homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Fri Oct 20, 2017 8:56 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 1 2 3 4 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 4:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:17 pm
Posts: 1547
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Researching...
So the other day, my coach brought up an interesting argument. That I don't agree with.

Basically, she said that if I don't know how much my plan will cost, or if I can't show how much money will be specifically allotted to my plan, then I don't know if we have the money. If we don't know if we have the money, we don't know if the plan will even happen.

I contended that fiat covers that, that we assume the plan actually goes into effect, and debate the merits (advantages, harms) of the plan, rather than the "would" of the plan (would it happen).

We had a disconnect...

She hates GFR and "normal means" as funding sources and says she would tear a case up that had that listed as their funding source, but I'm left thinking :|

Thoughts? Opinions?

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: Thu Dec 02, 2010 4:14 pm 
Offline
Evil Democrat
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 3:23 am
Posts: 3334
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Advancing the gay agenda
Bull.

GFR basically means that whatever the plan costs will be funded no matter what (barring a 100-plus billion dollar plan, with some exceptions). All and all, funding should not come to a major political argument in the round. However, theoretical funding arguments (i.e. o-spec) have a decent place in debate.

Although, with your case, Josh, the money we save from not having to guard/maintain/etc our nukes is much greater than the cost of 1/3-disarmament ;-)

_________________
josephsamelson.com


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 6:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 3:02 am
Posts: 635
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: South Carolina
It's covered under fiat. Fiat gives you first dibs on the dough that Congress has...

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 6:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 3:52 am
Posts: 636
Home Schooled: Yes
Not all plans can be perfectly quantified. Tough. That's not a reason to reject. Normal means is perfectly legitimate. Fiat solves.

Although I think funding, tix DAs, etc, all fall under "should," and not "would."


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 7:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:17 pm
Posts: 1547
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Researching...
Flash of light wrote:
Although I think funding, tix DAs, etc, all fall under "should," and not "would."


I agree with Funding, but it can't be run as a solvency press, it needs to be run as a DA. Is the change desirable (not "possible") after we get this negative impact on Funding?

As far as politics DA's, I don't really think they fall under either category completely. They somewhat fall under "would," imo. Fiat assumes the plan passes, without the political fenangling and capital loss, etc, that would normally occur in the "real world." Fiat inherently is not real world, so I can't see how you access real world impacts from it. But that's a discussion for another thread, if you really want one.

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: Thu Dec 02, 2010 8:54 pm 
Offline
Doesn't have a title.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:47 pm
Posts: 2955
Home Schooled: Yes
"Normal means" is the opposite of letting fiat take care of funding. It precisely moves the question away from "should" and onto "would".

If you specify funding, then you're arguing that funding should be taken from that source. If said source has the money available, then some arguments that could be made against funding are trade-off DAs, politics DAs, and extra-topicality.

If you don't specify funding, then you're arguing that your plan should be funded in the way that Congress would decide to fund your plan if they decided to fund it. Because you don't specify it, the only way that we could know how exactly the plan would funded is by reading a card stating the way that Congress would decide to fund the plan. Against a plan funded by normal means, neg could read a card stating the way the plan would be funded, and then run a trade-off DA based on that evidence.

_________________
Jordan Bakke


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 9:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:17 pm
Posts: 1547
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Researching...
Halogen wrote:
"Normal means" is the opposite of letting fiat take care of funding. It precisely moves the question away from "should" and onto "would".


By "normal means" you're referring to "General Federal Revenues" "Normal Budgetary Process" and etc, correct?

Halogen wrote:
Against a plan funded by normal means, neg could read a card stating the way the plan would be funded, and then run a trade-off DA based on that evidence.


I agree, however it would have to meet these stipulations:

Halogen wrote:
by reading a card stating the way that Congress would decide to fund the plan


In that, the DA would be legitimate. Most likely, I would then respond by outweighing or getting into a battle over the funding source itself. However the issue of funding insolvency is different, in that the Negative is saying the plan won't happen.

I'm not misunderstanding you, am I?

Funding should be run as a DA, not solvency.

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: Thu Dec 02, 2010 9:22 pm 
Offline
Doesn't have a title.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:47 pm
Posts: 2955
Home Schooled: Yes
Delta_FC wrote:
By "normal means" you're referring to "General Federal Revenues" "Normal Budgetary Process" and etc, correct?
More like "normal budgetary process", yes. If Congress would fund the plan through GFR, then normal means for that plan happens to be GFR. If Congress would fund the plan by cutting funds from NASA's Origins Program, then a budget cut in NASA's Origins Program happens to be normal means.
Delta_FC wrote:
I'm not misunderstanding you, am I?
No, we're understanding each other. I agree that funding is a DA, not solvency, unless the source truly does not provide the necessary money (e.g. trying to get $50 trillion from cutting NASA's budget).

_________________
Jordan Bakke


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 3:32 am 
Offline
melancholy milkshakes. no straws.
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:31 pm
Posts: 3986
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Hinnom, TX
Delta_FC wrote:
So the other day, my coach brought up an interesting argument. That I don't agree with.

Basically, she said that if I don't know how much my plan will cost, or if I can't show how much money will be specifically allotted to my plan, then I don't know if we have the money. If we don't know if we have the money, we don't know if the plan will even happen.

I contended that fiat covers that, that we assume the plan actually goes into effect, and debate the merits (advantages, harms) of the plan, rather than the "would" of the plan (would it happen).

This was the exact response I used when I faced the same solvency/funding argument with invasive species. Apparently, risk assessment costs a hecka lot ;)

_________________
Joe Hughey
joehughey24@gmail.com

Two roads diverged in a wood and I -
I took the one less traveled
And that has made all the difference


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 3:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:17 pm
Posts: 1547
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Researching...
lookingforangels wrote:
Delta_FC wrote:
So the other day, my coach brought up an interesting argument. That I don't agree with.

Basically, she said that if I don't know how much my plan will cost, or if I can't show how much money will be specifically allotted to my plan, then I don't know if we have the money. If we don't know if we have the money, we don't know if the plan will even happen.

I contended that fiat covers that, that we assume the plan actually goes into effect, and debate the merits (advantages, harms) of the plan, rather than the "would" of the plan (would it happen).

This was the exact response I used when I faced the same solvency/funding argument with invasive species. Apparently, risk assessment costs a hecka lot ;)


By the tone of that, I'm guessing you lost?

Regardless, strategic utility =/= legitimacy. If we can squash bad theory here, we won't have to deal with it in a round. (not to say this is bad theory, I don't care for it; however, I also haven't seen any support yet in this thread)

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 Dec 03, 2010 5:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:28 pm
Posts: 2888
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I'm not lost! I'm locationally challenged. -John M. Ford
Quote:
Basically, she said that if I don't know how much my plan will cost, or if I can't show how much money will be specifically allotted to my plan, then I don't know if we have the money. If we don't know if we have the money, we don't know if the plan will even happen.


Your coach's argument shows a gross misunderstanding of the way Congress funds programs.

It's like a priority list:
1. Medicaid
2. Social security
3. Defense program x
4. the fed
etc. until the $$ runs out

Your "normal means" funding means it gets put at the top of the list. So unless your plan can feasably cost more than the entire budget of the United States of America, you're good.

(this is only my understanding of the budgetary process)

_________________
There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full.
- Henry Kissinger


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:50 am 
Offline
Doesn't have a title.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:47 pm
Posts: 2955
Home Schooled: Yes
Sharkfin wrote:
It's like a priority list:
1. Medicaid
2. Social security
3. Defense program x
4. the fed
etc. until the $$ runs out

Your "normal means" funding means it gets put at the top of the list.
Ohhhhh, so that's how it works. :idea:

_________________
Jordan Bakke


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 10:11 am 
Offline
Laugh, or I will kill you
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 6:33 pm
Posts: 2492
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: College in San Diego Baby!
Actually, I think your coach has a valid argument, although naturally it is debatable :) (like everything else in the world).

In a congressional policy, you have to specify the numbers of how much you will fund something. If it isn't specified, then no member of congress would ever vote for it. I don't think its actually a legitimate policy, because it hasn't been finished yet. A negative could argue solvency, and say that this makes it an illegitimate policy that the affirmative doesn't have the right to pass.

Obviously the aff has fiat power, (which is prolly how they'd respond) but thats where the D/A comes in. If you have an illegitimate plan, then the judge should act like a member of congress would, and not vote for it, since it isn't ready yet. This is one of the few times where an argument of "vagueness" might actually make sense.

Just the way I see it :)

_________________
+X wrote:
Oh, come now, Daniel. Your mafia playing habits make you a no-good double-crossing manipulative liar. But I would never call you a jerk!

;) <3


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 4:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:17 pm
Posts: 1547
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Researching...
lucky13 wrote:
In a congressional policy, you have to specify the numbers of how much you will fund something.


In Congressional policy, you also have to present a bill, complete with legal language designed to eliminate any confusion. Debate and the real world simply don't meet in several aspects.

lukcy13 wrote:
If it isn't specified, then no member of congress would ever vote for it.


No member of Congress will be voting to pass my plan anyway, so this point is moot. Like you said:

lucky13 wrote:
Obviously the aff has fiat power,




lucky13 wrote:
I don't think its actually a legitimate policy, because it hasn't been finished yet.


Because I specify "normal budgetary processes" I haven't finished it? At what point does a "policy" become "finished" since there is so much more that goes into real bills than any 1AC I've ever seen in debate.

lucky13 wrote:
This is one of the few times where an argument of "vagueness" might actually make sense.


Vagueness of what? I can tell you how much my plan will cost, I can even tell you that my plan will save $4 billion dollars, but my coach said that isn't enough because I haven't proven that the money is there.

lucky13 wrote:

Actually, I think your coach has a valid argument,

[later]

thats where the D/A comes in.


I'm not talking about a DA here, I think Funding DA's can be legitimate. I'm talking solvency. My coach said that my plan won't go into effect because I can't specify a specific funding number, and I can't prove that the money is available.

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 Dec 03, 2010 5:07 pm 
Offline
melancholy milkshakes. no straws.
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:31 pm
Posts: 3986
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Hinnom, TX
Delta_FC wrote:
lookingforangels wrote:
Delta_FC wrote:
So the other day, my coach brought up an interesting argument. That I don't agree with.

Basically, she said that if I don't know how much my plan will cost, or if I can't show how much money will be specifically allotted to my plan, then I don't know if we have the money. If we don't know if we have the money, we don't know if the plan will even happen.

I contended that fiat covers that, that we assume the plan actually goes into effect, and debate the merits (advantages, harms) of the plan, rather than the "would" of the plan (would it happen).

This was the exact response I used when I faced the same solvency/funding argument with invasive species. Apparently, risk assessment costs a hecka lot ;)


By the tone of that, I'm guessing you lost?

No, we won. The alum judge voted for us.

_________________
Joe Hughey
joehughey24@gmail.com

Two roads diverged in a wood and I -
I took the one less traveled
And that has made all the difference


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 5:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 8:35 am
Posts: 137
Home Schooled: No
Location: SGV, CA
The absolutism presented in the first post belies a misunderstanding of how the government functions to bring about new laws at the federal level.

Passing new regulations or requirements rarely means that there's a need for new funding, as the judicial branch already exists to address violations of law. So, for instance: the DISCLOSE Act (campaign finance reform) doesn't have a funding mechanism. Those interested in prosecuting a suspected violation of the act (should it pass) would pursue their claim in the courts.

Discretionary spending requires an appropriations bill that authorizes the government to spend money. This is much the same as, say, a school booster club: the president of the club doesn't get to decide to spend funds on new uniforms. Instead, the members would vote to pass something like, "The boosters club authorizes the use of not more than $5,000 to purchase new uniforms for the football team." Similarly, for instance, military appropriations in the US can't be for more than 2 years at a time. ("To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.")

Discretionary bills exist in contradistinction to mandatory bills, or bills that authorize spending (and usually a form of revenue) within the text of their legislation. Most bills are not mandatory bills. Even the FDA, which is allowed to assess inspection fees, is authorized only to charge fees (with limits) directly related to the cost of the inspection. Other operational costs are not covered, and the ability to charge the fees does not come with additional spending authorization. Some bills place an upper limit on what levels of funding should be appropriated. The proposals for funding levels come from the various subcommittees of congress.

All of that to say, if what you said your coach said is what the coach actually said, they're a bit misinformed about the budgetary processes of the US Government. Almost no acts of congress are mandatory spending acts (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and certain farm subsidies are).

Edit: Fiat

As to the question of fiat, I can only suggest that the outline I wrote above indicates a strong predilection towards avoiding specifying funding levels. Furthermore, even if congress were normally to pass mandatory spending acts, affirmatives would want to avoid doing that because it creates trivial counterplan ground: Do plan at a different level of funding. Instead, affirmatives want to give probabilistic access to spending disadvantages because a) the probability of, say, cutting school lunch is so low that the argument is ludicrous; b) it avoids shaky theoretical ground of using fiat to sever out of links to disadvantages.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Jan 29, 2011 3:41 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::"
Sharkfin wrote:
It's like a priority list:
1. Medicaid
2. Social security
3. Defense program x
4. the fed
etc. until the $$ runs out

Your "normal means" funding means it gets put at the top of the list.
Um... Actually Medicaid, Social Security, etc. get funding before anything else. Period. At least if we're using a "normal means" process. So the program gets placed somewhere further down on the list.

So can I run a vagueness press on someone using "normal means?" Can I say that I want to see the specific policy that gets bumped off the bottom of the list?
[quote="Sharkfin"]So unless your plan can feasably cost more than the entire budget of the United States of America, you're good.[quote]That raises a separate issue: When the debts are called in, and the payment on the debt is more than the entire GDP of the US, then where do you get funding.

_________________
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: Sat Jan 29, 2011 9:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 3:06 pm
Posts: 1058
Home Schooled: No
Location: Texas
Wow we need a couple primers one on debate theory and another on how government (congress ) funds programs:

Unfortunately I just don't have time I'm gonna try and give cliffnotes version then maybe I can answer questions as they come up or expand later.

Fiat is simply that your plan will pass as written, the neg does not get to give the name of congressman who have opposed the plan and say "see you don't have the votes". The first issue of whether funding is required depends on the plan however if your plan requires funding and you do not have any that IS a problem and yes you can (IMO should) lose. 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). All GFR says is that since congress has passed the plan they will fund it accordingly (technically authorizing and obligating are two different things but this is the cliffnotes version). The government has mandatory spending the debt, medicare, medicaid and social security that is paid first the rest is discretionary spending which is what your plan would be and the government under GFR would find the money. You don't care and do not want to get into any fight about where the money comes from because that is not the purpose of this debate you don't need to argue your plan versus NASA space flight or whatever.

So what ground does the negative have solvency...if you don't know what your plan is going to cost it is self evident you don't know how your plan works or the extent of the problem since you can not quantify it or DAs which could take multiple forms some of which were already mentioned.

Bottomline: as the aff if you can quantify your cost (and they are not tens of billions) and you spell this out in your plan and fund via GFR you should never lose a funding argument I would also add stay away from listing your funding source i.e. cut X program it is 10X worse than GFR because you open yourself up needlessly


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Jan 30, 2011 11:23 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::"
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.
Coach Carter wrote:
You don't care and do not want to get into any fight about where the money comes from because that is not the purpose of this debate you don't need to argue your plan versus NASA space flight or whatever.
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.
Coach Carter wrote:
Bottomline: as the aff if you can quantify your cost (and they are not tens of billions) and you spell this out in your plan and fund via GFR you should never lose a funding argument I would also add stay away from listing your funding source i.e. cut X program it is 10X worse than GFR because you open yourself up needlessly
To what do you open yourself up needlessly? A weak DA on some frivolous waste of government funds? Your case other, bigger problems if it can't outweigh that. On the other hand, using GFR opens the AFF up to serious (and in my mind, reasonable) arguments. 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.

_________________
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 Jan 31, 2011 1:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 3:06 pm
Posts: 1058
Home Schooled: No
Location: Texas
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

Quote:
BTW, virtually all the parents in the club share the coach's view on funding.

that still does not mean she is right, a caveat I will give is that if the vast majority of judges in your region say 65%+ feels that way then right or wrong you have to change you tactics in order to win I'm not going to tell you to hang onto a losing strategy just to prove a point

Quote:
On the other hand, using GFR opens the AFF up to serious (and in my mind, reasonable) arguments. 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.
GFR does not open you up to any SERIOUS arguements only silly ones easily beaten by a competent aff.

THEN AGAIN, almost all funding arguments are frivolous to be honest, if the neg has time for funding arguments I would be pretty happy as an aff because either path you use should be fairly easy to win and it is one less good on case/point argument they can make. BTW if you can't tell my pet peeve are people who think GFR is not a perfectly fine method of funding, however i would not hold it against a team and the likelyhood of this being a voter (barring lack of funds or inability to refute at all) is close to zero!


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 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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited