homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Mon Jul 24, 2017 1:41 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




Forum locked  This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 62 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 3:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:21 pm
Posts: 806
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Running the opposite way
Delta_FC wrote:
Quote:
1. Why can't we know? You can fiat cutting a particular program.


Because the government doesn't publish a "Oh, and if for some reason we decide in the middle of the fiscal year that we want to add a program (which is unusual, if I recall correctly), this will be the program we cut."

And that last question would depend on what you mean by "fiat power." I see fiat power as the assumption that my plan goes into place. I don't see cutting funds from a particular program as inherently policy toward Russia, regardless of where the money will end up going.

You can fiat it. You say, "the plan will be funded in cuts in X program of up to Y amount of money." That's what I mean by saying there's no reason you can't know. You can know because you decide.

Diverting funds to a policy towards Russia is a policy towards Russia. In addition to that, it's not a too terribly unreasonable standard to say that you need to consider the plan as a whole to determine topicality. Funding as part of a broader, clearly topical plan is totally justified.

Quote:
Quote:
2. It makes you sound responsible. A lot of judges like hearing that you thought, "wow, plans don't pay for themselves... how am I gonna pay for this?" and then came up with a way to pay for it. You've just gotten 45 ethos points right there.


1) Just because judge's like it doesn't make it right
2) I don't really see that as being theoretically legitimate, however,
3) I don't see it as being principally legitimate, either, since I can't know which program is being cut.

Your responses basically boil down to, "I don't like specified funding." You didn't respond to my point that it appears more responsible to a judge to specify funding. I see nothing wrong with trying to present my case in a winsome way. I don't speak in a flat, monotone voice when I debate because judges would hate that. I don't see why I shouldn't run arguments because I know judges like the arguments, especially when, theoretically speaking, there's nothing wrong with the argument.
Quote:
Quote:
NCFCA debate is primarily about communication.


I would say persuasive communication. And if you're preaching to the choir (like you're suggesting) I fail to see how that is a matter of persuasion. Why not show the judges that their limited (and wrong) interpretation of how the government works is wrong, and enlightening the judge to how the governmental budgetary process actually works.

At that point, you're persuading the judge about the truth!

When did this become a moral issue? And when did I say "preach to the choir?" I am merely advocating using a definitely harmless and arguably advantageous argument. A nice side effect is that judges like it. Why is it a bad thing to run arguments judges like?

I think you're in a better position to persuade if you don't irritate a judge. Part of communication is knowing your audience and knowing how to better persuade them. Predisposing your judges against you won't help the rest of your arguments. A lot of debate is winning the unspoken arguments that pop up in a judges head and influence the judges decision, even if the judge doesn't try to let those things have an effect on their decision.

Quote:
Quote:
4. No reason not to. Again, why shouldn't you specify funding? There's nothing wrong with doing so. No reasonable judge will dislike you because you specified funding.


If I don't think it's theoretically legitimate, I see a problem with running it.

Secondly, though I'm not a judge, I usually wince when I hear someone specifying funding (the exception being a legitimate specification, like cutting one cyber program's funding to provide the funding for the new cyber program).

Why is it bad? I might have missed something earlier in the thread... but the only thing I've heard is "extra-T," and that argument is a non-issue on multiple levels.

Quote:
Quote:
5. Doesn't involve math. Honestly, there are multi-billion dollar programs out there that are a complete waste. Just say you'll cut funds as needed from X program. Bam. Problem solved. No math involved.


Problem: most of those have already been apportioned or spent.
2) You still have to determine where those are, and how to actually, legally, and technically cut them.

Why not just assume (like Joshtinian did, but the opposite) that those are the programs that are cut?

Wait... didn't you say earlier that funding is cut from programs throughout the year b/c of PAYGO?

2) that would be hard/a problem because.... what?

Quote:
Quote:
Umm... yeah. Unfortunately you don't really have control over that. All you can control is your case.


You're right, I don't. But I also don't have control over whether or not other affirmatives change their case, either, so it's moot.

ok, consider the point moot. :)

Quote:
Quote:
BTW, I have won rounds on funding arguments. Granted, not many, but then again, I rarely run it. : P


I've seen teams run arguments that are completely false. Again, a win doesn't mean it's the truth.

All I was trying to show their is that this isn't just a lame desperation argument. It can be explained and argued in a way that judges understand, like, and vote on.
Quote:
Quote:
Wait... hold on... when did I say that? I think you might be misquoting me...


Here:

Quote:
Hey! I've got an idea! Why don't we just specify the funding and stop worrying about it? Seriously, with how wasteful the government is, there are all sorts of possibilities for billions in funding.


If they obviously have that money to be cut, they have the money to be cut through PAYGO and Normal Means, too.

Delta_FC

ah, umm... so speaking of not knowing things... how do you know which program will be cut? You already said you didn't know. How can you guarantee that a good program won't be the one that is cut? My definition of wasteful and the government's definition of wasteful are two totally different things.

_________________
"Don't waste your life making yourself look good. Spend your life making God look good."
--John Piper


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 09, 2011 2:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:17 pm
Posts: 1547
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Researching...
Quote:
You can fiat it. You say, "the plan will be funded in cuts in X program of up to Y amount of money." That's what I mean by saying there's no reason you can't know. You can know because you decide.


I think you have a slightly different interpretation of fiat power. I don't necessarily see the Affirmative having a magic wand called "fiat power" to wave about. I see everyone in the room making the same assumption "the plan passes."

Now, obviously that has limits. And that limit is the resolution. Cutting a program's funding for a completely unrelated program (imo) isn't a direct policy reform or change.

Quote:
Diverting funds to a policy towards Russia is a policy towards Russia. In addition to that, it's not a too terribly unreasonable standard to say that you need to consider the plan as a whole to determine topicality. Funding as part of a broader, clearly topical plan is totally justified.


I would say you have to consider each part as needing to fulfill the basic requirements of "fiat" for that assumption to be made. This may change on specific instances (idk), but in regards to funding, I'm not seeing it.

Quote:
Your responses basically boil down to, "I don't like specified funding."


That's one of them, yes. But that dislike stems from my own position that the argument is theoretically illegitimate, and I can't do it because I don't know which program I'm cutting :shrug:

Quote:
You didn't respond to my point that it appears more responsible to a judge to specify funding.


I did. "Appearing" more responsible, in my book, is less desirable when it sacrifices legitimacy.

Quote:
I see nothing wrong with trying to present my case in a winsome way. I don't speak in a flat, monotone voice when I debate because judges would hate that. I don't see why I shouldn't run arguments because I know judges like the arguments, especially when, theoretically speaking, there's nothing wrong with the argument.


That's not what I was saying ;)

I think the argument fails the legitimacy test. Therefore, I won't run it simply because judge's like it.

Quote:
When did this become a moral issue?


When we're debating about how the government works, and someone is arguing a position that's false, it does become a discussion about truth.

Quote:
And when did I say "preach to the choir?"


I never said you did. The argument that it's valid simply because judge's like it (which is really the only way Joshtinian has chosen to defend his argument) seems to suggest a "preaching to the choir" mode of communication.

Quote:
Why is it a bad thing to run arguments judges like?


Again, not what I was saying ;)

Quote:
I think you're in a better position to persuade if you don't irritate a judge. Part of communication is knowing your audience and knowing how to better persuade them. Predisposing your judges against you won't help the rest of your arguments.


Sure. But I don't think that arguing something simply because a judge likes it is very appealing theoretically, however "strategic" it may be. Additionally, just because an argument may not be popular with the "seeming" judging pool bias (New START in the conservative South, anyone?) doesn't have to be (and I would argue in most circumstances, it shouldn't be) the reason you don't run said argument.

Quote:
Why is it bad? I might have missed something earlier in the thread... but the only thing I've heard is "extra-T," and that argument is a non-issue on multiple levels.


Extra-T, Non-T, and really more of a governmental procedure argument (though I'll have to look into this more).

Quote:
Wait... didn't you say earlier that funding is cut from programs throughout the year b/c of PAYGO?


If a new program were introduced in the middle of a fiscal year, it would receive funding from a less-prioritized program through PAYGO's mechanism, yes.

Quote:
2) that would be hard/a problem because.... what?


I don't understand this. Joshtinian just assumes that the program cut will have to be a bad thing. I say, why not assume (since there's no reason not to) the program that is cut will be a good thing?

Quote:
All I was trying to show their is that this isn't just a lame desperation argument. It can be explained and argued in a way that judges understand, like, and vote on.


Curious: Did you run this as a DA, or a Solvency argument?

Quote:
ah, umm... so speaking of not knowing things... how do you know which program will be cut? You already said you didn't know. How can you guarantee that a good program won't be the one that is cut?


I can't. How can you guarantee that the program cut won't be wasteful, though?

See? We're both left with rather undefendable positions.

Interesting note on the "Weighing to Determine Responsibility" or "Ends Justifying Means" (if you even can call it that) Argument

Florida Law Review, 2003

"Society's preferred values will become transparent in the political process. My point, however, is that there is no reason, a priori, for choosing one set of values over the other. In particular, I do not concede that liberalism should be the default preference. Rights, in other words, do not invariably trump common good. Thus, if government can point to a moderate risk and propose interventions that are reasonably well targeted and not unduly burdensome, the law should permit a sphere of state action. By doing so, each person bears a small burden (equitably distributed), but as members of a community all gain in the social exchange."

This was referring specifically to the government infringing on personal and economic liberties during a bio-terrorist attack. 'twas interesting. The "two sets of values" were security vs. liberty.

Delta_FC

_________________
Cartman wrote:
Josh R.

Dawn wrote:
Josh R

Yes?
+X wrote:
Hm. Eminem/MNM would mean Delta F_C... oF course

Join the epidemic
Variola Eradication, Geneva, May 2011


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked  This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 62 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4

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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited