HomeSchoolDebate
http://homeschooldebate.com/phpBB3/

Funding!
http://homeschooldebate.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=11036
Page 2 of 2

Author:  FRANK [ Fri Feb 11, 2011 1:48 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Funding!

Zealous1 wrote:
Ethanol Subsidies = great place to take money from.


And, conveniently for the OP, they amount to almost exactly $6 billion

Author:  Zealous1 [ Fri Feb 11, 2011 11:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Funding!

FRANK wrote:
Zealous1 wrote:
Ethanol Subsidies = great place to take money from.


And, conveniently for the OP, they amount to almost exactly $6 billion


8 billion.

Author:  andrewmin [ Fri Feb 11, 2011 11:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Funding!

Zealous1 wrote:
FRANK wrote:
Zealous1 wrote:
Ethanol Subsidies = great place to take money from.


And, conveniently for the OP, they amount to almost exactly $6 billion


8 billion.


They shift every time because it's a tax credit that's contingent on how much is produced. For 2011: "[t]he ethanol incentives will cost $7 billion" ( http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/12/ ... XY20101215 )

Author:  FRANK [ Sat Feb 12, 2011 4:59 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Funding!

Zealous1 wrote:
8 billion.


$6 Billion in ethanol subsidies through 2011
Jean Folger, “5 Financial Bills That Snuck In For 2010,” The San Francisco Chronicle, 19 January 2011, (web, sfgate.com)

“Ethanol producers will continue to receive 45 cents for every gallon of ethanol blended into the gasoline supply. This subsidy, which the bill states will last throughout 2011, is expected to cost approximately $6 billion.”

Author:  Zealous1 [ Tue Feb 15, 2011 4:39 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Funding!

Not sure who's right... ^^

I know I'm not :D

Author:  andrewmin [ Tue Feb 15, 2011 4:46 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Funding!

Zealous1 wrote:
Not sure who's right... ^^

I know I'm not :D


It's a tax credit, so the estimate probably varies :). The AFF probably will have a plank saying any other funding, if necessary, comes from GFR or whatever.

Author:  lookingforangels [ Tue Feb 15, 2011 2:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Funding!

I need to have my say and be done. So here's my $0.25
(2 cents is getting old)

If you've ever debated at Liberty, you'd know that there are several ways to attack a Neg DA without directly saying they're wrong. Because those college debaters love to tell you. ;) The two that stuck out to me were uniqueness (of course) and magnitude. A 6 billion increase in funding isn't going to add anything to our debt. At all. You can even do the math and show how tiny an increase it is for the average American. That would make your argument a little more powerful, and you can go so far as to tell the judge that he can skip McDonald's sometimes ;)

I'd also point to the trend of spending cuts. The problem is fixing itself, or at least trying to fix itself.

And lastly, point to your advantages. Don't argue the round on Neg's ground with this argument. Make a quick response to their argument (it's so darn tiny, judge) and then outweigh it with your advantages. Your plan really is worth a couple dollars extra a year (say that).

There ya go. Go and win, because this is a ridiculous argument

Author:  Zealous1 [ Tue Feb 22, 2011 6:46 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Funding!

lookingforangels wrote:
I need to have my say and be done. So here's my $0.25
(2 cents is getting old)

If you've ever debated at Liberty, you'd know that there are several ways to attack a Neg DA without directly saying they're wrong. Because those college debaters love to tell you. ;) The two that stuck out to me were uniqueness (of course) and magnitude. A 6 billion increase in funding isn't going to add anything to our debt. At all. You can even do the math and show how tiny an increase it is for the average American. That would make your argument a little more powerful, and you can go so far as to tell the judge that he can skip McDonald's sometimes ;)

I'd also point to the trend of spending cuts. The problem is fixing itself, or at least trying to fix itself.

And lastly, point to your advantages. Don't argue the round on Neg's ground with this argument. Make a quick response to their argument (it's so darn tiny, judge) and then outweigh it with your advantages. Your plan really is worth a couple dollars extra a year (say that).

There ya go. Go and win, because this is a ridiculous argument


Don't you hate when the negative team says stuff like "if you're going to do this, you should do this!" In other words, saying what could be better about your plan and somehow saying that that means they shouldn't for Aff even though the SQ doesn't have those things. In other words, pretending the status quo has certain benefits that it doesn't. For some reason, I have a hard time explaining it to the judge. If I could just explain that better, I would harvest more aff wins.

Page 2 of 2 All times are UTC+01:00
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/