Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Audit

Gates CP

Recommended Posts

yeah...because private actor fiat has always been legit

Argue it in the round. Why is it illegit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yo guys

this idea of severing out of normal means is an actual debate to be had

 

 

but either way, if i had to throw my lot in, i would say that PICing out of something in ''normal means'' but that doesnt depend off the increase is probably not only not competative but largely unfair. it would make the DADT counterplan competative against endstrength because of the question in cross-x "post plan, would a homosexual be allowed to join the military". i think its probably safe to say that the negative only gets PIC ground under the topical plank (or should be) but basically something thats speced in the plan text. now if funding is one of those or not is probably, like previously mentioned, a debate to be had...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it can be textually competitive too-- for instance a plan that specifies congressional funding aka a peace corps aff - makes it textually compete...

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yo dude private actor fiat is justified with this counterplan b/c gates has funded b4 and so much that he created a system were he will continue funding the pc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yo dude private actor fiat is justified with this counterplan b/c gates has funded b4 and so much that he created a system were he will continue funding the pc

 

ha

scott

this forum was dead for almost two months

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

perm - have the gates foundation give funding to the federal government to do the plan.

 

and thats all folks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
perm - have the gates foundation give funding to the federal government to do the plan.

 

and thats all folks.

 

Severs out of the federal government funding the plan. Hopefully neg would be reading evidence that a policy requires funding. So you're in a double bind.

 

Either:

 

A. The government doesn't fund your plan out of the 1ac and you're not a policy

 

or B. You sever out of the funding and lose the perm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Private actor funding PICs are bad.

 

I think the best argument is infinitely regressive. Having evidence is irrelevant- the Peace Corps accepts tax-deductable donations from companies and individuals on an hourly basis. This [http://www.peacecore.gov/index.cfm?shell=resources.donors.mgifts] or this [http://www.peacecore.gov/index.cfm?shell=resources.donors.volproj] alone shows dozens of companies and individuals who have donated, and I'm sure I could find ev that shows the literally thousands of individuals and persons who have donated to the P.C. before. Since there's no (predictable/enforcable) bright-line on what constitutes acceptable prior funding, it means I have to defend against a gigantic (if not infinite) pool of "company x" or "wealthy person y" funding CPs.

 

One might say I only need a block that says "federal funding good" but the unpredictable nature of these CPs means agency/person-specific net benefits will always win. Additionally, their NB will probably be a spending DA (or a spending unpopular politics link) to USFG action, but I can't reciprocate and cut spending DAs to each possible actor.

 

That along with the standard funding pics bad/private actor bad for blah blah blah warrents and a counter-interpretation- 'only governmental funding pics are legit' or 'only completely private CPs (ie: have the geekcorps funding and implement some action) and no only private funding CPs', depending on which side of the debate your block's stronger against. Or do them both, and say the intersection of the two is the really abusive part (the infinitely regressive arg above only applies to private organizations, there's only a handful of governmental organizations that can fund the plan).

 

And those are all reasons why perm severence is OK, because the CP is abusive/uneducational.

 

There are substantive arguments too, but they're probably not as strong as the NBs, I posted them in the beginning of the year somewhere and am too lazy to find them again.

 

-Jmei

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Severs out of the federal government funding the plan. Hopefully neg would be reading evidence that a policy requires funding. So you're in a double bind.

 

Either:

 

A. The government doesn't fund your plan out of the 1ac and you're not a policy

 

or B. You sever out of the funding and lose the perm.

 

this isnt true, and that isnt a double bind (sorry for the one liners, explanation below) -

 

1. the mayer 85 evidence (to which you refer) which says policy is funding just says a policy is the establishment of means for implementation and then requisite funding. Nowhere does it say it has to be the implementing actors' money. The permutation would still have the federal government fund it, it just uses money from the gates foundation. That doesnt sever the plan text or the resolution because there isnt a single piece of evidence saying that in order to fund, the USFG would have to use money already shifting through congressional appropriations. Hence, the permutation to have gates give the money to the federal government who will then do the plan, is completely legit and solves every iota of your offense.

 

On a side note - none of your "solvency advocates" regarding previous fundings are relevant. Mainly, because they do not assume gates acting alone to increase people in the peace corps. They assume donations to the federal government to increase the peace corps. That means either the CP will link to politics (because the fed. will act), there is no solvency because gates doesnt have the authority to earmark funding for specific functions of federally regulated programs, or that the CP isnt competetive because the permutation above would be the same thing and fails to sever.

 

The only way to run this CP-NB such that it avoids the permutation above (which is a deth knell to any other combination) is to run it with a politics net benefit that has a link not specific to funding. Seidenfeld, for example, though grossly generic, would mean the permutation still links to the net benefit given it is solely assumptive of the burdensome process of legislation. Spending DAs would be solved by the permutation becuase we spend outside money. That would mean the only thing that would have to be answered is private actor fiat and all the other generic abuse stories. However, this does entail defending that gates could provide money directly to the peace corps, while circumventing congressional appropriations (this is illegal by the way), in order to do the plan. This sets you up for several devestating rollback arguements (provided that they are carded) and theory arguements. Also - this means you have no chance of solving any perceptual arguements because you truly do not use any part of the federal government to enact the plan, and given that we are dicussing the peace corps - im sure the soft power debate will be relevant, given that both slabbert and kumar assume provisions from the fed, in order to show its benevolence.

 

On another note - Jon Mei you are completely right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
this isnt true, and that isnt a double bind (sorry for the one liners, explanation below) -

 

1. the mayer 85 evidence (to which you refer) which says policy is funding just says a policy is the establishment of means for implementation and then requisite funding. Nowhere does it say it has to be the implementing actors' money. The permutation would still have the federal government fund it, it just uses money from the gates foundation. That doesnt sever the plan text or the resolution because there isnt a single piece of evidence saying that in order to fund, the USFG would have to use money already shifting through congressional appropriations. Hence, the permutation to have gates give the money to the federal government who will then do the plan, is completely legit and solves every iota of your offense.

 

Ok so let's assume we have a plan text that doesn't denote funding specifically, something like:

 

USFG should double the number of people in the Peace Corps. As of the 1ac, we assume that funding for the increase comes from the federal government, but your argument is that if Gates gives money to the government then that can fund the increase and it doesn't sever the government funding. But it does sever out of the funding of the 1ac. Your plan assumes that the government will fund using money it has in the status quo. The affirmative being able to side step and use separate funding justifies really illegitimate shifting. For example:

 

1ac: More troops

1nc: RMA + cp to use funding from x place that doesn't trade off

2ac: perm: use the money from wherever to fund the troop increase.

 

So even though normal means would assume troops trading off, your justification is that the funding is still in the fg so it's ok. This works with gates too. The 1ac doesn't assume gates funding the government for the plan so it's illegit to act like you can. It's different fudning, regardless of whether or not it is the givernment's post-donation.

 

On a side note - none of your "solvency advocates" regarding previous fundings are relevant. Mainly, because they do not assume gates acting alone to increase people in the peace corps. They assume donations to the federal government to increase the peace corps. That means either the CP will link to politics (because the fed. will act), there is no solvency because gates doesnt have the authority to earmark funding for specific functions of federally regulated programs, or that the CP isnt competetive because the permutation above would be the same thing and fails to sever.

 

I agree with all this--that's why i dont run this cp. But I still think it's competitive via funding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your example on why the perm is bad and leads to other abusive permutation is the exact same funding pic situation. The only thing the perm would legitimate getting rid of is funding pics, that's not shady.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your example on why the perm is bad and leads to other abusive permutation is the exact same funding pic situation. The only thing the perm would legitimate getting rid of is funding pics, that's not shady.

 

Whether or not it's shady depends on whether or not the perm is severance. I believe aff should have to defend all aspects of the plan, including funding. It's no different than picing out of puerto rico for a draft aff. If normal means of the draft includes drafting puerto ricans then the aff should defend that. The same goes with the aff defending the initial 1ac funding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... well actually some of those ways seem to work i tried one of those ways but i still ended up loosin againsts the Bill Gates CP it seemed pretty hard defeat....

any one have ideas on how to defeat the Bill Gates CP when a ASPEC Violation is been runned at the same time againts me.?? .. im pretty stumped out coz i can't find out a strategy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point is that the unique nature of funding PICs justify a severance permutation. If the negative gets to abusively fiat a private organization, the aff gets to sever out of normal means/"policy". Besides, the perm still has to be preferrable/equivalent to the CP to win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whether or not it's shady depends on whether or not the perm is severance. I believe aff should have to defend all aspects of the plan, including funding. It's no different than picing out of puerto rico for a draft aff. If normal means of the draft includes drafting puerto ricans then the aff should defend that. The same goes with the aff defending the initial 1ac funding.

But severence would be jusified as this case of severence only legitimates funding pics which are infinitely regressive, blah blah funding pics bad etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the point is that the unique nature of funding PICs justify a severance permutation. If the negative gets to abusively fiat a private organization, the aff gets to sever out of normal means/"policy". Besides, the perm still has to be preferrable/equivalent to the CP to win.

 

Severance is severance and really can't be justified. You saying that the negative fiating a private organization is abusive is reliant upon you winning that private organization fiat is bad. And if you win that it's bad, then the perm doesn't really matter anymore because the cp is illegitimate.

 

Why should the aff be able to sever just because the negative is picing out of funding? Your sentence only says since the neg is fiating a private organization then severance is justified but that makes no sense and there's absolutely no warrant for the claim.

 

The point of my previous post was to prove this CP was competitive and that any perm is severance, because someone else had said the perm wasn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i understand that severence perms are illegit in general. The perm is of course theoretically dependent upon getting some weight from the funding pics illegit stuff. It may be severence but there is functionally no difference in plan. These sorts of CPs only compete if the aff is forced to defend normal means. Besides, the contextuality arguments on how gates can fund the peace corps could potentially be used to argue private funding/donations are normal means anyway. Normal means is vague anyway;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Severance is severance and really can't be justified. You saying that the negative fiating a private organization is abusive is reliant upon you winning that private organization fiat is bad. And if you win that it's bad, then the perm doesn't really matter anymore because the cp is illegitimate.

 

Those two arguments are not necessarily zero-sum. If the affirmative wins, for instance, that private actor fiat is illegitimate, sure, it makes sense that they should just win anyway. However, if they know that the judge is reluctant to vote on theory, it makes sense to say something like "and even if you don't vote on this, it at least means that any abuse on the severance perm should be ignored." If the judge won't vote on private actor fiat bad, after all, the judge most probably won't vote on severance perms bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, even if I win that the CP is illegit, it's not necessarily a reason to vote aff. I think the smarter (or easier to win) impact to theory in this instance is that it legitimizes severance on the perm. For instance, if you're only kind of winning the theory debate, it might not be a voter but it could justify the perm. Of course, if you win it and they let you get away with an independent voter, well, duh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
perm - have the gates foundation give funding to the federal government to do the plan.

 

and thats all folks.

 

thats the CP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who in this forum says in their plan text:

 

The USFG will use ITS money to fund the plan?

 

No one.

 

thats why it is legitimate to have someone else give money to the federal government and then the federal government do the plan. It severs NOTHING in the plan text, because the federal government still funds the plan action.

 

as for the funding offsets pic above:

A. If your only means of competition is normal means, you will lose

B. None of the evidence you would read to that PIC would say it is normal means, it would just say that cuts to RMA as a result of increased spending are likely.

C. No specification in the plan text as to where money comes from and no c-x concessions means you are just clarifying my plan.

 

Also - severance is not just severance. Like in this debate we are having, there can be instances in which there is a risk that the permutation severs, and that risk of severance needs to be weighed against the nature of the CP.

 

Bangladesh - You said that the affirmative has to defend funding in the 1ac. So I say the USFG will fund. If i have money given to the USFG from someone else and then the USFG funds the plan with that money, where is the severance? The only instances in which it severs is if the 1ac says the USFG Will provide its own money, which no one says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...