homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:03 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 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 1394
Home Schooled: Yes
nate hammett wrote:
But the Fed prints for Congress...right?


Although Congress gives the Fed the power to print, the Fed board is independnet.

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 5:04 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:
But the Fed prints for Congress...right?


Although Congress gives the Fed the power to print, the Fed board is independnet.

Right...so what's the issue...?

::shrug::

I'm just a redneck from SC but from my point of view...we're kinda splitting hairs...

Normal processes includes the delegation/allocation of the budget, revenues, currency investments, bond-financing...whtvr...and...sometimes printing...via the Fed...

_________________
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 5:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 3:06 pm
Posts: 1058
Home Schooled: No
Location: Texas
It's really complicated but the Fed prints for the country as a whole, even if congress did not need money but there where other economic pressures the Fed would print money if they felt it was what the country needed from a monetary stand point.

I'm sorry you are in a region that is really taking an unorthodox stance on funding but; the only thing that makes me a little skeptical was the fact it was a solvency argument and the judge said "not enough funding" in his RFD, as I stated before you need to have a good ballpark for the cost of your plan you CAN'T say I don't know what it will cost but since we use GFR we have enough money, I might even vote against you too even if they did not mention it in the 2NR as long as it was never refuted properly.

Another plug however for as a neg never saying "we are dropping this". If you want to drop it fine but don't announce it let the aff figure it out for themselves, also unless you are super pressed for time a five second "pull the funding argument that was never adequately addressed" can't hurt....all this to say you never know which arguments the judge is buying so keep as much on the flow as you can as the neg and refute everything well as the aff


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 3:38 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::"
nate hammett wrote:
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...
Look again at what I said. The money acts the same regardless of who uses it. How the actor treats that money is irrelevant to my point. The actual monetary units still work the same way: it takes so much to acquire a certain item/service/goal. Money is always a token used for exchange in transactions. It doesn't change in its nature depending on who uses it.
nate hammett wrote:
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... :?:
Actually, my argument was never a solvency argument. Other people see it as such. I do not. But you're right that I do have a fundamental moral problem w/ accepting the view that the current method of funding things (i.e. debt or printing) as right.
nate hammett wrote:
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????
Ok, I'm not sure what you're saying here. This seems to be supporting my position, not yours.

_________________
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: Thu Feb 03, 2011 4:43 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::"
BTW, I'm going to conduct a "dropped argument" tally after this is over. And I'm going to win big.
Delta_FC wrote:
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.
Not entirely true. If you don't have money and can't borrow any more, then you can't spend it. However, my point is, budgeting is good and debt is unwise.
Delta_FC wrote:
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.
I already read it twice. Just to make sure. I don't see any other implication. I think that was what Andrew Min was asking about.
Delta_FC wrote:
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.
I don't follow you. Are you endorsing the continuation of that trend? Or merely stating an unfortunate fact that deserves swift remedy?
Delta_FC wrote:
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?
1. I don't need to. To prove that overspending is bad, I must merely show it to be irresponsible. The only good consequences of irresponsibility are complete accidents.
2. I already did. There were three totally legit ones (which you chose to ignore) that followed this sentence.
Delta_FC wrote:
Then we better stop paying your grandma's social security check, huh?
1. Social Security should have never been founded (I hold the same opinion about Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, etc.).
2. Yes. As soon as I see a practicable solution for ending Social Security (before bankruptcy does so), I'll support it.
Delta_FC wrote:
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?
No. These are vital to America's survival and cannot be discarded. We should, however, cut all spending to a minimum and seek a plan to pay back our debt as quickly as possible. The societal evil of spending our way down the hole of debt will not be fixed overnight, but we must stop going in the wrong direction in order to fix it.
Delta_FC wrote:
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)
I'm not sure who you're calling conservatives. "Republican" nowadays doesn't usually equal "Conservative." Example of a conservative: Ron Paul. He doesn't want to spend on.
Delta_FC wrote:
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.
1. This part is:
Quote:
...Results in permanent gain of governmental power (b/c gov't never retracts)...

2. That's why it's linear.
3. Note that in my last post I preferred running it as a K.
4. Reality cannot always be neatly categorized into our debate argument types. This may just be one of those times.
Delta_FC wrote:
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).
See 4 responses above.
Delta_FC wrote:
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?
1. Um... you did. ???
2. This is the option to raising taxes (out of the question - and we're going to discuss losing strategies...) or borrowing money. There are 3 options and all are bad.
Delta_FC wrote:
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.
1. Re-read what I just said.
2. Debt isn't immoral; debt is bad - unwise, disadvantageous. That's what the Founders and preceding generations realized. They accepted it as a necessary evil in times of extreme emergency, then sought to pay it back afterwards.
3. GW mentioned the "accumulation of debt." The public debt of the USFG over time is actually a hockey-stick graph (w/ spikes for the War of Northern Aggression, WWI, and WWII.) It remained essentially flat (at around $50,000,000) until the mid 1900s, and now look at it.
Delta_FC wrote:
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?
As I read Coach Carter's post, he gave the impact for me.
Delta_FC wrote:
Quote:
B. For this reason "the borrower is the lender's slave"*
Impact?
1. Note the "*". It directed you to one impact.
2. If enslavement to creditors (i.e. China, etc.) isn't enough of an impact for you, what do you want?
Delta_FC wrote:
Quote:
C. You must cut down future spending even further to afford current debt.
Not necessarily.
I don't see any alternative. Please explain. :o This is rare (and becoming less rare, as I read your post) JCKR response with zero warrants or analysis.
Delta_FC wrote:
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.
1. A brink must be in the SQ. Not sure what you meant by that.
2. My brink was essentially that we're at "the tipping point" right now. We're seeing hints of the impacts beginning to appear. Every step in the wrong direction could produce serious consequences. If your plan steps in that direction, it 1) might be the straw to break the camel's back or 2) will contribute to something else in the SQ causing the same consequence.
Delta_FC wrote:
The squo has either 1) already triggered the impact (non-unique)
Thus showing that the impact is real.
Delta_FC wrote:
2) No one knows where the brink is (no threshold; no impact)
1. It's a brick wall in America's face that we just ran into.
2. Lack of brink doesn't justify something fundamentally wrong.
3. It would definitely be linear.
4. I said I preferred running it as a K.
Delta_FC wrote:
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."
This is an impact to printing all the money we need to handle the emergency debt problem.
Delta_FC wrote:
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.
1. Then why were discussing DAs?
2. Sorry. Now we're on to Ks. But you shouldn't have a problem discussing your favorite argument, right? ;)

Delta_FC wrote:
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.
Clarification: I'm K-ing your acceptance of the SQ process. I'm not condoning that portion of the SQ. This isn't a problem w/ being NEG (and rez-centrist) for 2 reasons: 1) This isn't a resolutionally pertinent issue. 2) I'm increasing my ethos by admitting that the SQ isn't perfect (which we know it isn't). Plus, I have an alternative: responsible spending (part of responsible policy making).
Delta_FC wrote:
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.
1. You attacked my conclusion w/o addressing early-stated qualifications of that conclusion. I'm saying that, in light of given conditions and current circumstances, failure to specify a specific location from which funding will arise (thus casting it back on debt, taxes, or printing) is irresponsible. Hence my complaint.
2. The ends NEVER justify the means. If the means to an end (including funding) are fundamentally morally wrong, we should not even consider the end. This makes the Funding K an a-priori issue.
Delta_FC wrote:
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.
1. The ends do not justify the means. The ends do not justify the means. The ends do not justify the means. Would you like to fill a whiteboard with this fundamental principle of truth? You can do it after school tomorrow. If you don't believe this, we have bigger issues, issues which go far beyond high-school debate.
2. Theoretically bankrupt arguments: Hairlength Ks, Topical CPs, Macro-Evolution, GFR and normal means, Kritikal AFFs, etc. Really? Funding? Not on this list.

FYI: http://www.usdebtclock.org/ This is one of the scariest web pages I've ever seen. The numbers on it move like it's a stock exchange. And your suggesting contributing to that?

_________________
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: Thu Feb 03, 2011 1:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 3:02 am
Posts: 635
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: South Carolina
Joshtinian wrote:
nate hammett wrote:
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...
Look again at what I said. The money acts the same regardless of who uses it. How the actor treats that money is irrelevant to my point. The actual monetary units still work the same way: it takes so much to acquire a certain item/service/goal. Money is always a token used for exchange in transactions. It doesn't change in its nature depending on who uses it.
But...we aren't arguing about the money...itself. We are talking about how it is exchanged and how the money is used. The money itself is there and doesn't change but the way it is distributed and used definitely changes.
Joshtinian wrote:
nate hammett wrote:
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... :?:
Actually, my argument was never a solvency argument. Other people see it as such. I do not. But you're right that I do have a fundamental moral problem w/ accepting the view that the current method of funding things (i.e. debt or printing) as right.
Maybe this should have come out at the beginning...
Most all of the standard funding arguments...like yours appeared to be...are along the lines of "we don't know where aff gets money, so we have to assume they don't have it, so their plan doesn't work..." At least that's pretty close to how Coach and others will run it.
Joshtinian wrote:
nate hammett wrote:
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????
Ok, I'm not sure what you're saying here. This seems to be supporting my position, not yours.
Net benefits: Who cares if we print the money? Or go into debt more...or whatever! Spend the money and prevent a global economic crisis and social chaos from occurring. Our justifications>>>>>>>spending/funding arguments....the impacts don't even compare.

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 2:53 pm 
Offline
I know not this "leverage" of which you speak.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 5:52 pm
Posts: 2282
Home Schooled: Yes
The United States monetary policy is a complex moral dilemma. Simply applying a few proverbs will not show us the best solution. That's not to say that proverbs are worthless. Rather, I'm saying that they are generalizations, not absolutes. To take them otherwise would be to twist their meaning.

It seems that both sides are disagreeing on what "responsible" verses "irresponsible" means. Once those terms have been agreeed upon in detail, we can talk about spending.

Joshtinian is arguing that debt is [unconditionally] unwise and therefore [unconditionally] irresponsible. The opposition argues that there are more weighing mechanisms that must be used to determin the responsibility or irresponsibility of an action or mindset.

_________________
This account doesn't express the opinions of my employers and might not even express my own.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Feb 03, 2011 3:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:17 pm
Posts: 1547
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Researching...
Quote:
Not entirely true. If you don't have money and can't borrow any more, then you can't spend it. However, my point is, budgeting is good and debt is unwise.


:sigh: Can you give me a reason why this is true? I've given you countless examples of how the government has spent money it hasn't had. So you're wrong.

I don't care if it's a good thing or a bad thing, I'm pointing out that it's possible.

Quote:
I already read it twice. Just to make sure. I don't see any other implication. I think that was what Andrew Min was asking about.


This is because you're reading too much into my post. ;)

Let's go back through the line of argument so you have the context:
You - Government can't spend money it doesn't have.
Me - Yes it can. It can print money
You - OMG YOU"RE PRINTING MONEY
Me - Um. No. I'm saying the government can print money

Again, your argument that the government can't spend money it doesn't have has been disproven by 200 years of precedent. Now, show otherwise.

Quote:
I don't follow you. Are you endorsing the continuation of that trend? Or merely stating an unfortunate fact that deserves swift remedy?


Nope. I'm (again) proving that your claim is wrong.

Quote:
1. I don't need to. To prove that overspending is bad, I must merely show it to be irresponsible. The only good consequences of irresponsibility are complete accidents.


Ok. So, some normal irresponsibility here. Or mass chaos and death? I'm going with mass chaos and death.

Quote:
1. Social Security should have never been founded (I hold the same opinion about Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, etc.).


Ok. So let's demolish it.

Quote:
2. Yes. As soon as I see a practicable solution for ending Social Security (before bankruptcy does so), I'll support it.


Wait. What do you mean practical? It's a moral issue. We don't sacrifice our principles! We're conservatives!

If it's really a Kritik like you're saying, it's a moral argument. It doesn't matter what's "practical" it's morally reprehensible (according to your argument) for the program to exist.

Quote:
No. These are vital to America's survival and cannot be discarded.


Mind giving a warrant for that? We don't need the military we have. And we aren't supposed to have the military we have! There's another moral argument. The military should be abolished! It's immoral to do something the founding fathers said we shouldn't do.

Joshtinian wrote:
Delta_FC wrote:
Who said I print money?
1. Um... you did. ???


:sigh: No, I never did. Re-read what I posted above.

Quote:
2. This is the option to raising taxes (out of the question - and we're going to discuss losing strategies...) or borrowing money. There are 3 options and all are bad.


I don't think you understand how PAYGO works. Aff plans are funded in the middle of the fiscal year. That means the money is re-directed from another, less important program. Which means the money actually is there, we don't spend anymore, or anything.

That's why this entire argument fails.

Quote:
1. Re-read what I just said.


I did. You said "big" spending started 50 years ago. So? We've still been spending money "we didn't have" for the entire history of our country. Which makes is so horribly non-unique for a DA, and no alternative for a K.

Quote:
2. Debt isn't immoral; debt is bad - unwise, disadvantageous. That's what the Founders and preceding generations realized. They accepted it as a necessary evil in times of extreme emergency, then sought to pay it back afterwards.


We pay it back too :?

Quote:
3. GW mentioned the "accumulation of debt." The public debt of the USFG over time is actually a hockey-stick graph (w/ spikes for the War of Northern Aggression, WWI, and WWII.) It remained essentially flat (at around $50,000,000) until the mid 1900s, and now look at it.


It doesn't matter "how" moral or not you are. What matters is that you're moral or not. And your argument fails for two reasons: 1) It's not how the government works. It doesn't matter if it should work like a private citizen's home, it simply doesn't. 2) It's so non-unique and lacks an alternative for the Negative.

Quote:
As I read Coach Carter's post, he gave the impact for me.


Interesting. I remember these statements:

"I'm sorry you are in a region that is really taking an unorthodox stance on funding but" - Carter
"It's really complicated but the Fed prints for the country as a whole, even if congress did not need money but there where other economic pressures the Fed would print money if they felt it was what the country needed from a monetary stand point." - Carter
"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." - Carter
"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." - Carter

Quote:
2. If enslavement to creditors (i.e. China, etc.) isn't enough of an impact for you, what do you want?


I'd like a unique argument with a clear brink or something!

But, more along the lines of a Kritik: You need an alternative. If after the Affirmative round the problem continues, you should lose the Kritik, because you've changed nothing with your "real world" protest. Especially since all the impacts have already happened.

Quote:
I don't see any alternative. Please explain. This is rare (and becoming less rare, as I read your post) JCKR response with zero warrants or analysis.


We already talked about raising taxes. I was really questioning your own statement that made an absolute with absolutely no backing.

Quote:
1. A brink must be in the SQ. Not sure what you meant by that.


The Aff plan has to "trigger" the impact that the squo doesn't. It's like a trip wire. Squo is standing in front of it, and the Aff plan walks into it. With your argument, the squo has already tripped the wire and the impact has already happened (on a moral level) or hasn't happened (on a tangible level).

Quote:
2. My brink was essentially that we're at "the tipping point" right now. We're seeing hints of the impacts beginning to appear. Every step in the wrong direction could produce serious consequences. If your plan steps in that direction, it 1) might be the straw to break the camel's back or 2) will contribute to something else in the SQ causing the same consequence.


So now we have a DA that might exist, but might not? Or a K that might exist or might not?

Quote:
Thus showing that the impact is real.


And also showing the DA to be non-unique and the K without an alternative.

Quote:
1. It's a brick wall in America's face that we just ran into.
2. Lack of brink doesn't justify something fundamentally wrong.
3. It would definitely be linear.


I don't think you understand the premise of a brink. And I'm not quite sure how to explain it better than I have in my previous posts.

If there's no brink we have no assurance that the impact will actually happen. If the brink has already been passed, then the Aff plan cannot trigger the impact any more than the status quo can.

As for linear arguments, they are easily outweighed.

Quote:
4. I said I preferred running it as a K.


But you can't propose a real world alternative to your real world protest, so at the end of the round we're left in just as bad a shape as we were before the round. What's the point?

I think it's unfair for the Negative to expect the Affirmative to change US monetary policy just for their plan to be feasible. That's not how the government works.

Quote:
This is an impact to printing all the money we need to handle the emergency debt problem.


What emergency debt problem? Are you referring (again) to the non-unique squo?

Again, after all those spending increases, we didn't get your impact of anarchy and totalitarian states without individual rights. I hardly think that after an increase from $206 billion to $3.0 trillion in debt under Reagan and Bush I; after Bush II, we had a $1.2 trillion increase in debt (not counting the stimulus package); Obama's deficit in just one year is over $1 trillion.

I don't see any Affirmatives coming even close to that amount of money.

Quote:
2. Sorry. Now we're on to Ks. But you shouldn't have a problem discussing your favorite argument, right?


I don't have a problem discussing the argument, no.

Quote:
Clarification: I'm K-ing your acceptance of the SQ process


I don't accept it. I'm just pointing out that's how it is. I'm not condoning it either.

Quote:
Plus, I have an alternative: responsible spending (part of responsible policy making).


Are you saying that not spending money on matters of national security is "responsible?" I'm not seeing that.

Quote:
2. The ends NEVER justify the means. If the means to an end (including funding) are fundamentally morally wrong, we should not even consider the end. This makes the Funding K an a-priori issue.


Then how do you determine if something is "responsible" or not? You say that spending money we don't have on the military is ok because it's national security. I say you fail your own test of morality and responsibility.

I also say that spending money "we don't have" (which is still illegitimate, imo) is responsible when you look at the impact that spending would have.

The only reason you think that spending money is a problem is for purely economic or political reasons. There doesn't seem to be a moral bent to this at all (unless I'm mistaken). In that case, you have to weigh the benefits and losses.

Quote:
2. Theoretically bankrupt arguments: Hairlength Ks, Topical CPs, Macro-Evolution, GFR and normal means, Kritikal AFFs, etc. Really? Funding? Not on this list.


I thought you put it under "GFR and normals means?" >_>

Quote:
FYI: http://www.usdebtclock.org/ This is one of the scariest web pages I've ever seen. The numbers on it move like it's a stock exchange. And your suggesting contributing to that?


Haha. No. You should read up on PAYGO.

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: Fri Feb 04, 2011 1:43 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::"
nate hammett wrote:
But...we aren't arguing about the money...itself. We are talking about how it is exchanged and how the money is used. The money itself is there and doesn't change but the way it is distributed and used definitely changes.
BTW, I looked back @ the OP that sparked this chain of discussion (not the entire forum). My original argument was that the money (and thus the budget) function similarly at the private level and governmental level (b/c money's fundamental nature is a medium of exchange). I was saying I thought it reasonable for us to know the source of governmental funding just like an individual must know the source of his funds to make a particular purchase. So I believe I was talking about the way money is used... :?
nate hammett wrote:
Maybe this should have come out at the beginning...
Most all of the standard funding arguments...like yours appeared to be...are along the lines of "we don't know where aff gets money, so we have to assume they don't have it, so their plan doesn't work..." At least that's pretty close to how Coach and others will run it.
1. Well, it appears that lots of people buy it.
2. It does appear to me that if the AFF can't get money, then their plan =/= solve. The questionable link here IMO is the ability of the AFF to fiat funding w/o specifically stating it.
3. My argument would be more along the lines of pressing the AFF to provide a source for funding to prove that they can get it from somewhere.
nate hammett wrote:
Net benefits: Who cares if we print the money? Or go into debt more...or whatever! Spend the money and prevent a global economic crisis and social chaos from occurring. Our justifications>>>>>>>spending/funding arguments....the impacts don't even compare.
1. Do you agree w/ the principle: "The ends do not justify the means"? If you do, then you just defeated your own argument about net benefits. If you don't, well... :o ::drops jaw: :shock: ::slowly closes mouth w/ hand::
2. BTW, printing money and going into debt lead to global economic crisis and social chaos at some point (a point which is quickly approaching).
3. This only works if your justifications >>>>>>>> anything the NEG brings up. Which doesn't hold true for most AFFs.

_________________
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: Fri Feb 04, 2011 1:58 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::"
Mr Glasses wrote:
The United States monetary policy is a complex moral dilemma. Simply applying a few proverbs will not show us the best solution. That's not to say that proverbs are worthless. Rather, I'm saying that they are generalizations, not absolutes. To take them otherwise would be to twist their meaning.
Hhhmmm... Not sure I can accept the idea that Proverbs is just "generalizations." Maybe some middle position between generalizations and absolutes?
Mr Glasses wrote:
It seems that both sides are disagreeing on what "responsible" verses "irresponsible" means. Once those terms have been agreeed upon in detail, we can talk about spending.
Irresponsible: "not showing or done with due care for the consequences of one's actions or attitudes; reckless" -- Collins English Dictionary 2009
Responsible: "characterized by trustworthiness, integrity, and requisite abilities and resources" -- Merriam Webster's Dictionary of Law 1996
* word="agreed"=/="agreeed" - just playing your sister's role :evil:
Mr Glasses wrote:
Joshtinian is arguing that debt is [unconditionally] unwise and therefore [unconditionally] irresponsible. The opposition argues that there are more weighing mechanisms that must be used to determin the responsibility or irresponsibility of an action or mindset.
Let me restate: Debt is unconditionally and seriously disadvantageous. Which makes it usually/generally unwise and irresponsible when not weighed very carefully against extraordinary and emergency circumstances.
* word="determine"=/="determin" - still playing grammar police :)

_________________
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: Fri Feb 04, 2011 2:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:21 pm
Posts: 806
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Running the opposite way
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. Besides, I've never heard any convincing arguments against funding. The only one I've heard is extra-T, which isn't convincing at all. How is diverting funds to a policy toward Russia not topical? Lol.

Delta_FC, you mentioned PAYGO. Why not just specify which program will be cut? It makes sense, and it spikes silly funding arguments. Yes, you have to do a bit of research to prove that the program you cut is a bad thing, but that's not a big deal at all.

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Feb 04, 2011 3:26 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::"
Delta_FC wrote:
I don't care if it's a good thing or a bad thing, I'm pointing out that it's possible.
Eureka! So you're arguing that this can happen, while I'm arguing it shouldn't. Thus, our positions aren't necessarily contradictory. :D (Summary of the first major hunk of your post - I'm practicing my grouping.)
Delta_FC wrote:
Quote:
1. I don't need to. To prove that overspending is bad, I must merely show it to be irresponsible. The only good consequences of irresponsibility are complete accidents.
Ok. So, some normal irresponsibility here. Or mass chaos and death? I'm going with mass chaos and death.
See below - moral imperative.
Delta_FC wrote:
Quote:
1. Social Security should have never been founded (I hold the same opinion about Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, etc.).
Ok. So let's demolish it.
Oh, if that were only topical!
Delta_FC wrote:
Quote:
2. Yes. As soon as I see a practicable solution for ending Social Security (before bankruptcy does so), I'll support it.
Wait. What do you mean practical? It's a moral issue. We don't sacrifice our principles! We're conservatives!

If it's really a Kritik like you're saying, it's a moral argument. It doesn't matter what's "practical" it's morally reprehensible (according to your argument) for the program to exist.
1. Clarification: I didn't say "practical." I said "practicable." In other words, something that will actually work/solve/achieve its intended goal.
2. It's more complicated than that. Now that the program exists, the gov't has a certain degree of moral obligation to the people who have paid in to the system and have been promised something from it in return. So there is a moral issue both ways. Personally, I believe the moral argument in favor of abolition is stronger, but it does exist both ways.
3. The fun thing about policymaking (IMO): Now try to solve this dilemma with the least violation of both moral principles AND the least practical harm to society. :D
4. If I believed what you're suggesting as the conservative viewpoint, I would have done LD for the last 3 years. I regard TP as the practical application of the values discussed in LD. We actually get to apply these to real world problems and try to solve real dilemmas - instead of just talking about abstract ideas. It's like what the Founding Fathers did in constructing the gov't.
5. The position I (and many conservatives in legislative capacities) hold is that the mitigation of an evil is preferable to no mitigation when complete abolition is impossible. Examples: Abortion legislation in SC, Wilberforce's fight to abolish the slave trade.
Delta_FC wrote:
Quote:
No. These are vital to America's survival and cannot be discarded.
Mind giving a warrant for that? We don't need the military we have. And we aren't supposed to have the military we have! There's another moral argument. The military should be abolished! It's immoral to do something the founding fathers said we shouldn't do.
1. I don't mind at all; Here are two: a) National Defense (note its prominent location in the preamble to the Constitution as one of the jobs of the federal gov't) and b) Your personal favorite, Deterrence (i.e. national defense, but more specific) - reason to keep our nukes.
2. Um... the Founders intended for us to have a military/navy/(no air force b/c planes didn't exist back then - that power should be added w/ a Constitutional Amendment). See the powers of Congress, powers of the President, and the Federalist Papers.
Joshtinian wrote:
Delta_FC wrote:
Who said I print money?
1. Um... you did. ???
:sigh: No, I never did. Re-read what I posted above.
Delta_FC wrote:
Quote:
2. This is the option to raising taxes (out of the question - and we're going to discuss losing strategies...) or borrowing money. There are 3 options and all are bad.
I don't think you understand how PAYGO works. Aff plans are funded in the middle of the fiscal year. That means the money is re-directed from another, less important program. Which means the money actually is there, we don't spend anymore, or anything.
Great! So you shouldn't have any problem giving me a list of 10-20 such programs, if your plan is really all that important.
Delta_FC wrote:
Quote:
1. Re-read what I just said.
I did. You said "big" spending started 50 years ago. So? We've still been spending money "we didn't have" for the entire history of our country. Which makes is so horribly non-unique for a DA, and no alternative for a K.
1. There have been periods in US history where we have paid back significant portions of the debt (after the Revolutionary War and the War of Northern Aggression, for instance). That could be the alternative.
2. It isn't a matter of spending money we don't have. That is the definition of going into debt, and sometimes inescapable. But doing so irresponsibly is not acceptable and is avoidable. That could be the alternative.
3. But as I mentioned earlier, this doesn't have to fit into the realm of "debate argument categories" at all. It can be different (I would say "unique," but that word has another meaning here).
Delta_FC wrote:
Quote:
2. Debt isn't immoral; debt is bad - unwise, disadvantageous. That's what the Founders and preceding generations realized. They accepted it as a necessary evil in times of extreme emergency, then sought to pay it back afterwards.
We pay it back too :?
You honestly think that Washington (Including all administrations and legislatures for the last 20 years) intends to ever pay back $14trillion? You've got to be kidding me. Dialogue about "controlling the deficit" isn't directed at removing the debt altogether, but with slowing its rate of accumulation. It might be a start, but barely a start.
Delta_FC wrote:
Quote:
3. GW mentioned the "accumulation of debt." The public debt of the USFG over time is actually a hockey-stick graph (w/ spikes for the War of Northern Aggression, WWI, and WWII.) It remained essentially flat (at around $50,000,000) until the mid 1900s, and now look at it.
It doesn't matter "how" moral or not you are. What matters is that you're moral or not.
I would disagree. If complete morality in all policy making is an impossibility, does that mean that no effort is just as good as no effort? If abortion is legalized, is it better to restrict its conditions and operations, or to give it completely free reign wherever it wants?
Delta_FC wrote:
And your argument fails for two reasons: 1) It's not how the government works. It doesn't matter if it should work like a private citizen's home, it simply doesn't.
I realize that is doesn't work this way. Although it has worked this way. And it should work this way. An attempt at achieving a "should", even if it falls short of 100% solvency, is generally better than sticking your head in the sand and hoping the problem disappears.
Delta_FC wrote:
2) It's so non-unique and lacks an alternative for the Negative.
BTW, you like the "non-unique" a little better than is good for you. ;) If I remember correctly, it loses rounds... 8-) That b/c most of us just don't care! :roll:

Delta_FC wrote:
Quote:
As I read Coach Carter's post, he gave the impact for me.
Interesting. I remember these statements:

"I'm sorry you are in a region that is really taking an unorthodox stance on funding but" - Carter
"It's really complicated but the Fed prints for the country as a whole, even if congress did not need money but there where other economic pressures the Fed would print money if they felt it was what the country needed from a monetary stand point." - Carter
"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." - Carter
"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." - Carter
1. I was talking about this quote, not his most recent one.
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

2. "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." This is what I was talking about. That's actually a bad thing, IMO.
Delta_FC wrote:
Quote:
2. If enslavement to creditors (i.e. China, etc.) isn't enough of an impact for you, what do you want?
I'd like a unique argument with a clear brink or something!
Good! Just read my past posts. It's all laid out - before you started knit-picking at it, that is....
Delta_FC wrote:
If after the Affirmative round the problem continues, you should lose the Kritik, because you've changed nothing with your "real world" protest.
??? I didn't follow you there.
Delta_FC wrote:
Quote:
I don't see any alternative. Please explain. This is rare (and becoming less rare, as I read your post) JCKR response with zero warrants or analysis.
We already talked about raising taxes. I was really questioning your own statement that made an absolute with absolutely no backing.
It seemed pretty obvious as me. What you spend now you can't spend later - cuz you then must pay it back.
Delta_FC wrote:
Quote:
1. A brink must be in the SQ. Not sure what you meant by that.
The Aff plan has to "trigger" the impact that the squo doesn't. It's like a trip wire. Squo is standing in front of it, and the Aff plan walks into it. With your argument, the squo has already tripped the wire and the impact has already happened (on a moral level) or hasn't happened (on a tangible level).
Perhaps I should say it this way: "Any more debt, and we'll NEVER pay it back b/c the interest on the debt will equal our GDP at this rate. Any more money printed, and we'll end up w/ double-digit inflation (which isn't good for the econ), and that will probably lead us to hyper inflation (i.e. Dollar=Destroyed, US Credibility=Destroyed, Society=Destroyed, Global Trade=Destroyed, Life as we Know it=Destroyed). If the AFF continues w/ this unjustifiable idea (not necessarily of the entire SQ, but implemented w/ every policy), that's what causes this." As I previously stated:
Joshtinian wrote:
2. My brink was essentially that we're at "the tipping point" right now. We're seeing hints of the impacts beginning to appear. Every step in the wrong direction could produce serious consequences. If your plan steps in that direction, it 1) might be the straw to break the camel's back or 2) will contribute to something else in the SQ causing the same consequence.

Delta_FC wrote:
And also showing the DA to be non-unique and the K without an alternative.
Wait, did you just equate a K's alternative w/ a DA's uniqueness? You were the one who originally told me a K didn't need uniqueness.
Delta_FC wrote:
As for linear arguments, they are easily outweighed.
Um... Many adults (i.e. judges in our area) would think differently. So do I. And no, they aren't all wrong about how money works. How about a moral linear argument?
Delta_FC wrote:
I think it's unfair for the Negative to expect the Affirmative to change US monetary policy just for their plan to be feasible. That's not how the government works.
I think it's unfair for the Affirmative to expect to get away with a lame cop-out that their spending is no more licentious than the SQ. So how do we decide between the two? (We can just about assume that neither position is truly completely defensible).
Delta_FC wrote:
Again, after all those spending increases, we didn't get your impact of anarchy and totalitarian states without individual rights. I hardly think that after an increase from $206 billion to $3.0 trillion in debt under Reagan and Bush I; after Bush II, we had a $1.2 trillion increase in debt (not counting the stimulus package); Obama's deficit in just one year is over $1 trillion.

I don't see any Affirmatives coming even close to that amount of money.
1. Missile defense?
2. Then why don't they want to specify some way in which they can pay, and why can't they give a number?

Delta_FC wrote:
Quote:
Clarification: I'm K-ing your acceptance of the SQ process
I don't accept it. I'm just pointing out that's how it is. I'm not condoning it either.
You are condoning it by incorporating it into you plan.
Delta_FC wrote:
Quote:
Plus, I have an alternative: responsible spending (part of responsible policy making).
Are you saying that not spending money on matters of national security is "responsible?" I'm not seeing that.
Neither do I. "Spending responsibly" =/= "Not spending."
Delta_FC wrote:
Quote:
2. The ends NEVER justify the means. If the means to an end (including funding) are fundamentally morally wrong, we should not even consider the end. This makes the Funding K an a-priori issue.
Then how do you determine if something is "responsible" or not? You say that spending money we don't have on the military is ok because it's national security. I say you fail your own test of morality and responsibility.
Again, "Spending responsibly" =/= "Not spending."

BTW, if I didn't address something, I thought it was either obvious or previously stated.

ninja'd

_________________
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: Fri Feb 04, 2011 3:29 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::"
OppositeWay wrote:
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. Besides, I've never heard any convincing arguments against funding. The only one I've heard is extra-T, which isn't convincing at all. How is diverting funds to a policy toward Russia not topical? Lol.

Delta_FC, you mentioned PAYGO. Why not just specify which program will be cut? It makes sense, and it spikes silly funding arguments. Yes, you have to do a bit of research to prove that the program you cut is a bad thing, but that's not a big deal at all.
Really that's a great idea! :D (I like this guy). That almost sounds like common sense (what? on HSD? may it never be! ;) ). Right on!

_________________
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: Fri Feb 04, 2011 1:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 3:02 am
Posts: 635
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: South Carolina
Joshtinian wrote:
nate hammett wrote:
But...we aren't arguing about the money...itself. We are talking about how it is exchanged and how the money is used. The money itself is there and doesn't change but the way it is distributed and used definitely changes.
BTW, I looked back @ the OP that sparked this chain of discussion (not the entire forum). My original argument was that the money (and thus the budget) function similarly at the private level and governmental level (b/c money's fundamental nature is a medium of exchange). I was saying I thought it reasonable for us to know the source of governmental funding just like an individual must know the source of his funds to make a particular purchase. So I believe I was talking about the way money is used... :?
No...money doesn't function the same way...because it's used differently. Small biz and households have limited amounts of cash, need capital to buy groceries, and have to pay taxes. The Gov has a lot more resources available and it's not like they are required to save up money...Fact: money is treated and utilized MUCH differently on the public than the private spheres.
Joshtinian wrote:
nate hammett wrote:
Maybe this should have come out at the beginning...
Most all of the standard funding arguments...like yours appeared to be...are along the lines of "we don't know where aff gets money, so we have to assume they don't have it, so their plan doesn't work..." At least that's pretty close to how Coach and others will run it.
1. Well, it appears that lots of people buy it.
2. It does appear to me that if the AFF can't get money, then their plan =/= solve. The questionable link here IMO is the ability of the AFF to fiat funding w/o specifically stating it.
3. My argument would be more along the lines of pressing the AFF to provide a source for funding to prove that they can get it from somewhere.
1. So because lots of people buy it...that makes it ok?????
2. Yeah...aff has the ability to fiat the government as it works now...which means redirecting funds from other programs right in the middle of the fiscal year...
3. But they can get it from somewhere! They have to get it from somewhere...whether printing it, redirection, etc...they get the money...

Joshtinian wrote:
nate hammett wrote:
Net benefits: Who cares if we print the money? Or go into debt more...or whatever! Spend the money and prevent a global economic crisis and social chaos from occurring. Our justifications>>>>>>>spending/funding arguments....the impacts don't even compare.
1. Do you agree w/ the principle: "The ends do not justify the means"? If you do, then you just defeated your own argument about net benefits. If you don't, well... :o ::drops jaw: :shock: ::slowly closes mouth w/ hand::
2. BTW, printing money and going into debt lead to global economic crisis and social chaos at some point (a point which is quickly approaching).
3. This only works if your justifications >>>>>>>> anything the NEG brings up. Which doesn't hold true for most AFFs.

1. Ends don't justify the means is great in principle but that's not how the gov works and aff can't change that...
2. Yeah...printing and debt are bad...but so is international economic collapse...they are always ways to deflate the economy but trying to recover from a complete depression and social chaos is not so easy. I'll print the money, thank you.
3. Which they should...

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Feb 04, 2011 3:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:17 pm
Posts: 1547
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Researching...
Quote:
1. Well, it appears that lots of people buy it.


That. doesn't. make. it. right!

Coach Carter wrote:
I'm sorry you are in a region that is really taking an unorthodox stance on funding


Quote:
My argument would be more along the lines of pressing the AFF to provide a source for funding to prove that they can get it from somewhere.


The Federal budget isn't good enough? We know they have the money for it, just like Nathan stated.

Quote:
1. Do you agree w/ the principle: "The ends do not justify the means"? If you do, then you just defeated your own argument about net benefits. If you don't, well... ::drops jaw: ::slowly closes mouth w/ hand::


As a ruling principle? No. But I do believe in some cases, the ends do justify the means.

Look at your definition of "irresponsible" "not showing or done with due care for the consequences of one's actions or attitudes; reckless"

Remember, you said spending money we don't have is "irresponsible" and that in and of itself is a bad thing. Somehow being "irresponsible" is morally reprehensible. However, to prove we aren't being "irresponsible" we have to evaluate the ends! So we do justify the means with the ends. We have to based on your definition!

Quote:
2. BTW, printing money and going into debt lead to global economic crisis and social chaos at some point (a point which is quickly approaching).


Which is the definition of non-uniqueness and lack of threshold. Tell me: The Aff plan will save the world from an outbreak of smallpox which will kill hundreds of millions if not billions of people. Aside from human deaths, the global economy will be shattered. That will lead to more hundreds of millions of people dying.

Not looking so good.

However, you don't want to prevent that, because the Affirmative plan might cause a problem that we don't know will actually happen? That could (and should, according to your argument) have happened dozens of times in the past?

To me, that seems more "irresponsible."

Especially since you claim a "moral" justification for your argument....ignoring the fact that you wouldn't even support your own position if we were to cancel the immoral military's budget.

Quote:
Let me restate: Debt is unconditionally and seriously disadvantageous. Which makes it usually/generally unwise and irresponsible when not weighed very carefully against extraordinary and emergency circumstances.


Oop, oop, oop! Did you just say "when not weighed very carefully?" Are you trying to justify the means now?

The point isn't whether it's "usually" or "generally" "unwise." The issue is whether or not that's how the government actually works in its day-to-day business. Something I've pointed out several times is how the government does it! You can't ignore that fact (well, actually you can, since you have).

Quote:
I was saying I thought it reasonable for us to know the source of governmental funding just like an individual must know the source of his funds to make a particular purchase.


1) The government doesn't work like an individual.
2) Does the Affirmative need to know specifically which employees will be carrying out his plan? Which congressmen will vote for it? Which aid package won't be sent so we can secure on more kilobite of cyberspace? At what point do the specifications cease?

Quote:
Delta_FC, you mentioned PAYGO. Why not just specify which program will be cut? It makes sense, and it spikes silly funding arguments. Yes, you have to do a bit of research to prove that the program you cut is a bad thing, but that's not a big deal at all.


Because we don't know which program will be cut. We can make assumptions, and say that it's "likely" this program will be cut, but we can't know for sure.

I mean, honestly, as a high school debater, I'm not going through the US budgets just to make sure my plan will work. That's why we have fiat power (imo, but I can't think of a better reason). And again, where would the specifications cease? I've already proven the government just shifts the budget from some program in their own (in the words of Coach Carter) "very complex" way. I don't have a CPA, I hate math, and I don't have the time either (much to everyone's shock, I'm sure ;) ).

Quote:
Hey! I've got an idea! Why don't we just specify the funding and stop worrying about it?


Or how about people stop running lame funding arguments? That would solve the problem too!

I'd be curious to see just how many people argue funding like that. Joshtinian keeps appealing to the "majority" that I don't ever remember seeing. Coach Carter (whom I'm supposing is slightly more informed) mentioned that our club's view is "unorthodox" and it was "unfortunate" (I agree). That doesn't seem to imply a majority.

Quote:
Eureka! So you're arguing that this can happen, while I'm arguing it shouldn't. Thus, our positions aren't necessarily contradictory. (Summary of the first major hunk of your post - I'm practicing my grouping.)


So why is it a voter against me?

Quote:
National Defense


Regardless, we're "spending money we don't have" on a program that is too large for its own good. And despite your moral argument against spending, somehow these programs are too important to a conservative for it to be cut at all!

Quote:
Great! So you shouldn't have any problem giving me a list of 10-20 such programs, if your plan is really all that important.


I wouldn't mind, no, if I had a CPA, a foreign language degree in legalese (which I'm working on, I admit), and access and time to go through the Federal Budget. But the government doesn't exactly publish an easy-to-read budget. Additionally, like I stated above, we can only make speculation on which programs are "likely" to be cut, and can't give a direct answer.

Look at how the real budgetary process works:

Quote:
(1) IN GENERAL.—There is established a fund to be known as the ‘‘Public Health Investment Fund’’ (referred to in this section as the ‘‘Fund’’).
(2) FUNDING.—
(A) There shall be deposited into the
Fund—
(i) for fiscal year 2010, $4,600,000,000;
(ii) for fiscal year 2011, $5,600,000,000;
(iii) for fiscal year 2012, $6,900,000,000;
(iv) for fiscal year 2013, $7,800,000,000;
(v) for fiscal year 2014, $9,000,000,000;
(vi) for fiscal year 2015, $9,400,000,000;
(vii) for fiscal year 2016, $10,100,000,000;
(viii) for fiscal year 2017, $10,800,000,000;
(ix) for fiscal year 2018, $11,800,000,000; and
(x) for fiscal year 2019, $12,700,000,000.
(B) Amounts deposited into the Fund shall be derived from general revenues of the Treasury.


H.R. 4583, which extended job creation programs (and therefore would cost more) had no funding listed in the bill at all. It came, naturally, from "general revenues of the Treasury."

So this is how the government operates. This is modus operandi, standard operating procedure. You can't get all over our backs for "role-playing" the government, and then actually filling that role.

If this is "real-world" copy, you can't K us for it.

Quote:
1. There have been periods in US history where we have paid back significant portions of the debt (after the Revolutionary War and the War of Northern Aggression, for instance). That could be the alternative.


What would that alternative achieve? Nothing! After your alternative to pay back a large portion of the debt, we'd find ourselves back where we started, trillions in debt. Additionally, where do you plan on getting the funding for your alternative?

Quote:
2. It isn't a matter of spending money we don't have. That is the definition of going into debt, and sometimes inescapable. But doing so irresponsibly is not acceptable and is avoidable. That could be the alternative.


Here's my point: there's no way to determine if I'm being "responsible" or "irresponsible" unless we evaluate the ends. So we do and have to justify the means with the end. There's no other way to do it.

Like you said, spending isn't the problem (though I find that hard to believe, since you said "it's money we don't have") it's doing it "recklessly." I hardly think that Affirmatives would classify themselves as "reckless" when looking at their justifications (unless they're squirrels. That's not what we're talking about, though).

Quote:
You honestly think that Washington (Including all administrations and legislatures for the last 20 years) intends to ever pay back $14trillion? You've got to be kidding me. Dialogue about "controlling the deficit" isn't directed at removing the debt altogether, but with slowing its rate of accumulation. It might be a start, but barely a start.


It's "a start." Weren't you the one who said we have to do things practically/practicably? You're suggesting we suddenly cuts tons of programs to massively reduce the debt? That won't achieve anything in the long run. Most of those programs you cut will be one-year funds, meaning they're back in place the year after you cut their funding. Additionally, if you honestly believe that Washington is nothing but a spender, they'll find plenty of ways to get around your artificial restriction.

Quote:
An attempt at achieving a "should", even if it falls short of 100% solvency, is generally better than sticking your head in the sand and hoping the problem disappears.


I would contend that without a practical/practicable solution/alternative, you're being just as irresponsible.

Quote:
BTW, you like the "non-unique" a little better than is good for you. If I remember correctly, it loses rounds... That b/c most of us just don't care!


:sigh: I don't care if it doesn't win rounds. I care if the argument is legitimate or not.

Quote:
2. "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." This is what I was talking about. That's actually a bad thing, IMO.


But why is it a bad thing?

Quote:
??? I didn't follow you there.


If the Neg runs a Kritik, that just happens to also Kritik the real-world, but then fails to offer an alternative, how can you vote for the Negative. Their "real-world" option after the ballot is still Kritiked just like the Affirmative's. So, you need to provide an alternative, and one that will actually solve.

Quote:
It seemed pretty obvious as me. What you spend now you can't spend later - cuz you then must pay it back.


But as you argued just two sentences ago, you don't necessarily have to pay it back.

Quote:
Perhaps I should say it this way: "Any more debt, and we'll NEVER pay it back b/c the interest on the debt will equal our GDP at this rate. Any more money printed, and we'll end up w/ double-digit inflation (which isn't good for the econ), and that will probably lead us to hyper inflation (i.e. Dollar=Destroyed, US Credibility=Destroyed, Society=Destroyed, Global Trade=Destroyed, Life as we Know it=Destroyed). If the AFF continues w/ this unjustifiable idea (not necessarily of the entire SQ, but implemented w/ every policy), that's what causes this." As I previously stated:


"Any more?" How much is "any more?" $1 million? $1,000? $0.01? You can't give me a threshold, so my tangible impacts to the harms should be preferred. And each of your impact "probably" rests upon a previously "probable" impact. That's, like, the definition of a slippery slope.

Quote:
Wait, did you just equate a K's alternative w/ a DA's uniqueness? You were the one who originally told me a K didn't need uniqueness.


They're similar, but not the same. You have to provide an alternative to the Kritik, especially when it's non-unique, or there is no reason to vote for it.

Quote:
Um... Many adults (i.e. judges in our area) would think differently. So do I. And no, they aren't all wrong about how money works. How about a moral linear argument?


What are they right about on money, then? Stephanie's argument that you can't spend money you don't have (and her car example) is false, and that's what you were saying you and the moms believe in. But again, it's false.

And again, just because the parents think that way, doesn't mean it's right. I've already told you about preaching to the choir.

Moral linear? I'm having a hard time imagining that one.

Quote:
I think it's unfair for the Affirmative to expect to get away with a lame cop-out that their spending is no more licentious than the SQ. So how do we decide between the two? (We can just about assume that neither position is truly completely defensible).


How is it a cop-out to say "That's how the government works, and I don't understand the "complex and complicated" internal workings of US monetary policy?"

Quote:
2. Then why don't they want to specify some way in which they can pay, and why can't they give a number?


Like I said earlier, I can't know which program will be cut.

Quote:
You are condoning it by incorporating it into you plan.


No, I'm following procedure.

Quote:
Neither do I. "Spending responsibly" =/= "Not spending."


And to evaluate responsibility you have justify the means (spending, which isn't bad) with the ends (benefits of the plan). Again, this is based on your own definition of the term.

Quote:
BTW, if I didn't address something, I thought it was either obvious or previously stated.


Determining responsibility for monetary actions? I didn't see a response to that.

I also didn't see you responding to the fact that the government has and can spend money "it doesn't have."

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: Sun Feb 06, 2011 11:44 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:
No...money doesn't function the same way...because it's used differently. Small biz and households have limited amounts of cash, need capital to buy groceries, and have to pay taxes. The Gov has a lot more resources available and it's not like they are required to save up money...Fact: money is treated and utilized MUCH differently on the public than the private spheres.
The government also has limited amounts of cash (I know its scale is much larger, but it never has an infinitesimal amount of money). The government also needs capital to pay basic expenditures (Medicaid and Social Security instead of groceries and bills). About paying taxes - taxes are simply a reduction of net profit. The government has plenty of those, too. And private individuals don't have to save up money; they can collect debt - until they max out all their credit cards. Then they're in trouble. The government similarly can collect debt. Due to its greater scale, its max debt level is higher, but governments, too, have a limit. Just look at California's bonds. When state employees refuse to take your bonds b/c they are worthless, you have reached your debt limit. And the US federal government has a debt level even higher than California's. Just b/c we haven't hit it yet doesn't mean it isn't there.
nate hammett wrote:
1. So because lots of people buy it...that makes it ok?????
2. Yeah...aff has the ability to fiat the government as it works now...which means redirecting funds from other programs right in the middle of the fiscal year...
3. But they can get it from somewhere! They have to get it from somewhere...whether printing it, redirection, etc...they get the money...
1. I'm not defending it. I'm also not admitting that it has no degree of legitimacy.
2. Right. So... Please specify the specific program[s] ace from which this is coming. If not, I can assume it will come from the most harmful place possible (like PRINTING more MONEY) the possibilities are endless.
3. You seem to be assuming that the AFF automatically has the right to draw whatever funds necessary in any way to support any plan they propose. :o Will only impact this if, indeed, such is your point.
nate hammett wrote:
1. Ends don't justify the means is great in principle but that's not how the gov works and aff can't change that...
2. Yeah...printing and debt are bad...but so is international economic collapse...they are always ways to deflate the economy but trying to recover from a complete depression and social chaos is not so easy. I'll print the money, thank you.
3. Which they should...
1. This revelation is so shocking that I really don't know how to respond. This would be a time where William F. Buckley would say something like, "I don't want to insult your intelligence by assuming you meant what you just said."
2. What I just said was:
Joshtinian wrote:
printing money and going into debt lead to global economic crisis and social chaos
In other words printing and debt --> international economic collapse. And btw, depression (economically defined) is deflation - over deflation.
3. Agreed. So funding DA could destroy a non-Significant case?

_________________
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: Mon Feb 07, 2011 5:05 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:
Delta_FC, you mentioned PAYGO. Why not just specify which program will be cut? It makes sense, and it spikes silly funding arguments. Yes, you have to do a bit of research to prove that the program you cut is a bad thing, but that's not a big deal at all.


Because we don't know which program will be cut. We can make assumptions, and say that it's "likely" this program will be cut, but we can't know for sure.

I mean, honestly, as a high school debater, I'm not going through the US budgets just to make sure my plan will work. That's why we have fiat power (imo, but I can't think of a better reason). And again, where would the specifications cease? I've already proven the government just shifts the budget from some program in their own (in the words of Coach Carter) "very complex" way. I don't have a CPA, I hate math, and I don't have the time either (much to everyone's shock, I'm sure ;) ).

1. Why can't we know? You can fiat cutting a particular program.

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.

3. Caters to all judges. NCFCA debate is primarily about communication. It's about getting a judge to check the right box at the end of the debate round through superior communication. A major part of this is using arguments that judges like or want to hear. There are lots of judges who hate funding through "normal means", "the budget", or "general federal revenue." Why not make a simple change to the 1AC to cater to those judges? Otherwise, you may end up losing rounds that you really should have won.

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.

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.

Delta_FC wrote:
Quote:
Hey! I've got an idea! Why don't we just specify the funding and stop worrying about it?


Or how about people stop running lame funding arguments? That would solve the problem too!

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

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

Oh yeah... one more thing...

Delta_FC wrote:
The Federal budget isn't good enough? We know they have the money for it, just like Nathan stated.

Wait... hold on... when did I say that? :shock: :? :lol: I think you might be misquoting me... ;)

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Feb 07, 2011 6:04 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
OppositeWay wrote:
Caters to all judges. NCFCA debate is primarily about communication. It's about getting a judge to check the right box at the end of the debate round through superior communication. A major part of this is using arguments that judges like or want to hear. There are lots of judges who hate funding through "normal means", "the budget", or "general federal revenue." Why not make a simple change to the 1AC to cater to those judges? Otherwise, you may end up losing rounds that you really should have won.


I agree up to a point. However, I think that in general it's never a good idea to argue something contrary to your beliefs simply because it's what the audience wants to hear. Lots of judges want to hear that America is the center of everything & that Americans are more important than [Russians, Mexicans, Indians, other people groups]. However, I would never compromise my intellectual integrity by catering to those judges.

So basically, while in this particular instance I agree with you that it's ok to spec funding (for theory reasons), I don't agree that in general we should dumb down argumentation to cater to the lowest common denominator of judges.

_________________
Middlebury Class of '15


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Feb 07, 2011 7:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 3:02 am
Posts: 635
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: South Carolina
Joshtinian wrote:
nate hammett wrote:
No...money doesn't function the same way...because it's used differently. Small biz and households have limited amounts of cash, need capital to buy groceries, and have to pay taxes. The Gov has a lot more resources available and it's not like they are required to save up money...Fact: money is treated and utilized MUCH differently on the public than the private spheres.
The government also has limited amounts of cash (I know its scale is much larger, but it never has an infinitesimal amount of money). The government also needs capital to pay basic expenditures (Medicaid and Social Security instead of groceries and bills). About paying taxes - taxes are simply a reduction of net profit. The government has plenty of those, too. And private individuals don't have to save up money; they can collect debt - until they max out all their credit cards. Then they're in trouble. The government similarly can collect debt. Due to its greater scale, its max debt level is higher, but governments, too, have a limit. Just look at California's bonds. When state employees refuse to take your bonds b/c they are worthless, you have reached your debt limit. And the US federal government has a debt level even higher than California's. Just b/c we haven't hit it yet doesn't mean it isn't there.
Ok...money functions differently on any different basis...let's make sure we understand how this works. A successful capitalist uses his money wisely, invests it, makes profits and prospers. But then a middle class family spends the money they have, goes into debt, buys everything off a credit card etc. Money is money but money is utilized differently! It's like the government and the old lady across the road....they each have money but they use it differently! And right now...spending like a 16 yo girl at a shopping mall is how the gov is operating...we can't change that.
Joshtinian wrote:
nate hammett wrote:
1. So because lots of people buy it...that makes it ok?????
2. Yeah...aff has the ability to fiat the government as it works now...which means redirecting funds from other programs right in the middle of the fiscal year...
3. But they can get it from somewhere! They have to get it from somewhere...whether printing it, redirection, etc...they get the money...
1. I'm not defending it. I'm also not admitting that it has no degree of legitimacy.
2. Right. So... Please specify the specific program[s] ace from which this is coming. If not, I can assume it will come from the most harmful place possible (like PRINTING more MONEY) the possibilities are endless.
3. You seem to be assuming that the AFF automatically has the right to draw whatever funds necessary in any way to support any plan they propose. :o Will only impact this if, indeed, such is your point.
1. So what's your point?
2. Why should I specify? It simply means that we are getting money or cutting programs...that's how the gov works....we can't change and really don't have the fiat to change it...we can only fiat the system, not fiat the system to turn it upside down.
Joshtinian wrote:
nate hammett wrote:
1. Ends don't justify the means is great in principle but that's not how the gov works and aff can't change that...
2. Yeah...printing and debt are bad...but so is international economic collapse...they are always ways to deflate the economy but trying to recover from a complete depression and social chaos is not so easy. I'll print the money, thank you.
3. Which they should...
1. This revelation is so shocking that I really don't know how to respond. This would be a time where William F. Buckley would say something like, "I don't want to insult your intelligence by assuming you meant what you just said."
2. What I just said was:
Joshtinian wrote:
printing money and going into debt lead to global economic crisis and social chaos
In other words printing and debt --> international economic collapse. And btw, depression (economically defined) is deflation - over deflation.
3. Agreed. So funding DA could destroy a non-Significant case?

1. It's not the Aff's job to change it...yes...I did just mean that...so I guess I'm pretty dumb, huh. You can only fiat the system.
2. Ok...you have a choice...print 1 billion dollars or crash Wall Street, sink the dollar down into unretainable depths, and destroy international trade infrastructure....I'll print the cash thank you.
3. Nope...cuz it's non-unique and linear DA is ridiculous because there's no reason to vote for the neg and get the current situation...ie...the S'quo which is equally bad... :roll:

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Feb 07, 2011 8:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:17 pm
Posts: 1547
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Researching...
Nate posted a lot of what I was going to say.

Quote:
The government also has limited amounts of cash (I know its scale is much larger, but it never has an infinitesimal amount of money).


What's the dollar amount, then? Because I don't see it.

Quote:
Just look at California's bonds


But again, that example isn't comparable. The Federal government and the state governments work differently with their budgetary processes. (and it doesn't matter if they should, it matters that they do)

Quote:
Just b/c we haven't hit it yet doesn't mean it isn't there


But then there is also no way for you to know that the Aff plan triggers the impact, in which case the DA is a wash.

Quote:
1. I'm not defending it. I'm also not admitting that it has no degree of legitimacy.


I believe you've stated several times how the argument is bought by judges, and that you were using that as a reason to run the argument. I don't see "judges buy it" as being a good enough argument for me to run something.

Quote:
If not, I can assume it will come from the most harmful place possible


Why? I could just as logically assume it comes from the best place possible if we're going to start making assumptions.

Quote:
3. You seem to be assuming that the AFF automatically has the right to draw whatever funds necessary in any way to support any plan they propose. Will only impact this if, indeed, such is your point.


Sure, why not? Can you give me a unique, non-linear, and clearly brinked reason why that's a problem?

btw, that "right" is called fiat power. Which was the point of the thread in the first place, if you check the OP.

Quote:
Quote:
printing money and going into debt lead to global economic crisis and social chaos
In other words printing and debt --> international economic collapse. And btw, depression (economically defined) is deflation - over deflation.


You know what? I'm going to say that it doesn't. Because I have 200 years of printing empirics behind my back, and I don't remember any of those causing international economic collapse.

Now, can you prove me wrong?

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.

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.

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!

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).

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?

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.

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.

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

_________________
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 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