Jump to content
infernsoft

XO in AFF Plan text

Recommended Posts

Normal Means = the USFG pays for it.

resolutional basis^

 

That just begs the question though. Does ALL of the USFG pay for the plan? No. So why would it be illegit to have XO in the plan text? Is it illegit to say the DoD and NASA will put Sollar powered satellites in space? Is it illegit to say that congress will pass the plan? Is it illegit to say the DoE will provide the incentives?

 

Although i'm not sure if it's strategic to put XO in the plan text, i have no doubt that it's topical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are also good cards saying the president will be perceived' date=' especially now that everyone is scrutinizing what Obama is going to do.[/quote']

emp. denied. thats all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That just begs the question though. Does ALL of the USFG pay for the plan? No. So why would it be illegit to have XO in the plan text? Is it illegit to say the DoD and NASA will put Sollar powered satellites in space? Is it illegit to say that congress will pass the plan? Is it illegit to say the DoE will provide the incentives?

 

Although i'm not sure if it's strategic to put XO in the plan text, i have no doubt that it's topical.

 

I'm agreeing with you. I was just pointing out to ontheotherside that normal means has resolutional basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hows abouts you take the time to actually refute the claim instead of just calling it stupid? I haven't seen a single reason why the way I see extra-topicality is theoretically not sound

 

Sorry but no, it was just too stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm 2 months late, but what the hell, no one has mentioned this.

 

i wouldn't specify XO in the 1AC. if anyone asks in CX, just say normal means, which for most plans would usually involve some sort of funding appropriation being initiated by the house, the senate saying 'ok', the judiciary making sure it's constitutional, and the executive signing it. states counterplans seem to be more prevalent than XO counterplans on this topic anyway. the only recent topic that it might be useful to say that plan is an XO was the search and seizure/detained w/o charge topic, like if you where going to do something with the patriot act or gitmo, because those types of cases had solvency cards that said the executive should do plan, at which point none of these extra-t arguments come into play, since your plan is grounded in evidence.

any dang way, just say normal means/congress and answer their XO/politics/prez powers args and don't try to be shifty. if you can't win an xo/politics/prez powers debate, then write some more blocks. but if the negs go-to strat is xo and tixs, then you probably don't have much to worry about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you can have a part of plan text (and consequently) and advantage that is extra-topical even if the plan as a whole is topical. Topicallity is not the litmust test for extra-topicallity

wut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you're right... I cede the point about normal means to aldjzair. It was just an example I was giving, the rest of my argument about how extra-topicality in general works is something I'll still defend. If you don't get the position feel free to ask a question, if you disagree feel free to explain why. Just cut it with the anonymous neg reps

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

alright, I'll give you an example from a few years back.

 

the topic was national service.

the plan was get out of iraq.

let's say the only advantage was Iraq is a barrier to mil. participation, so removing it would increase mil. readiness.

 

plan text is something like - The United States Federal government should establish a policy substantially increasing the amount of members serving in the armed forces by immediately withdrawing all troops from Iraq.

 

The plan is extra-topical. Even if they don't claim an advantage in the 1AC that is extra-topical, they could potentially read a 2AC add-on (i.e. getting out of iraq creates mid east stability). But that shit's extra-topical, son.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
alright, I'll give you an example from a few years back.

 

the topic was national service.

the plan was get out of iraq.

let's say the only advantage was Iraq is a barrier to mil. participation, so removing it would increase mil. readiness.

 

plan text is something like - The United States Federal government should establish a policy substantially increasing the amount of members serving in the armed forces by immediately withdrawing all troops from Iraq.

 

The plan is extra-topical. Even if they don't claim an advantage in the 1AC that is extra-topical, they could potentially read a 2AC add-on (i.e. getting out of iraq creates mid east stability). But that shit's extra-topical, son.

 

No, that's not extra-topical, that's just not topical (increase). Extra - T would be like:

 

"The USFG should establish a policy substantially increasing the amount of members serving in the armed forces by implementing a draft and immediately withdraw from Iraq"

 

The difference is that in your example, the plan just fails to meet the text of the resolution, whereas in my example, the plan is topical (it establishes a policy increasing the number of people serving in the armed forces), but it also does something unrelated to the topic.

 

 

Another example (using a random plan text I found):

 

The United States federal government should require that by 2020 regulated utilities meet 20 percent of net electricity demand from electricity generated by qualified renewable sources (generators harnessing electricity from sunlight, wind, water, sustainable biomass, waste, and geothermal sources) and establish renewable energy credits to facilitate this goal.

 

That's topical

 

The United States federal government should require that by 2020 regulated utilities meet 20 percent of net electricity demand from electricity generated by qualified renewable sources (generators harnessing electricity from sunlight, wind, water, sustainable biomass, waste, and geothermal sources), establish renewable energy credits to facilitate this goal, and withdraw all troops from Iraq in order to create a genocide task force to deal with the genocide in darfur.

 

That's extra-topical

 

The Department of Defense should provide long-term, guaranteed contracts to the domestic aerospace and energy industries for the procurement of solar power satellites.

 

 

 

That's topical, even tho it specs the DoD as the actor and not the USfg as a whole

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, this is just straight up topical. The policy is what leads to an increase in armed forces. Withdrawing troops from Iraq is how they get their increase. Claiming other advantages would be legit.

 

 

 

 

 

This would probably be topical too. Both the draft and ending the Iraq war would lead to an increase in able people.

 

How is that topical? The same number of people are serving in the armed forces... That's what the rez is about. "able people" is nowhere in the resolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

damnit people, start thinking outside the box a little bit. So in the example where people are withdrawn from Iraq to increase the number of people serving the increase claim is probably going to come from the argument that Iraq is unpopular and has hurt our ability to recruit. As long as this is the argument then its probably going to be at least arguably topical.

 

Now if its just straight up withdraw from Iraq to pay for plan (whatever it is) that would be an example of a topical plan that has a certain aspect to it that is not topical (ie extra-topical). Now I don't care how extra-topical that particular part is or what it is at best all the negative can argue right now is potential abuse, however, should the aff run an advantage thats based off the extra-topical part of plan then you have real abuse because now we're discussing things like predictibility and an explosion of aff ground limitless possible ways to pay for a plan etc etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How is that topical? The same number of people are serving in the armed forces... That's what the rez is about. "able people" is nowhere in the resolution.

 

no, the argument is people aren't joining the military because of iraq. iraq is a barrier - when you withdraw from iraq, you remove that barrier, and more people join the military.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FINE IT WAS A BAD EXAMPLE. GEEZ.

 

the point was just that when you have a plan that allows for an advantage that stems from something other than the USFG increasing whatever, the plan itself is extra topical

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...

×
×
  • Create New...