homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Thu Nov 23, 2017 10:25 am
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 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:23 am
Posts: 1300
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Second star to the right, and straight on till morning
Coach Carter wrote:
Quote:
Just find something that won't be a problem and use that.
That's the problem there is no such thing, you can try something as seeming easy as cutting funding for the arts but then you could get a community judge who uses govt money to further his artwork, it does not matter what you pick someone will have an affinity to that program


Or, there are always those kids (me) who will hit you on extra-topical funding.

_________________
Middlebury Class of '15


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 3:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:17 pm
Posts: 1547
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Researching...
Quote:
BTW, virtually all the parents in the club share the coach's view on funding. I can't really justify the proposition that they don't know how money works in the real world.


Quote:
Furthermore, some judges (like our coach) who have a pet peeve about funding will automatically go NEG on this issue if no specific source is listed.


So we explain the real way of how the budget works. If debate is really to learn to communicate we don't cater to previous bias (especially when it's wrong) just to win a round.

Quote:
She said that funding arguments aren't popular in highschool debate, but are popular in college debate, citing as her reason the idea that college students are independent and have actually experienced how money works in the real world.


Funding as a DA? Or funding as solvency?

Quote:
The best way to avoid a debate about the source of the money is to clearly state a source in the 1AC that leaves no room for argument (anything from cutting Congress' salaries to canceling the healthcare bill to redirecting unspent stimulus and pork spending). BTW, there are probably much better examples than these. Just find something that won't be a problem and use that.


I agree with Coach Carter and FRANK on this one. That's not going to work.

Quote:
anything from cutting Congress' salaries to canceling the healthcare bill to redirecting unspent stimulus and pork spending


but.....where is that money coming from? It falls prey to the exact same argument: (we're in debt which means we don't have the money).

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
   
PostPosted: Mon Jan 31, 2011 5:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 3:02 am
Posts: 635
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: South Carolina
Joshtinian wrote:
Coach Carter wrote:
That fact that your coach does not like GFR does not mean it is not legit or that she would have a prayer of winning the argument against any competent aff (given a judge with a clue).
BTW, virtually all the parents in the club share the coach's view on funding. I can't really justify the proposition that they don't know how money works in the real world.

She said that funding arguments aren't popular in highschool debate, but are popular in college debate, citing as her reason the idea that college students are independent and have actually experienced how money works in the real world.

Gov doesn't operate monetarily or spend money like a household or a business...which is the flawed assumption that Coach and the rest of the parents are working with.

We may want Congress to act more responsible...but...they...don't... :| ...and it's not the Affirmative's job to change that.

_________________
God judged it better to bring good out of evil than to suffer no evil to exist.
- Saint Augustine


Last edited by nate hammett on Tue Feb 01, 2011 11:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Feb 01, 2011 8:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 12:16 am
Posts: 170
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Either "I can see Russia from my house" or "::stealing Jacob Dean's location::"
nate hammett wrote:
Joshtinian wrote:
Coach Carter wrote:
That fact that your coach does not like GFR does not mean it is not legit or that she would have a prayer of winning the argument against any competent aff (given a judge with a clue).
BTW, virtually all the parents in the club share the coach's view on funding. I can't really justify the proposition that they don't know how money works in the real world.

She said that funding arguments aren't popular in highschool debate, but are popular in college debate, citing as her reason the idea that college students are independent and have actually experienced how money works in the real world.

Gov doesn't operate monetarily or spend money like a household or a business...which is the flawed assumption that Coach Stephanie and the rest of the parents are working with.
Money works the same way regardless of who/what is spending it (individual, corporation, NGO, gov't). You don't get what you want unless you have money. Since money is limited (that's why ECONOMies must ECONOMize), there is this thing called a budget, which puts a cap on total expenditure. Failure to budget or disregard for the budget is irresponsible (i.e. bad). So to get the money to purchase something, that money must be redirected from somewhere else in the budget (the budget is saturated with spending). It is a totally legit question to ask where this money will be coming from. At a governmental level, an individual level, or anywhere in between, this principle holds true.

On a separate issue, if the budget is bigger than your revenue, then you have no money. You must convince someone else to give you money to spend (it's called a loan). This debt is bad for several reasons:
1. See Bible for details.
2. You have to pay it back at some point.
3. At some point, you can't convince anyone to loan you more money while you're stuck under a pile of debt that you'll never pay off (you know, like $14 trillion).
nate hammett wrote:
We may want Congress to act more responsible...but...they...don't... :| ...and it's not the Affirmative's job to change that.
Therefore we should abandon all adherence to ethical principles b/c that is what happens now? Srsly? The AFF gets a free ride to handle money irresponsibly just b/c that's what happens now? Personally, I can't NCFCA changing the way Washington works if we practice the same irresponsible practices in our mock policy proposals that occur in the wild system currently in power.

_________________
Quote:
Why is irresponsibility automatically a bad thing?

Say wha...? Must I answer?


"The nine most feared words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.'" (Ronald Reagan)

Quote:
Insert random statement useful for nothing but narcissism


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 2:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:17 pm
Posts: 1547
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Researching...
Quote:
Money works the same way regardless of who/what is spending it (individual, corporation, NGO, gov't). You don't get what you want unless you have money.


So where has the government been getting its money since...well since we founded this nation?

Quote:
Failure to budget or disregard for the budget is irresponsible (i.e. bad).


Why is irresponsibility automatically a bad thing? What legitimate impact can it have on policy?

Secondly, just because we use money we don't have (and therefore print) does that mean it's "irresponsible" and "bad?"

Quote:
To to get the money to purchase something, that money must be redirected from somewhere else in the budget (the budget is saturated with spending). It is a totally legit question to ask where this money will be coming from. At a governmental level, an individual level, or anywhere in between, this principle holds true.


Maybe. And really only for the people who manage that stuff. I don't have the time or the resources to find out where exactly my imaginary plan that I made up (for all intents and purposes) is going to get the money from.

Quote:
On a separate issue, if the budget is bigger than your revenue, then you have no money.


Again, this simply isn't the case. Technically we've been "without money" for 200+ years. And yet we continue on.

Quote:
2. You have to pay it back at some point.


Why is that a bad thing?

Quote:
3. At some point, you can't convince anyone to loan you more money while you're stuck under a pile of debt that you'll never pay off (you know, like $14 trillion).


Ok. So you have a DA. A non-unique DA. A non-unique DA with no brink. A non-unique, brinkless DA with no impact.

Meh.

Quote:
Therefore we should abandon all adherence to ethical principles b/c that is what happens now? Srsly?


:| You assume there's something unethical about spending money.

Quote:
The AFF gets a free ride to handle money irresponsibly just b/c that's what happens now?


:| You assume there's something unethical about spending money.

Quote:
Personally, I can't [see] NCFCA changing the way Washington works if we practice the same irresponsible practices in our mock policy proposals that occur in the wild system currently in power.


Fixed, I think. I think that's what you were trying to say.

Plus, I can't really see NCFCA changing Washington anyway.

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
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 12:16 am
Posts: 170
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Either "I can see Russia from my house" or "::stealing Jacob Dean's location::"
1. My previous post was one complete thought. Taking each individual sentence out of context did not fairly address my argument b/c it ignored the qualifications and responses made elsewhere.

2. Reality check: :o Did I seriously just read a post that said they would print the money to do their plan? :lol:

3. :x I'm only posting here for practice. If I really expected HSDers to candidly and rationally consider the facts and the dictates of common sense, I would have gotten fed up w/ this forum a long time ago. Oh well. :roll: Here I go again:
Delta_FC wrote:
Quote:
Money works the same way regardless of who/what is spending it (individual, corporation, NGO, gov't). You don't get what you want unless you have money.
So where has the government been getting its money since...well since we founded this nation?
Taxes and borrowing. Or Printing. Which is just a subtle way of taxing. :? I'm not sure why that was important. That wasn't my point.
Delta_FC wrote:
Quote:
Failure to budget or disregard for the budget is irresponsible (i.e. bad).
Why is irresponsibility automatically a bad thing? What legitimate impact can it have on policy?
:shock: Did you listen to what you just said? Irresponsibility (i.e. licentiousness) has never and will never be a good (or even neutral) thing. That is inherent to its nature. If it wasn't, then it wouldn't "Irresponsible." It would be "Responsible."
Delta_FC wrote:
Secondly, just because we use money we don't have (and therefore print) does that mean it's "irresponsible" and "bad?"
Yes, "Using money you don't have" is by definition unwise, irrational, and irresponsible. Listing arguments in what should be their order of importance:
1. The idealistic side:
A. Cue Locke. All governmental power comes from the people. If the people don't have a power/right, they can't give that power/right to the government. People aren't allowed to indiscriminately spend money they don't have. Government shouldn't either.
Impact: the government oversteps its bounds. This not only sets precedent for the future, but also results in permanent gain of governmental power (b/c gov't never retracts), leading to a loss of freedom for the governed.
B. Stealing from people. Printing more money decreases the purchasing power of the money the people have, and increase the money held by the government. It is a sneaky form of taxation and thus unfair to the public.
2. The pragmatic side: (specific to printing) Um... inflation. More paper notes = more "money" = less valuable money (i.e. inflation). Inflation is bad. That is so obvious it requires no proof. Especially right now. Qualitative easing is what did in the Weimar Republic (2nd Reich), and you're suggesting we print money for your plan.
Delta_FC wrote:
Quote:
To to get the money to purchase something, that money must be redirected from somewhere else in the budget (the budget is saturated with spending). It is a totally legit question to ask where this money will be coming from. At a governmental level, an individual level, or anywhere in between, this principle holds true.
Maybe. And really only for the people who manage that stuff. I don't have the time or the resources to find out where exactly my imaginary plan that I made up (for all intents and purposes) is going to get the money from.
Not really. Since I happen to know for a fact that you know of several hundred billion dollars of legit funding you can pull for your case (hey, some of it isn't even politically controversial ;) ).
Delta_FC wrote:
Quote:
On a separate issue, if the budget is bigger than your revenue, then you have no money.
Again, this simply isn't the case. Technically we've been "without money" for 200+ years. And yet we continue on.
1. You ignored what I said next.
2. Until the last 50 years or so, Americans were honest, realistic, and moral enough to realize what a bad thing debt is and attempted to pay it off. George Washington's farewell address gave his sage advice to the nation going onward. Among other things, he stated: "cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible...avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt."
Delta_FC wrote:
Quote:
2. You have to pay it back at some point.
Why is that a bad thing?
It isn't a bad thing. It's a good thing. However,
A. If you keep spending more money than you collect/make, then you will never be able to pay it back.
B. For this reason "the borrower is the lender's slave"*
C. You must cut down future spending even further to afford current debt.

*BTW, note the proper use of a Bible reference to discuss a policy issue. That's what I was meaning in the other forum.
Delta_FC wrote:
Quote:
3. At some point, you can't convince anyone to loan you more money while you're stuck under a pile of debt that you'll never pay off (you know, like $14 trillion).
Ok. So you have a DA. A non-unique DA. A non-unique DA with no brink. A non-unique, brinkless DA with no impact.

Meh.
1. The Brink is there. Actually, I have two.
A. Quantitative Easing. Are you kidding me? We're going to pay our debt off by printing money? That seems to be a little out of control.
B. Chinese Intervention. Did you know, that for the first time ever, China had been able to shoot down domestic American legislation? "The borrower is the lender's slave."
2. Impact: Societal Collapse. Anarchy. Restructuring into a totalitarian state without individual rights. We seem to following the path of the Weimar Republic.
3. Despite the fact that this can be run as an epic LINEAR DA :x , this isn't a DA at all. It's a K. I'm attacking the principle behind the entire process. I'm attacking the precedent it sets and the worldview it promotes. I'm not attacking the impact of every minuscule implementation of this abominable (yah, I found a strong enough word) worldview. In fact, that's what I'm doing in the next 2 quotes:
Delta_FC wrote:
Quote:
Therefore we should abandon all adherence to ethical principles b/c that is what happens now? Srsly?
:| You assume there's something unethical about spending money.
Quote:
The AFF gets a free ride to handle money irresponsibly just b/c that's what happens now?
:| You assume there's something unethical about spending money.
You're twisting/ignoring the argument presented in the rest of my last post to come to that conclusion based on only these two sentences.
Delta_FC wrote:
Quote:
Personally, I can't [see] NCFCA changing the way Washington works if we practice the same irresponsible practices in our mock policy proposals that occur in the wild system currently in power.
Fixed, I think. I think that's what you were trying to say.

Plus, I can't really see NCFCA changing Washington anyway.
:roll: If we consider the mindset portrayed in your last post as the norm of what to expect from NCFCA, I feel myself strongly inclined to agree with you. Which was my whole point. That's a bad thing.

::exasperated:: :cry:

_________________
Quote:
Why is irresponsibility automatically a bad thing?

Say wha...? Must I answer?


"The nine most feared words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.'" (Ronald Reagan)

Quote:
Insert random statement useful for nothing but narcissism


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 3:02 am
Posts: 635
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: South Carolina
Joshtinian wrote:
nate hammett wrote:
Joshtinian wrote:
Coach Carter wrote:
That fact that your coach does not like GFR does not mean it is not legit or that she would have a prayer of winning the argument against any competent aff (given a judge with a clue).
BTW, virtually all the parents in the club share the coach's view on funding. I can't really justify the proposition that they don't know how money works in the real world.

She said that funding arguments aren't popular in highschool debate, but are popular in college debate, citing as her reason the idea that college students are independent and have actually experienced how money works in the real world.

Gov doesn't operate monetarily or spend money like a household or a business...which is the flawed assumption that Coach Stephanie and the rest of the parents are working with.
Money works the same way regardless of who/what is spending it (individual, corporation, NGO, gov't). You don't get what you want unless you have money. Since money is limited (that's why ECONOMies must ECONOMize), there is this thing called a budget, which puts a cap on total expenditure. Failure to budget or disregard for the budget is irresponsible (i.e. bad). So to get the money to purchase something, that money must be redirected from somewhere else in the budget (the budget is saturated with spending). It is a totally legit question to ask where this money will be coming from. At a governmental level, an individual level, or anywhere in between, this principle holds true.

On a separate issue, if the budget is bigger than your revenue, then you have no money. You must convince someone else to give you money to spend (it's called a loan). This debt is bad for several reasons:
1. See Bible for details.
2. You have to pay it back at some point.
3. At some point, you can't convince anyone to loan you more money while you're stuck under a pile of debt that you'll never pay off (you know, like $14 trillion).
nate hammett wrote:
We may want Congress to act more responsible...but...they...don't... :| ...and it's not the Affirmative's job to change that.
Therefore we should abandon all adherence to ethical principles b/c that is what happens now? Srsly? The AFF gets a free ride to handle money irresponsibly just b/c that's what happens now? Personally, I can't NCFCA changing the way Washington works if we practice the same irresponsible practices in our mock policy proposals that occur in the wild system currently in power.


1. No...money...doesn't...Gov treats money much differently simply because of the resource available, ie...currency values, printing the darn stuff off...etc...

2. In response to your overall argument...I'd like to note that your argument has morphed from a solvency argument to a moral argument...should the gov spend or not spend??? So your theory has moved from one level to an entirely different field of argumentation...if that makes sense... :?:

3. Net-benefits has unfortunately been excluded...who cares if we print the money to save lives and critical infrastructure...put down the dough to build the cyber-force and protect the nation from mass chaos...print some money or devaluate the entire global market????

ninja'd

_________________
God judged it better to bring good out of evil than to suffer no evil to exist.
- Saint Augustine


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 1394
Home Schooled: Yes
Wait... are you fiating the Fed to print money?

_________________
Andrew Min
ahmin@princeton.edu
Arete Speech & Debate, NCFCA, Class of 2011


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 3:02 am
Posts: 635
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: South Carolina
andrewmin wrote:
Wait... are you fiating the Fed to print money?

No...just normal budgetary processes...which prints money...

_________________
God judged it better to bring good out of evil than to suffer no evil to exist.
- Saint Augustine


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 1394
Home Schooled: Yes
nate hammett wrote:
andrewmin wrote:
Wait... are you fiating the Fed to print money?

No...just normal budgetary processes...which prints money...


I don't think that's possible. I'm pretty sure the Fed prints the money, and fiating the Fed isn't part of the normal legislative process.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm wrote:
The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects.

As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the U.S. Congress. It is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms. However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by Congress, which periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Also, the Federal Reserve must work within the framework of the overall objectives of economic and financial policy established by the government. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as "independent within the government."

The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized much like private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year.

_________________
Andrew Min
ahmin@princeton.edu
Arete Speech & Debate, NCFCA, Class of 2011


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 3:02 am
Posts: 635
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: South Carolina
andrewmin wrote:
nate hammett wrote:
andrewmin wrote:
Wait... are you fiating the Fed to print money?

No...just normal budgetary processes...which prints money...


I don't think that's possible. I'm pretty sure the Fed prints the money, and fiating the Fed isn't part of the normal legislative process.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm wrote:
The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects.

As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the U.S. Congress. It is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms. However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by Congress, which periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Also, the Federal Reserve must work within the framework of the overall objectives of economic and financial policy established by the government. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as "independent within the government."

The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized much like private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year.

ok...so when you fiat normal budgetary processes...what happens?

_________________
God judged it better to bring good out of evil than to suffer no evil to exist.
- Saint Augustine


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 1394
Home Schooled: Yes
nate hammett wrote:
andrewmin wrote:
nate hammett wrote:
andrewmin wrote:
Wait... are you fiating the Fed to print money?

No...just normal budgetary processes...which prints money...


I don't think that's possible. I'm pretty sure the Fed prints the money, and fiating the Fed isn't part of the normal legislative process.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm wrote:
The Federal Reserve System is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution. Instead, it is an independent entity within the government, having both public purposes and private aspects.

As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the U.S. Congress. It is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms. However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by Congress, which periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Also, the Federal Reserve must work within the framework of the overall objectives of economic and financial policy established by the government. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as "independent within the government."

The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized much like private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year.

ok...so when you fiat normal budgetary processes...what happens?


We take out debt financed by bonds? I think, anyway. I'm 99% sure, though, that we don't print money every time we pass a law that requires funding. (if we did, inflation would be sky high and we wouldn't have a national debt)

_________________
Andrew Min
ahmin@princeton.edu
Arete Speech & Debate, NCFCA, Class of 2011


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 3:02 am
Posts: 635
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: South Carolina
Sure...I understand that...the gov can't/doesn't do that every time. The point is that normal budgetary processes are utilized...which may or may not including printing...sorry for the confusion... :?

_________________
God judged it better to bring good out of evil than to suffer no evil to exist.
- Saint Augustine


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 6:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 3:06 pm
Posts: 1058
Home Schooled: No
Location: Texas
In theory the plan may be funded by printing money but that is not inherent to the plan it might just be by accident and it would not be for the plan it would be in support of monetary policy by the Fed (the Fed is technically not part of the govt) which is not subject to fiat and would support the entire government not just your plan.

Also you do NOT have to pay the money back eventually, a lender would be perfectly happy to continue to lend you money if all you ever did was pay the interest if you don't think so ask your credit card company.

Don't really want to do a line by line but again I just don't think funding arguments in general are winners that vast majority of the time.....if my option is a minor argument that I think has just a little merit and is on point vs a funding argument I'll opt for the on point argument every time


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 1:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 3:02 am
Posts: 635
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: South Carolina
Coach Carter wrote:
In theory the plan may be funded by printing money but that is not inherent to the plan it might just be by accident and it would not be for the plan it would be in support of monetary policy by the Fed (the Fed is technically not part of the govt) which is not subject to fiat and would support the entire government not just your plan.

Also you do NOT have to pay the money back eventually, a lender would be perfectly happy to continue to lend you money if all you ever did was pay the interest if you don't think so ask your credit card company.

Don't really want to do a line by line but again I just don't think funding arguments in general are winners that vast majority of the time.....if my option is a minor argument that I think has just a little merit and is on point vs a funding argument I'll opt for the on point argument every time

Ah...if only it were so, Coach! I understand and pretty much agree with everything you said...but unfortunately, funding is a winning argument...at least in our region. Homeschool mom's time and time again say, "it's all about the money." So often times, crappy funding arguments are winners simply because if aff's don't specify their funding source, say GFR's, or whatever, moms will automatically vote 'em down.

Personal example this week at a practice tourney. We were aff...they ran T, Solvency, and DA's. One of the solvency arguments was funding...they dropped it in the 2NR...they specifically said that they were dropping funding in the last speech. We get the ballot back and the judge agrees with every single one of our justifications, solvency responses, DA response, and our T responses. He's reason for decision...aff didn't have enough funding...which Neg specifically dropped.

Now Caiello/freakin' Martin know how to debate and they shoulda still won the round, but not on something that they specifically mentioned that they dropped!

_________________
God judged it better to bring good out of evil than to suffer no evil to exist.
- Saint Augustine


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 2:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:17 pm
Posts: 1547
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Researching...
andrewmin wrote:
Wait... are you fiating the Fed to print money?


Hahaha. No. Joshtinian's point was that if you don't have the money, you can't spend it. But as I was pointing out, we have spent money "we didn't have," via printing, so the argument fails the test of precedent.

Quote:
2. Reality check: Did I seriously just read a post that said they would print the money to do their plan?


Nope. Read it again.

Quote:
Taxes and borrowing. Or Printing. Which is just a subtle way of taxing. I'm not sure why that was important. That wasn't my point.


It probably wasn't your point. It was my point, showing that we have spent money "we didn't have" in the past. Which means your argument that you can't is false.

Quote:
Did you listen to what you just said? Irresponsibility (i.e. licentiousness) has never and will never be a good (or even neutral) thing. That is inherent to its nature. If it wasn't, then it wouldn't "Irresponsible." It would be "Responsible."


So again, can you give me an impact?

Quote:
Yes, "Using money you don't have" is by definition unwise, irrational, and irresponsible. Listing arguments in what should be their order of importance:


Then we better stop paying your grandma's social security check, huh? We better stop funding the military and put all of those men and women out of jobs, huh? We better kill the nuclear weapons program, huh?

And yet, the conservatives spend on. (I say "conservatives" because they are usually the people making such a big deal about the debt and spending money)

Quote:
Impact: the government oversteps its bounds. This not only sets precedent for the future, but also results in permanent gain of governmental power (b/c gov't never retracts), leading to a loss of freedom for the governed.


Again, this is non-unique. And since you can't quantify the non-unique DA, or provide a threshold for it, it's hardly a winning strategy unless you have some kind of pre-disposed bias for it (like we do here).

Quote:
B. Stealing from people. Printing more money decreases the purchasing power of the money the people have, and increase the money held by the government. It is a sneaky form of taxation and thus unfair to the public.


Who said I print money?

Quote:
2. Until the last 50 years or so, Americans were honest, realistic, and moral enough to realize what a bad thing debt is and attempted to pay it off. George Washington's farewell address gave his sage advice to the nation going onward. Among other things, he stated: "cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible...avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt."


Um, no? We've been in debt since the founding of the nation. Which means we've been "immoral" the whole time.

Quote:
A. If you keep spending more money than you collect/make, then you will never be able to pay it back.


I liked Coach Carter's point here. So what?

Quote:
B. For this reason "the borrower is the lender's slave"*


Impact?

Quote:
C. You must cut down future spending even further to afford current debt.


Not necessarily.

Quote:
1. The Brink is there. Actually, I have two.


What followed wasn't a brink. The brink is what makes the Aff plan trigger the impact, but not the squo.

The squo has either 1) already triggered the impact (non-unique), or 2) No one knows where the brink is (no threshold; no impact)

Quote:
2. Impact: Societal Collapse. Anarchy. Restructuring into a totalitarian state without individual rights. We seem to following the path of the Weimar Republic.


Um. I hardly think that spending a couple hundred billion of "money we don't have" is going to trigger anarchy after Reagan's massive debt increase, Bush's massive debt increase, and now Obama's massive debt increase. Non-unique, and no impact from previous "links."

Quote:
It's a K. I'm attacking the principle behind the entire process. I'm attacking the precedent it sets and the worldview it promotes. I'm not attacking the impact of every minuscule implementation of this abominable (yah, I found a strong enough word) worldview. In fact, that's what I'm doing in the next 2 quotes:


Well, like Nate said, this is an entirely different argument than it was. Reference the OP. That was talking about solvency.

Additionally, if you were to run the K, I'd simply point out that there's no change even if we were to buy your K. That's how the world operates, and even a protest in-round isn't going to change anything. Again, I'm not making my plan do this, it's the inherent nature of the budgetary process that I don't have the authority to alter.

Quote:
You're twisting/ignoring the argument presented in the rest of my last post to come to that conclusion based on only these two sentences.


No, I'm not. You assume that all spending is irresponsible. You don't even take into account the benefits of said spending in your protest, which I would label "irresponsible," in and of itself.

Nate -
Quote:
3. Net-benefits has unfortunately been excluded...who cares if we print the money to save lives and critical infrastructure...put down the dough to build the cyber-force and protect the nation from mass chaos...print some money or devaluate the entire global market????


That.

Quote:
Don't really want to do a line by line but again I just don't think funding arguments in general are winners that vast majority of the time.....if my option is a minor argument that I think has just a little merit and is on point vs a funding argument I'll opt for the on point argument every time


And this. If the argument is theoretically bankrupt (excuse the pun), then I have no interest in running it, regardless of judge bias. That's why I don't like funding arguments. That's why I don't like constitutional arguments (mostly). That's why I don't like poor T presses. :shrug: If I have to prey on judge bias to pick up a win, I don't see what's the point of me "learning" to persuade people.

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
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 1394
Home Schooled: Yes
nate hammett wrote:
Sure...I understand that...the gov can't/doesn't do that every time. The point is that normal budgetary processes are utilized...which may or may not including printing...sorry for the confusion... :?


But I would contend the normal budgetary process... never prints money :)

Quote:
Hahaha. No. Joshtinian's point was that if you don't have the money, you can't spend it. But as I was pointing out, we have spent money "we didn't have," via printing, so the argument fails the test of precedent.

Just checking :P

_________________
Andrew Min
ahmin@princeton.edu
Arete Speech & Debate, NCFCA, Class of 2011


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 3:02 am
Posts: 635
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: South Carolina
andrewmin wrote:
nate hammett wrote:
Sure...I understand that...the gov can't/doesn't do that every time. The point is that normal budgetary processes are utilized...which may or may not including printing...sorry for the confusion... :?


But I would contend the normal budgetary process... never prints money :)

Hmm... ::taps fingers:: ...I'm thinkin'...so when in your mind does the Gov print? When the need for increased supply becomes necessary?

_________________
God judged it better to bring good out of evil than to suffer no evil to exist.
- Saint Augustine


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 1394
Home Schooled: Yes
nate hammett wrote:
andrewmin wrote:
nate hammett wrote:
Sure...I understand that...the gov can't/doesn't do that every time. The point is that normal budgetary processes are utilized...which may or may not including printing...sorry for the confusion... :?


But I would contend the normal budgetary process... never prints money :)

Hmm... ::taps fingers:: ...I'm thinkin'...so when in your mind does the Gov print? When the need for increased supply becomes necessary?


Like I said, I don't think Congress prints at all. The Fed prints.

_________________
Andrew Min
ahmin@princeton.edu
Arete Speech & Debate, NCFCA, Class of 2011


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 3:02 am
Posts: 635
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: South Carolina
But the Fed prints for Congress...right?

_________________
God judged it better to bring good out of evil than to suffer no evil to exist.
- Saint Augustine


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 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