You can fiat it. You say, "the plan will be funded in cuts in X program of up to Y amount of money." That's what I mean by saying there's no reason you can't know. You can know because you decide.
I think you have a slightly different interpretation of fiat power. I don't necessarily see the Affirmative having a magic wand called "fiat power" to wave about. I see everyone in the room making the same assumption "the plan passes."
Now, obviously that has limits. And that limit is the resolution. Cutting a program's funding for a completely unrelated program (imo) isn't a direct policy reform or change.
Diverting funds to a policy towards Russia is a policy towards Russia. In addition to that, it's not a too terribly unreasonable standard to say that you need to consider the plan as a whole to determine topicality. Funding as part of a broader, clearly topical plan is totally justified.
I would say you have to consider each part as needing to fulfill the basic requirements of "fiat" for that assumption to be made. This may change on specific instances (idk), but in regards to funding, I'm not seeing it.
Your responses basically boil down to, "I don't like specified funding."
That's one of them, yes. But that dislike stems from my own position that the argument is theoretically illegitimate, and
I can't do it because I don't know which program I'm cutting :shrug:
You didn't respond to my point that it appears more responsible to a judge to specify funding.
I did. "Appearing"
more responsible, in my book, is less desirable when it sacrifices legitimacy.
I see nothing wrong with trying to present my case in a winsome way. I don't speak in a flat, monotone voice when I debate because judges would hate that. I don't see why I shouldn't run arguments because I know judges like the arguments, especially when, theoretically speaking, there's nothing wrong with the argument.
That's not what I was saying
I think the argument fails the legitimacy test. Therefore, I won't run it simply because judge's like it.
When did this become a moral issue?
When we're debating about how the government works, and someone is arguing a position that's false, it does become a discussion about truth.
And when did I say "preach to the choir?"
I never said you did. The argument that it's valid simply because judge's like it (which is really the only way Joshtinian has chosen to defend his argument) seems to suggest a "preaching to the choir" mode of communication.
Why is it a bad thing to run arguments judges like?
Again, not what I was saying
I think you're in a better position to persuade if you don't irritate a judge. Part of communication is knowing your audience and knowing how to better persuade them. Predisposing your judges against you won't help the rest of your arguments.
Sure. But I don't think that arguing something simply because a judge likes it is very appealing theoretically, however "strategic" it may be. Additionally, just because an argument may not be popular with the "seeming" judging pool bias (New START in the conservative South, anyone?) doesn't have to be (and I would argue in most circumstances, it shouldn't be) the reason you don't run said argument.
Why is it bad? I might have missed something earlier in the thread... but the only thing I've heard is "extra-T," and that argument is a non-issue on multiple levels.
Extra-T, Non-T, and really more of a governmental procedure argument (though I'll have to look into this more).
Wait... didn't you say earlier that funding is cut from programs throughout the year b/c of PAYGO?
If a new program were introduced in the middle of a fiscal year, it would receive funding from a less-prioritized program through PAYGO's mechanism, yes.
2) that would be hard/a problem because.... what?
I don't understand this. Joshtinian just assumes
that the program cut will have to be a bad thing. I say, why not assume
(since there's no reason not to) the program that is cut will be a good
All I was trying to show their is that this isn't just a lame desperation argument. It can be explained and argued in a way that judges understand, like, and vote on.
Curious: Did you run this as a DA, or a Solvency argument?
ah, umm... so speaking of not knowing things... how do you know which program will be cut? You already said you didn't know. How can you guarantee that a good program won't be the one that is cut?
I can't. How can you guarantee that the program cut won't
be wasteful, though?
See? We're both left with rather undefendable positions.Interesting note on the "Weighing to Determine Responsibility" or "Ends Justifying Means" (if you even can call it that) ArgumentFlorida Law Review, 2003
"Society's preferred values will become transparent in the political process. My point, however, is that there is no reason, a priori, for choosing one set of values over the other. In particular, I do not concede that liberalism should be the default preference. Rights, in other words, do not invariably trump common good. Thus, if government can point to a moderate risk and propose interventions that are reasonably well targeted and not unduly burdensome, the law should permit a sphere of state action. By doing so, each person bears a small burden (equitably distributed), but as members of a community all gain in the social exchange."
This was referring specifically to the government infringing on personal and economic liberties during a bio-terrorist attack. 'twas interesting. The "two sets of values" were security vs. liberty.