HomeSchoolDebate
http://homeschooldebate.com/phpBB3/

Extra-Topical Funding
http://homeschooldebate.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=13082
Page 5 of 5

Author:  Drew [ Wed May 23, 2012 8:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Extra-Topical Funding

Yes, I do. And I believe that it's not a "your goal is to meet the resolution, so do whatever possible to meet it, even if it means using a method outside of it" type of burden.

You can ONLY use the resolution; you can't fulfill it by going outside of it and you can't fulfill it and then have a couple bonus mandates/planks.

Author:  MattFish [ Sun May 27, 2012 12:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Extra-Topical Funding

Look, you've just agreed that...

1.) Money isn't a reform
2.) Money isn't a policy
3.) The only thing we can REFORM is the CJS

So if money isn't a reform or policy, then we wouldn't be violating the resolution. The Resolution says the only thing we can reform is the CJS, but if Money and Funding isn't a policy, then I'm...
1.) Topical because the only thing I am reforming is the CJS.
2.) Like you said, money isn't a policy or reform.







Drew wrote:
Yes, I do. And I believe that it's not a "your goal is to meet the resolution, so do whatever possible to meet it, even if it means using a method outside of it" type of burden.

You can ONLY use the resolution; you can't fulfill it by going outside of it and you can't fulfill it and then have a couple bonus mandates/planks.

Author:  curlyhairedmenace [ Sun May 27, 2012 7:47 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Extra-Topical Funding

MattFish wrote:
1.) Money isn't a reform - Then it is outside the bounds of the resolution.
2.) Money isn't a policy - Then it is outside the bounds of the resolution.
3.) The only thing we can REFORM is the CJS - If money isn't a reform or a policy, it is definitely not reform the CJS. Which means it is outside the resolution.

If it's outside the resolution, then its not topical. Money, as you said, is not a reform or a policy or CJS. Therefore, it's nontopical. It is simple as that.

Dude, I want you to realize that every quality debater I have ever met disagrees with your interpretation of topicality. This does not mean that you are instantaneously wrong, but it does mean that they are obviously good debaters.

You have been talking to Drew Chambers, which is one of the best debaters I know of and he's very knowledgeable on theory. He knows what he is talking about. I would take what he is saying into serious consideration before you discount it.

:steps out:

Author:  MattFish [ Tue May 29, 2012 7:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Extra-Topical Funding

First off, I respect all of you guys. You obviously have been doing debate a long time. And I respect each and every opinion presented in this discussion.

However, I do want to make clear that I know skilled debaters who agree with me on my topicality philosophy and vice versa. Even if you haven't met them, they do exist.

I would also like to point out that the point of debate is to prove something with fact. Just because a few people may hold the same position on an issue doesn't mean it is right.




curlyhairedmenace wrote:
MattFish wrote:
1.) Money isn't a reform - Then it is outside the bounds of the resolution.
2.) Money isn't a policy - Then it is outside the bounds of the resolution.
3.) The only thing we can REFORM is the CJS - If money isn't a reform or a policy, it is definitely not reform the CJS. Which means it is outside the resolution.

If it's outside the resolution, then its not topical. Money, as you said, is not a reform or a policy or CJS. Therefore, it's nontopical. It is simple as that.

Dude, I want you to realize that every quality debater I have ever met disagrees with your interpretation of topicality. This does not mean that you are instantaneously wrong, but it does mean that they are obviously good debaters.

You have been talking to Drew Chambers, which is one of the best debaters I know of and he's very knowledgeable on theory. He knows what he is talking about. I would take what he is saying into serious consideration before you discount it.

:steps out:

Author:  Sharkfin [ Tue May 29, 2012 9:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Extra-Topical Funding

Matt: I don't really understand what you're saying. I thought I understood it a while back, but some of what you've been saying recently doesn't seem to make sense.

So here's a list of questions:
First, you believe moving money around is not topical, right?
Do you believe that funding is _always_ nontopical?
If so, as an extension, funding is always a nontopical portion of an aff plan, correct?
Do you believe that funding is legitimate even when nontopical?
Do you justify legitimizing nontopical mandates because they're "supporting" (e.g. not primary)?
If not, how do you legitimize a nontopical mandate?

I apologize if this seems like a step back, but I don't think I'm properly understanding your paradigm so I'm trying to start from the beginning.

Author:  MattFish [ Tue May 29, 2012 11:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Extra-Topical Funding

Answers to Question 1&2

Yes, moving money around is almost always nontopical (unless the Resolution is something like taxes or budgets) because...
1.) Money isn't a reform.
2.) Money isn't a policy.


Answers to Question 4&5

Yes, I do believe that when coupled with topical mandates (that reform the set policy), nontopical funding is legitimate. Otherwise no.
Since money isn't a reform or a policy, then it would clearly fail to uphold the resolution. However, if you add in mandates that uphold the resolution, the problem goes away because you are in fact reforming a policy.

Here's an analogy... Let's say I need to fix my car so it can travel through a several feet of snow. I do need to put gasoline in the car, but just because I added gas doesn't mean I'm actually accommodating the car to withstand the blizzard. But let's say I change the brakes and put the vehicle in 4-wheel drive. Even though the funding isn't the reform or policy, it assists the driver in getting to where he needs to go.




Hope this helps!


Sharkfin wrote:
Matt: I don't really understand what you're saying. I thought I understood it a while back, but some of what you've been saying recently doesn't seem to make sense.

So here's a list of questions:
First, you believe moving money around is not topical, right?
Do you believe that funding is _always_ nontopical?
If so, as an extension, funding is always a nontopical portion of an aff plan, correct?
Do you believe that funding is legitimate even when nontopical?
Do you justify legitimizing nontopical mandates because they're "supporting" (e.g. not primary)?
If not, how do you legitimize a nontopical mandate?

I apologize if this seems like a step back, but I don't think I'm properly understanding your paradigm so I'm trying to start from the beginning.

Author:  ZaR [ Wed May 30, 2012 7:23 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Extra-Topical Funding

...that's extra-T. Like, the exact definition. You take a topical action, then take an additional non-topical action. Now with funding, that's not neccesarily a bad thing, but you have to recognize that it is extra T and defend it as such, which is what I and several other posters have been saying, and we've also given reasons that extra T is bad.

Author:  MattFish [ Fri Jun 01, 2012 4:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Extra-Topical Funding

Look, extra topical funding (if you believe it can cost the affirmative a round) essentially disqualifies the very idea of outside funding.

You're basically saying that funding taken from any outside source is a bad thing. That means you can't take money from any of the following because they are an outside source...
1. The General Revenue
2. The Treasury
3. Federal Reserve
4. Forfeiture profits

Unless the resolution has something to do with monetary policy, all the funding sources cited above would be extra topical. Is the Treasury Department part of the criminal justice system? Duh, no. Is the Federal Reserve? No.

That basically leaves the affirmative team with minimal funding space, limiting the scope of reforms and of cases. Want to construct more prisons? Sorry, the Department of Justice's budget is only $27 Billion and your plan requires over the budget to do it. It creates an unfair advantage for the negative team.


Now, on the other hand, let's say that extra topical funding is allowed when the funding is coupled with topical reforms in your mandates. That would provide the affirmative team with more flexibility to propose bigger reforms without sacrificing the negative team's ability to argue solvency.




ZaR wrote:
...that's extra-T. Like, the exact definition. You take a topical action, then take an additional non-topical action. Now with funding, that's not neccesarily a bad thing, but you have to recognize that it is extra T and defend it as such, which is what I and several other posters have been saying, and we've also given reasons that extra T is bad.

Author:  Sharkfin [ Mon Jun 04, 2012 1:29 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Extra-Topical Funding

Matt: I think most people here (with the exception of myself, which I'll get to in a moment) agree with you. One of the beneficial parts of a discussion like this is that it allows us to see those points on which we disagree, as well as the points on which we agree. Don't be afraid to say that you agree with a particular part of a post-- it'll help everyone as we move forward with this discussion.

Here's what I think you should be saying, and I think you've got at least part of it: "Yes, funding is extra-topical. But we shouldn't consider it a voting issue because funding is a necessary part of the affirmative plan." Does that accurately reflect your belief?

(yes, no-- if not, what specific phrase do you take issue with?)

Assuming you said yes to the above, here's my basic argument, which I posted a few pages back:
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=13082&p=412285&hilit=#p412285

Quote:
Unless the resolution has something to do with monetary policy, all the funding sources cited above would be extra topical

First off, you're actually talking about fiscal policy-- not monetary policy.

Second, because using GFR for funding is still writing law relevant to the CJS, it's still topical, but avoids the false dilemma built by specifying your funding.

(you may notice my argument is built less off of a "it's not topical, it should be voted down" position, and more directly a position of "it's abusive, therefore it should be voted down.")

Author:  MattFish [ Tue Jun 05, 2012 1:55 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Extra-Topical Funding

@Sharkfin "Yes, funding is extra-topical. But we shouldn't consider it a voting issue because funding is a necessary part of the affirmative plan.' Does this reflect your belief?"

I believe that funding (whether its extra-topical or not) shouldn't be a voting issue in a debate round. It also creates a storm of definition clashing during a debate, which detracts from the purpose of forensics. I personally believe that extra topical funding in a technical and competitive sense doesn't make a case non topical. By making funding a voting issue, it handicaps the affirmative team, detracts from debate, drives the judge berserk, and simply kills the point of arguing. It also ties the affirmative to a minuscule amount of Funding flexibility...
For example, the Department of Justice (Which operates the CJS) receives just under $30B a year. If extra topical funding is a voting issue, then the aff can't move hardly any $$$ around to help their plan. Want to build forty new prisons? Sorry, but our Department's budget can't afford a $15 Billion expenditure.

By allowing the freedom of funding choice, a better debate round is created.
1.) The affirmative team can be more flexible in their funding options
2.) The judge will be spared from a round of frivolous time wasting and unconvincing $$$ args. (which is often times employed by teams who are desperate for an argument.)
3.) Funding arguments would be based more off DAs and Solvency rather than topicality. For example, I could argue that cutting $500 Billion from the Department of Defense (yes, highly unrealistic) would result in worsened national security, etc etc etc... instead of ranting about how "The aff isn't topical! The aff isn't topical!"



Sharkfin wrote:
Matt: I think most people here (with the exception of myself, which I'll get to in a moment) agree with you. One of the beneficial parts of a discussion like this is that it allows us to see those points on which we disagree, as well as the points on which we agree. Don't be afraid to say that you agree with a particular part of a post-- it'll help everyone as we move forward with this discussion.

Here's what I think you should be saying, and I think you've got at least part of it: "Yes, funding is extra-topical. But we shouldn't consider it a voting issue because funding is a necessary part of the affirmative plan." Does that accurately reflect your belief?

(yes, no-- if not, what specific phrase do you take issue with?)

Assuming you said yes to the above, here's my basic argument, which I posted a few pages back:
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=13082&p=412285&hilit=#p412285

Quote:
Unless the resolution has something to do with monetary policy, all the funding sources cited above would be extra topical

First off, you're actually talking about fiscal policy-- not monetary policy.

Second, because using GFR for funding is still writing law relevant to the CJS, it's still topical, but avoids the false dilemma built by specifying your funding.

(you may notice my argument is built less off of a "it's not topical, it should be voted down" position, and more directly a position of "it's abusive, therefore it should be voted down.")

Author:  over9000speaks [ Mon Jun 11, 2012 4:18 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Extra-Topical Funding

^Am I the only one who finds it awkward/inconvenient that you quote people at the end of your posts? :P

Author:  Mr Glasses [ Mon Jun 11, 2012 3:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Extra-Topical Funding

This whole issue could be avoided if half the teams in the NCFCA didn't ospec their funding. #isguiltyofittoo

Page 5 of 5 All times are UTC+01:00
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/