homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Fri Dec 15, 2017 9:08 am
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 1 2 3 Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Extra Topical Funding
PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 5:53 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!
Sooo... we all know about this. It's argued each year. But not yet this year, so whaddya'll think of using a non-topical funding source?

_________________
+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 Dec 02, 2010 6:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:17 pm
Posts: 1547
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Researching...
lucky13 wrote:
Sooo... we all know about this. It's argued each year. But not yet this year, so whaddya'll think of using a non-topical funding source?


What do you mean by "extra-topical" funding? I've seen some cases funded with Head Start, with ethanol subsidies, with cut foreign aid...all of those are, in my opinion, not entirely legitimate. Are these not being used in Stoa? Or do you consider these "topical" funding sources?

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 6:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 1394
Home Schooled: Yes
Quote:
What do you mean by "extra-topical" funding? I've seen some cases funded with Head Start, with ethanol subsidies, with cut foreign aid...all of those are, in my opinion, not entirely legitimate. Are these not being used in Stoa? Or do you consider these "topical" funding sources?


cutting foreign aid to Russia would technically be topical, no?

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 6:10 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!
Extra topical meaning: "cutting farm subsisidies" "cutting funding to the project based housing fund" "cutting AARP funding" "cutting funding from a worthless government program" "cutting funding for the NASA research on the origin of life"

I've seen all of these. What do you all think? Is it topical?

_________________
+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 Dec 02, 2010 6:14 pm 
Offline
I know not this "leverage" of which you speak.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 5:52 pm
Posts: 2286
Home Schooled: Yes
It only becomes and issue if you claim advantages from the extra/non topical funding.

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 6:23 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!
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.

_________________
+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 Dec 02, 2010 6:36 pm 
Offline
I know not this "leverage" of which you speak.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 5:52 pm
Posts: 2286
Home Schooled: Yes
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.

No. You're de-linking (I assume you are familiar with deabte lingo) the DA. If you started to rant about how the U.S. needs to spend responibly and how wonderful your plan is because of it...then you might run into issues.

At least, I think that's the tradition view. My ideas about funding are starting to shift a bit.

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 6:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 3:52 am
Posts: 636
Home Schooled: Yes
Saying the aff must take funding from a topical source is silly. That confines us like a billion dollars. Unfair limits, not real world (T is necessary, but only in plan text), plus I'd run a we-meet of how policy is determined by mandates not implementation.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 6:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:21 pm
Posts: 806
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Running the opposite way
Flash of light wrote:
Saying the aff must take funding from a topical source is silly. That confines us like a billion dollars. Unfair limits, not real world (T is necessary, but only in plan text), plus I'd run a we-meet of how policy is determined by mandates not implementation.

This.

Please don't run an extra-T funding press. It reeks of desperation.

Last year, my partner and I had totally non-topical funding. I don't think a team ever argued our funding (except to say it would hurt our national security, which wasn't a very good argument). Honestly, I just think there are better things to debate about.

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 7:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 12:32 am
Posts: 588
Home Schooled: Yes
It all depends on what extra-T source you pick. If you pick something that's politically neutral, then I don't think there's a problem with it. It becomes a problem if:

a) you pull advantages from it. Saying X program is wasteful/harmful, and we cut it. That's just as bad as an extra-T mandate.
b) you take it from something controversial like Planned Parenthood, since any homeschool parent judge would catch that (and write it down) even if you didn't explicitly draw advantages from it.

Flash of light wrote:
Saying the aff must take funding from a topical source is silly. That confines us like a billion dollars. Unfair limits, not real world (T is necessary, but only in plan text), plus I'd run a we-meet of how policy is determined by mandates not implementation.

I'm pretty sure funding is part of the plan text, correct? Cutting funding from a particular source is identical to a mandate in all respects but its purpose. Instead of directly achieving the listed advantages, it supports the other mandates.

And you can always just take funding from normal means, or GFR. So in that sense the aff isn't confined at all. Spending DA's are notoriously non-unique, and unless the amount in question is in the tens or hundreds of billions, it won't make any significant difference to our budget.

_________________
STRATFOR wrote:
Unlike the normal situation in civilized societies, there is no clear distinction in Russia between criminal enterprises and the government.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 3:19 pm 
Offline
Evil Democrat
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 3:23 am
Posts: 3334
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Advancing the gay agenda
Okay. I told myself I wouldn't do this, so here I go.

It's been said previously that the only way extra-topical funding is abusive is if the affirmative team claim advantages from it, which I would definitely call total BS on. However, every case relies on their funding (i.e. their case won't work/solve if they don't have it). So by taking money from a program or policy that isn't towards Russia, the affirmative team's whole case relies on a non-topical funding source. ALL THEIR ADVANTAGES rely on their funding being used.

So in a way, all their advantages come from their funding.

On top of extra topicality, all specified funding is a total negative ground loss. When the affirmative specifies that we're going to cut [insert funding] , the Negative loses key disadvantage and counterplan ground. The Negative can no longer run spending disadvantages, fiscal responsibility kritiks, budget tradeoff disadvantages, or use them as competition for agent counterplans. This is clear and present loss of ground, and an independent voting issue for abuse.

_________________
josephsamelson.com


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 3:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:21 pm
Posts: 806
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Running the opposite way
Hyper Static Union wrote:
On top of extra topicality, all specified funding is a total negative ground loss. When the affirmative specifies that we're going to cut [insert funding] , the Negative loses key disadvantage and counterplan ground. The Negative can no longer run spending disadvantages, fiscal responsibility kritiks, budget tradeoff disadvantages, or use them as competition for agent counterplans. This is clear and present loss of ground, and an independent voting issue for abuse.

Umm...I'm not sure I follow your logic... You're basically saying that it's not fair that the aff words their plan in a way that avoids arguments. o_0 With that logic, it's not fair for a team to run a good case, because a good case avoids K's, has good solvency, and no DA's.

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 3:43 pm 
Offline
Evil Democrat
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 3:23 am
Posts: 3334
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Advancing the gay agenda
OppositeWay wrote:
Hyper Static Union wrote:
On top of extra topicality, all specified funding is a total negative ground loss. When the affirmative specifies that we're going to cut [insert funding] , the Negative loses key disadvantage and counterplan ground. The Negative can no longer run spending disadvantages, fiscal responsibility kritiks, budget tradeoff disadvantages, or use them as competition for agent counterplans. This is clear and present loss of ground, and an independent voting issue for abuse.

Umm...I'm not sure I follow your logic... You're basically saying that it's not fair that the aff words their plan in a way that avoids arguments. o_0 With that logic, it's not fair for a team to run a good case, because a good case avoids K's, has good solvency, and no DA's.
They're de-linking out of generics that apply to anything. That's a pretty good ground takeout...

_________________
josephsamelson.com


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 3:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 12:32 am
Posts: 588
Home Schooled: Yes
Hyper Static Union wrote:
It's been said previously that the only way extra-topical funding is abusive is if the affirmative team claim advantages from it, which I would definitely call total BS on. However, every case relies on their funding (i.e. their case won't work/solve if they don't have it). So by taking money from a program or policy that isn't towards Russia, the affirmative team's whole case relies on a non-topical funding source. ALL THEIR ADVANTAGES rely on their funding being used.

So in a way, all their advantages come from their funding.

Yeah, that's true. I hadn't thought about that yet, but it makes sense that all their advantages rely on the presence of that funding. So its an indirect connection, but a connection nonetheless.

I'm not sure about the abuse argument, though. It seems equivalent to spiking out of DA's, which I don't think anyone would consider abusive.

_________________
STRATFOR wrote:
Unlike the normal situation in civilized societies, there is no clear distinction in Russia between criminal enterprises and the government.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:01 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!
Hyper Static Union wrote:
OppositeWay wrote:
Hyper Static Union wrote:
On top of extra topicality, all specified funding is a total negative ground loss. When the affirmative specifies that we're going to cut [insert funding] , the Negative loses key disadvantage and counterplan ground. The Negative can no longer run spending disadvantages, fiscal responsibility kritiks, budget tradeoff disadvantages, or use them as competition for agent counterplans. This is clear and present loss of ground, and an independent voting issue for abuse.

Umm...I'm not sure I follow your logic... You're basically saying that it's not fair that the aff words their plan in a way that avoids arguments. o_0 With that logic, it's not fair for a team to run a good case, because a good case avoids K's, has good solvency, and no DA's.
They're de-linking out of generics that apply to anything. That's a pretty good ground takeout...
Debate isn't about being fair. Debate is about communicating for God, and hopefully winning. Delinking out of generics is called being smart. I really hate the arguments of "fairness" because they're REALLY whiny.

I hate it even more when people call it "abuse". Don't you people realize how foolish that sounds? Abuse is where you mess someone up for life. My being intelligent and writing a case well is not going to mess you up for life. You're just whining about it.

"ground takeout" is good. That's called intelligence. If the negative isn't smart enough to find another way to win, then too bad for the negative. It's an affirmatives job to make their case as strong as possible and prove that it makes the current system better. It's a negatives job to find a strategy to prove that the case doesn't make the current system better. People need to stop making rounds personal issues, and realize that: "you are not the center of the round. It doesn't matter if you don't have much ground to debate with. Everything is debatable, so find the reason why the affirmative teams plan is bad. There's a reason why it hasn't been passed in the current system, so find that reason. Don't take the round down from the level of debate, to the level of personal arguing."

/rant

_________________
+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 6:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 8:35 am
Posts: 137
Home Schooled: No
Location: SGV, CA
Mr Glasses wrote:
It only becomes and issue if you claim advantages from the extra/non topical funding.

Avoiding a disad = claiming an advantage, with regards to theoretical legitimacy and impact calculus.

Specifying that you cut a program, or siphon money from a program, is A) Probably illegal; B) Theoretically bankrupt.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 6:16 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!
boredguy8 wrote:
Mr Glasses wrote:
It only becomes and issue if you claim advantages from the extra/non topical funding.

Avoiding a disad = claiming an advantage, with regards to theoretical legitimacy and impact calculus.

Specifying that you cut a program, or siphon money from a program, is A) Probably illegal; B) Theoretically bankrupt.
I agree with this statement.

However, the typical response by the affirmative will be: "no, we haven't claimed the advantage specific to the program we cut. In order to do that we would have to say: "abortion funding cut = lives saved". We have claimed an advantage specific to spending. The only difference between our spending and a GFR case is that our version makes better use of the plan text."

Or some variation of that

_________________
+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 7:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 3:52 am
Posts: 636
Home Schooled: Yes
Hyper Static Union wrote:
OppositeWay wrote:
Hyper Static Union wrote:
On top of extra topicality, all specified funding is a total negative ground loss. When the affirmative specifies that we're going to cut [insert funding] , the Negative loses key disadvantage and counterplan ground. The Negative can no longer run spending disadvantages, fiscal responsibility kritiks, budget tradeoff disadvantages, or use them as competition for agent counterplans. This is clear and present loss of ground, and an independent voting issue for abuse.

Umm...I'm not sure I follow your logic... You're basically saying that it's not fair that the aff words their plan in a way that avoids arguments. o_0 With that logic, it's not fair for a team to run a good case, because a good case avoids K's, has good solvency, and no DA's.
They're de-linking out of generics that apply to anything. That's a pretty good ground takeout...

That's not abuse. That's a well-written 1AC.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 7:29 pm 
Offline
The Great White Sharc
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:58 pm
Posts: 4769
Home Schooled: Yes
Fairness isn't a terrible, whiny argument (inherently). It's the foundation of debate theory. If you take away fairness as an argument you take away debate theory.

_________________
Marc Davis

I currently help coach at TACT in Region X.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 10:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:28 pm
Posts: 2889
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I'm not lost! I'm locationally challenged. -John M. Ford
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.

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


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 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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited