I believe that extra-t funding is legitimate. I also agree that you shouldn't pull advantages from it, *but* in my opinion, if someone presses you, you can say why it would be better to be rid of "x" program. Why? Here's my logic:
a) You've picked this funding for a reason, I'm sure you had logic for it, but you've laid all that extra-t reasoning aside and you're focusing on your plan for the round. Yay for you.
b) Now the other team gets up and says you should *not* use that funding because (in the case of my partner and my's funding aforementioned funding) it's gonna hurt national security or some such thing
c) You say, yes we should cut this program and *briefly* state your reasoning for picking that program to cut, then move on to other arguments.
Agree? Disagree? I really wanna hear what you think.
I'm not sure. If you're cutting ethanol subsidies, for example, you can run a LOT on neg. I mean, it was big enough to be run as a full case by itself last year
Then, by all means, don't use ethanol subsidies.
Trust me, there are much better funding sources.
OK, I have a question for everyone... is it possible to have extra-T funding? Think of it like this... is the action of funding a policy towards Russia part of our policy towards Russia? Obviously, the answer is yes. Funding is what enables us to make our words more than empty promises. Funding is a critical part of our foreign policy. Funding literally puts our money where our mouth is.
At that point, I think where the funds come from specifically cease to be relevant in discussing topicality.
Now... there's still the question of claiming advantages from your funding. But here's my response to that... what makes specified funding topical is the act of diverting
the funds to a Russian program, not the act of cutting
the program. Cutting a program might lead to advantages (or disadvantages for that matter), but if we assumed (for the purposes of debate) that a program was already being cut and that now the only question was, "where will these funds be diverted to?" Then both teams are given full ground to run whatever arguments they want on the case without having to worry about funding.
I know this is sort of a weird spin on the whole issue of funding... I sort of came up with this, like, two minutes ago, so it needs some more development. What do you all think?