't a reform or policy, redirecting money wouldn't be a reform of another Department or program.






Drew wrote:
Topicality doesn't hinge on the word reform.

If it's NOT a reform, then it's NOT topical.

If a plan or action doesn't meet ANY one aspect of the resolution, it's not topical. So once more, justify why it's okay to use a course action that's outside of the resolution as a plank of your plan.

I think you're on the right track when you say that budgets are necessary parts of any policy and thus it's okay to change them in order to provide solvency for a new cost in the form of your plan.

_________________
Running topicality is so 2012...



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



Top
   
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2012 8:44 pm 
Offline
Cupcake
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:08 pm
Posts: 1211
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Illinois
The resolution allows the affirmative to use the United States Federal Government to significantly reform the federal criminal justice system. That is what is allowed and given to the affirmative team.

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 of the resolution. Again, there is reason why this is okay, but saying that it isn't non-topical isn't the way.

_________________
Drew Chambers
LinkedIn


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2012 1:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 1:18 am
Posts: 31
Home Schooled: Yes
Remember... "There is no such thing as a free lunch." Someone will have to pay for it.

I know budgets aren't directly part of the CJS, but its ridiculous and overbearing of the negative team to say that it should make an aff case topical.



Drew wrote:
The resolution allows the affirmative to use the United States Federal Government to significantly reform the federal criminal justice system. That is what is allowed and given to the affirmative team.

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 of the resolution. Again, there is reason why this is okay, but saying that it isn't non-topical isn't the way.

_________________
Running topicality is so 2012...



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



Top
   
PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2012 2:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 4:54 am
Posts: 321
Home Schooled: Yes
This post is for MattFish. And anyone else who is confused with topicality.
___

Ok.

Bro.

Topicality 101.

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.

Image

Note:
Image
___

Reforming anything but budgets that meet ALL resolutional parameters is as nontopical as sending Obama to the moon.

Remember what Drew said:
Drew wrote:
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.

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2012 3:00 am 
Offline
Cupcake
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:08 pm
Posts: 1211
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Illinois
Matt, it seems like you're inching your way towards the heart of the actual debate: why is it okay to use funding (which, in and of itself, is non-topical) for your plan?

Your first warrant is there:

1. It's unfair/over-burdensome to NOT have access to funding.

Now let's think of 2, 3, and 4.

_________________
Drew Chambers
LinkedIn


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2012 8:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 1:18 am
Posts: 31
Home Schooled: Yes
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.





curlyhairedmenace wrote:
This post is for MattFish. And anyone else who is confused with topicality.
___

Ok.

Bro.

Topicality 101.

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.

Image

Note:
Image
___

Reforming anything but budgets that meet ALL resolutional parameters is as nontopical as sending Obama to the moon.

Remember what Drew said:
Drew wrote:
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...



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



Top
   
PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2012 8:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 3:52 am
Posts: 636
Home Schooled: Yes
Dude. You're agreeing with us. Let's say money isn't anything in the rez. Let's say it meets exactly zero of the requirements that the rez puts upon the aff.

...sure seems nontopical to me. Your interp of T seems to be "if it meets some of the words, but not the others, it's nontopical. but it if meets none of the terms, or all the terms, it's okay."


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2012 8:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 1:18 am
Posts: 31
Home Schooled: Yes
That wasn't my point.

This would be non topical...

Mandate: Providing $400M to Faith Based Organizations.
Funding: Funding will come from the farm subsidies program.

It's nontopical because you are not reforming anything under the resolution. In fact, you aren't reforming anything at all.


This would be topical...

Mandate: Allowing Faith Based Organizations more opportunities to enter prisons.
Funding: Any Needed Funding will come from the farm subsidies program.

Here's why: Because you aren't reforming any program outside of the criminal justice system, only redirecting funding, and you're making an actual reform in the CJS, you are topical.


Flash of light wrote:
Dude. You're agreeing with us. Let's say money isn't anything in the rez. Let's say it meets exactly zero of the requirements that the rez puts upon the aff.

...sure seems nontopical to me. Your interp of T seems to be "if it meets some of the words, but not the others, it's nontopical. but it if meets none of the terms, or all the terms, it's okay."

_________________
Running topicality is so 2012...



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



Top
   
PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2012 8:50 pm 
Offline
Cupcake
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:08 pm
Posts: 1211
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Illinois
Here is your (possibly unspoken) paradigm: As long as the main part of your plan is topical, you can use extra-topical actions i.e. you can go outside the resolution, as long as your fulfilling it in some way.

Normally though, most debaters would say that the resolution restricts affirmative teams to its boundaries and ONLY its boundaries. On THIS basis, we're arguing that funding is non-topical.

_________________
Drew Chambers
LinkedIn


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2012 8:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 1:18 am
Posts: 31
Home Schooled: Yes
Do you agree that the criterion for the Resolution this year is...

1.) You must significantly reform...
2.) The CJS system is what you must significantly reform...
3.) Money is not a policy or a reform

Please give your answer, then we can determine whether or not we're on the same page right now.



Drew wrote:
Here is your (possibly unspoken) paradigm: As long as the main part of your plan is topical, you can use extra-topical actions i.e. you can go outside the resolution, as long as your fulfilling it in some way.

Normally though, most debaters would say that the resolution restricts affirmative teams to its boundaries and ONLY its boundaries. On THIS basis, we're arguing that funding is non-topical.

_________________
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 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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited