homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Fri Sep 22, 2017 4:06 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.  [ 44 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 3:06 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
Sharkfin wrote:
I look at it this way:

Link: All actions taken by the aff in their plan must be upholding the resolution.
Link: Aff funding is not topical
MPX: Aff funding does not uphold the resolution and thus does not fall under fiat, thus eliminating funding, which eliminates advantages.

Assuming that fiat comes from the resolution. ;)

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Jan 29, 2011 3:25 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::"
lucky13 wrote:
Delinking out of generics is called being smart.
This. I mean, duh. That's what we're all trying to do, right?

Here is another way of looking at this issue: The topicality of AFF funding is determined by where it is going. If that money is used to change policy toward Russia, then its use is topical. If AFF cutting of a program means a policy change toward Russia, that is topical.

Here's an example with totally fabricated numbers: Say that $15b per year is spent in policy toward Russia. But the AFF says that Russia is more important to our nation than that; we need to allocate our funds to reflect that. So we cut worthless funding somewhere to put a greater percentage of our total funding toward Russia, b/c that's where it really matters. That appears to me to involve policy toward Russia, from an entirely "non-topical" funding program.

Here's another issue w/ arguing Extra-T against Funding: it doesn't really work in the world of debate. I don't mean you can't argue and win that point. I'm saying if we accept that, then we all have a problem because we have virtually nowhere left to get our funding from. BTW, GFR is just as extra-T as any specific source of "extra-T" funding.

Food for thought.

_________________
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: Sun Jan 30, 2011 1:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 4:54 am
Posts: 321
Home Schooled: Yes
Mr Glasses wrote:
It only becomes and issue if you claim advantages from the extra/non topical funding.

So what happens if an AFF is like this:

Quote:
1. US debt held by Russia - $156B
2. Debt is bad (insert impacts here)
3. Plan:
A) Cut lots of wasteful programs.
B) Send funding towards the debt held in Russia.
4. Adv: Less debt in Russia. whoop whoop.

^ That's just a hypothetical scenario. But it's "advantages" are Russia specific. And yet, I would run T all over that thing.

_________________
Caleb Howell (Alumnus), former President of In Veritate Victoria (Derby, KS).


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Jan 30, 2011 2:31 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!
curlyhairedmenace wrote:
Quote:
1. US debt held by Russia - $156B
2. Debt is bad (insert impacts here)
3. Plan:
A) Cut lots of wasteful programs.
B) Send funding towards the debt held in Russia.
4. Adv: Less debt in Russia. whoop whoop.

^ That's just a hypothetical scenario. But it's "advantages" are Russia specific. And yet, I would run T all over that thing.
Resolved: That the United States Federal Government should significantly reform its policy toward Russia.

1. The United States Federal Government must reform it's own policy
2. The policy change must be toward Russia
3. The policy change must be significant

That is what the resolution calls for. The United States is allowed to change its own policy, however this policy must be changed toward Russia. Your hypothetical example is completely acceptable because the United States Federal Government is significantly reforming it's own policy in relation to Russia. That's what the resolution calls for.

Also, lets look at your hypothetical situation. Aff cuts worthless programs (and doesn't claim an advantage from the cutting of these programs) they claim an advantage out of relieving debt to Russia. imo, that's completely 100% acceptable, because its what the resolution calls for. However, how would you suggest that they relieve debt toward Russia? They have to have the US government change policy toward Russia. Relieving the debt in Russia is clearly acceptable, so how would you have the government do this? The general budget is the typical means, but the general budget is not Russia. So according to your logic we would not be able to use the general budget either. i.e if we accept your argument we have stopped the ability to fund any plan.

The United States is allowed to do whatever it wants to itself as long as the policy change ends up toward Russia. I see absolutely no reason to narrow the resolution down to only topical funding sources (especially since that would take out even the general budget as funding)

_________________
+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: Sat Feb 19, 2011 8:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:08 pm
Posts: 4
Home Schooled: Yes
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.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Feb 19, 2011 10:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 1394
Home Schooled: Yes
EmilyP wrote:
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 ;)

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Feb 20, 2011 4:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:21 pm
Posts: 806
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Running the opposite way
andrewmin wrote:
EmilyP wrote:
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?

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 6:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2010 5:37 am
Posts: 767
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Region 2, Washington
lucky13 wrote:
Mr Glasses wrote:
It only becomes and issue if you claim advantages from the extra/non topical funding.
I agree, but what about if an affirmative is challenged on a "Spending D/A" and responds: "we're only cutting funding from a worthless program" so there is no spending D/A. It isn't technically claiming an advantage, but it is using the extra topical funding in an advantageous way.


So in other words cutting Ethanol subsidies to fund our case is bad? (We say that ethanol subsidies are bad. We don't claim an advantage from that. It's just as you said the way to avoid spending DA).

_________________
Potent Speaking: the only debate website exclusively dedicated to speaking tips. http://potentspeaking.com


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 6:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 7:57 pm
Posts: 978
Home Schooled: Yes
Umm, you guys do know that even if you somehow manage to win that funding has to be topical, all that happens is the Aff severs funding and ends up with general revenues, which is what a good aff has for funding anyway. So, why would you waste time on this?


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 11:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 9:54 pm
Posts: 838
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Southern California
All funding is nontopical, unless the resolution is somehow inexplicably worded as, "USFG should reform and fund..."

_________________
For Coaches: Download 6 free editions of Dominate cases and articles


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 5:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:22 am
Posts: 374
Home Schooled: Yes
If you are removing funding from a policy ie-NASA you are reforming NASA which is outside the bounds of the resolution. Right? I mean I see it as pretty straight forward, if you remove funding from a program you are reforming that program.

_________________
"Apply yourself both now and in the next life. Without effort, you cannot be prosperous. Though the land be good, You cannot have an abundant crop without cultivation." - Plato


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 9:14 pm 
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!
randomboy96 wrote:
If you are removing funding from a policy ie-NASA you are reforming NASA which is outside the bounds of the resolution. Right? I mean I see it as pretty straight forward, if you remove funding from a program you are reforming that program.
Not so, NASA stays exactly the same, it has not been reformed. The funding TO NASA has been reformed, because the resolution does allow for the government to change its policy, however NASA itself has not been reformed.

_________________
+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: Wed Mar 23, 2011 1:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 7:34 pm
Posts: 224
Home Schooled: No
Location: St. Louis, MO
Do any of you know what OSPEC is? I usually get really bothered by specifying funding by cutting something else. If $ comes from a department somewhere, I'm ok with it, but a cut from A, give to B program makes the neg defend A AND attack B, which is really goofy.

I run that (ahem, teach kids to run it) when the AFF specifically garners advantages out of cutting funding (i.e., cut funds to Planned Parenthood and use x y z instead) because, well, the debate usually has to boil down to whether to cut to Planned Parenthood - or Russia Foreign Aid - or Pork Spending - or Subsidies- to see if plan gets solvency. In short, OverSPECifing steals the NEG ground to debate about the plan and shifts it to whether or not your funding source should exist, which would be impossible to prep for. Impossible prep = ground skew= neg ballot.

Just a thought.

Coach Jen
Assistant Coach, Texas Tech Debate (09'-10')
2010 NPDA National Champions

_________________
and this argument matters because...?


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 3:52 pm 
Offline
Get off my lawn, young'ins!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:06 pm
Posts: 1912
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Frantically hitting Ctrl+Alt+Del
I'm surprised nobody has linked to this post on the Ethos Blog yet.

_________________
Abe bimuí bithúo dousí abe - "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free"

COG 2016 generics-only sourcebook - NCFCA/Stoa (thread)
Factsmith research software - v1.5 currently available (thread)
Loose Nukes debate blog - stuff to read with your eyes.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 5:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2009 3:22 pm
Posts: 36
Home Schooled: Yes
Hmm...interesting discussion. My partner and I just say "General Federal Revenue with cuts in wasteful spending"- it was the best way we came up with to specify where it's coming from without actually cutting a specific program. Though we have plenty of examples of where exactly the funds could be cut, if push comes to shove.

We added the part about "cuts in wasteful spending" after hitting a spending DA in our first round. We haven't seen one since.

What do you think? Is this topical? Extra-topical?

_________________
“When the philosopher’s argument becomes tedious, complicated, and opaque, it is usually a sign that he is attempting to prove as true to the intellect what is plainly false to common sense.”
~Edward Abbey


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 6:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:09 am
Posts: 494
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Turning invisible
HannahA wrote:
What do you think? Is this topical? Extra-topical?
It's not so much an issue of topicality or extra-topicality as it is of vagueness. Who determines which programs are wasteful or not? I think medicare is wasteful - a lot of folks do not. I think CTR is awesome - a lot of folks do not. With vague specification you've essentially written a blank check. ;)

I find myself leaning more and more towards CoachJen's position. Whenever a funding debate comes into play the Aff., by necessity it seems, claims advantages from it. Spiking DA's = claiming an advantage. Using rhetoric about wasteful spending = claiming an advantage.

_________________
~Caleb M. Peña, PROBE, STOA

O God, grant what Thou dost command, and command what Thou wilt -- Augustine


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 8:31 pm 
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!
Wilberforce wrote:
HannahA wrote:
What do you think? Is this topical? Extra-topical?
It's not so much an issue of topicality or extra-topicality as it is of vagueness. Who determines which programs are wasteful or not? I think medicare is wasteful - a lot of folks do not. I think CTR is awesome - a lot of folks do not. With vague specification you've essentially written a blank check. ;)

I find myself leaning more and more towards CoachJen's position. Whenever a funding debate comes into play the Aff., by necessity it seems, claims advantages from it. Spiking DA's = claiming an advantage. Using rhetoric about wasteful spending = claiming an advantage.
Although "technically" speaking, I disagree with that statement... in reality... I know that teams who use extra-topical funding (myself for instance) do tend to kinda sorta consider it an advantage.

_________________
+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: Wed Mar 23, 2011 11:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 7:34 pm
Posts: 224
Home Schooled: No
Location: St. Louis, MO
I would rather leave funding vague instead of saying "wasteful from somewhere" because - unless those program cuts are listed in plan text - you cannot guarantee that they happen. This goes back to planwriting basics. Even if you can list out 80 wasteful programs, if not one of them is listed in plan text, I'd contend that that the money would instead come from somewhere useful, like education to fund your plan, because you didn't specify in text. So no advs.

Oh and BTW: spending da's never had any terminal impact and can be answered back pretty easily. All this hoorah just to avoid the spending debate is stilly (yes, I know judges vote on it, but that's because you're not arguing it well enough).

The easy way to do it is to BEG the NEG to give you a number saying how much, worst case scenario, case would cost. Then dare them to find a card that spending ________ actually does something bad. Give them the link to it, and then make them do something productive with it, which they won't be able to, because there isn't anything out there that says spending millions causes war in the United States.

"Spending more than you have is really bad." / "how?" / "Obama did it and look at the mess we're in." / " oh, the civil war, the 8000% inflation, coup'd'etat we're experiencing right now? Does your spending DA evidence articulate how spending x million will get us to the impact you claim? // you may as well just impact out irresponsibility: )

Coach Jen
Assistant Coach, Texas Tech Debate (09'-10')
2010 NPDA National Champions

_________________
and this argument matters because...?


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 11:16 pm 
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!
CoachJen wrote:
I would rather leave funding vague instead of saying "wasteful from somewhere" because - unless those program cuts are listed in plan text - you cannot guarantee that they happen. This goes back to planwriting basics. Even if you can list out 80 wasteful programs, if not one of them is listed in plan text, I'd contend that that the money would instead come from somewhere useful, like education to fund your plan, because you didn't specify in text. So no advs.

Oh and BTW: spending da's never had any terminal impact and can be answered back pretty easily. All this hoorah just to avoid the spending debate is stilly (yes, I know judges vote on it, but that's because you're not arguing it well enough).

The easy way to do it is to BEG the NEG to give you a number saying how much, worst case scenario, case would cost. Then dare them to find a card that spending ________ actually does something bad. Give them the link to it, and then make them do something productive with it, which they won't be able to, because there isn't anything out there that says spending millions causes war in the United States.

"Spending more than you have is really bad." / "how?" / "Obama did it and look at the mess we're in." / " oh, the civil war, the 8000% inflation, coup'd'etat we're experiencing right now? Does your spending DA evidence articulate how spending x million will get us to the impact you claim? // you may as well just impact out irresponsibility: )

Coach Jen
Assistant Coach, Texas Tech Debate (09'-10')
2010 NPDA National Champions
I debate the real world aspects of plans. I would NEVER vote for an increase in spending no matter what the reasoning. If it deserves spending, then take it from somewhere else. Spending is bad. Period. We need to spend less, not try to justify spending more.

_________________
+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: Thu Mar 24, 2011 12:22 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
lucky13 wrote:
I debate the real world aspects of plans.


Quote:
I would NEVER vote for an increase in spending no matter what the reasoning. If it deserves spending, then take it from somewhere else. Spending is bad. Period. We need to spend less, not try to justify spending more.


These two sentences are contradictory.

_________________
Middlebury Class of '15


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked  This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 44 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 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