Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi, 

 

How much does an aff need to specify funding before becoming extra topical?  How much can an aff fiat?  Can an aff specify the amount of funding increase and fiat mechanisms to make that funding happen.  It seems like affs are in a double bind between FSPEC and Extra-T.  What is the balance between specifications, and what role does fiat play?  What theory supports the idea that affirmatives can fiat the mechanisms of their funding?

 

Thanks, 

 

Coach Mel 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Extra-topicality is not a matter of specification, but of extra-resolutional mandates. The idea is that even if parts of the plan outside of the resolution are good, they're not a reason to affirm it.

 

The amount of funding the Affirmative can provide is determined by the phrase "substantially increase its funding" in the topic. You can probably get away with using that wording in your plan text. If you want to be more specific, you should find a definition of substantial that includes your funding.

 

The Constitution doesn't give the federal government authority over education. It can only enforce anything through offering reward or threatening punishment.

 

In the "real world" funding is mandated by Congress as well as in the president's Congress-approved budget for various agencies, and such. Fiat is pretty weird, but funding generally has to be increased government spending as opposed to diverting it to education from other areas.

 

I'm unsure what you mean by "mechanisms." If you're talking about various education funding mechanisms, the Affirmative might operate through block grants (here's some money for education, use it at your discretion), categorical grants (here's some money for education, use it at our discretion), competitive grants/incentives (if you meet our requirements, we'll reward you with money for education). There's some debate over what is topical and what is not. Here's on overview of how federal funding works now:

 

https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/index.html

 

I addressed extra-topicality above. I haven't seen many people argue FSPEC, but perhaps it's popular where you debate. I think it's sufficient to say "substantially increase its funding of..." in the plan text and be prepared to explain how the plan is enforced in cross-ex.

 

It's less a question of fiat, and more a question of "normal means," more about which can be found here:

 

https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can an aff specify the amount of funding increase and fiat mechanisms to make that funding happen. 

 

Are you asking if the aff can fiat a mechanism of revenue generation for the plan? Like "the money for the competitive grants will come from a new income tax on the top 5%"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you asking if the aff can fiat a mechanism of revenue generation for the plan? Like "the money for the competitive grants will come from a new income tax on the top 5%"?

I'm asking if the aff can fiat a $12 million funding increase without specifying the funding mechanism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes they can

What enables the aff to fiat funding?  Do I need theory to back up the right to fiat or is it sufficient in round to say "aff reserves the right to fiat"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What enables the aff to fiat funding? Do I need theory to back up the right to fiat or is it sufficient in round to say "aff reserves the right to fiat"?

The aff just gets fiat. You don't need to say anything, you just get it. Unless the other team kritiks fiat or reads a trade-off DA, it's fine. Fiat literally means "let it be." That means don't really question if it gets funded, it's just assumed money is allocated to allow the plan.

Edited by seanarchy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Extra-topicality is not a matter of specification, but of extra-resolutional mandates. The idea is that even if parts of the plan outside of the resolution are good, they're not a reason to affirm it.

 

The amount of funding the Affirmative can provide is determined by the phrase "substantially increase its funding" in the topic. You can probably get away with using that wording in your plan text. If you want to be more specific, you should find a definition of substantial that includes your funding.

 

The Constitution doesn't give the federal government authority over education. It can only enforce anything through offering reward or threatening punishment.

 

In the "real world" funding is mandated by Congress as well as in the president's Congress-approved budget for various agencies, and such. Fiat is pretty weird, but funding generally has to be increased government spending as opposed to diverting it to education from other areas.

 

I'm unsure what you mean by "mechanisms." If you're talking about various education funding mechanisms, the Affirmative might operate through block grants (here's some money for education, use it at your discretion), categorical grants (here's some money for education, use it at our discretion), competitive grants/incentives (if you meet our requirements, we'll reward you with money for education). There's some debate over what is topical and what is not. Here's on overview of how federal funding works now:

 

https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/index.html

 

I addressed extra-topicality above. I haven't seen many people argue FSPEC, but perhaps it's popular where you debate. I think it's sufficient to say "substantially increase its funding of..." in the plan text and be prepared to explain how the plan is enforced in cross-ex.

 

It's less a question of fiat, and more a question of "normal means," more about which can be found here:

 

https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html

For example, it is sufficient to state that the USFG will substantially increase funding for x, and will use normal means to implement i.e. fiat.  Then clarify in cx, and have cards for the 2AC about what normal means means?

 

I would like to avoid over specifying, and toeing the line of extra-topicality.  At the same time I would like to specify to avoid FSPEC. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For example, it is sufficient to state that the USFG will substantially increase funding for x, and will use normal means to implement i.e. fiat.  Then clarify in cx, and have cards for the 2AC about what normal means means?

 

I would like to avoid over specifying, and toeing the line of extra-topicality.  At the same time I would like to specify to avoid FSPEC.

 

Yeah, that should be fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For example, it is sufficient to state that the USFG will substantially increase funding for x, and will use normal means to implement i.e. fiat.  Then clarify in cx, and have cards for the 2AC about what normal means means?

 

I would like to avoid over specifying, and toeing the line of extra-topicality.  At the same time I would like to specify to avoid FSPEC

I doubt that you will run into FSPEC very often so it s probably better to err on the side of under-specification

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would first like to state that in debate there are no rules. Anything is possible. However, when it comes to being "extra-topical" for the Aff there are some lines that Neg's can easily draw. If you ever think you specify your plan/fiat too much just brainstorm generic arguments to your plan. Can generic K's, DA's and CP's still link to your plan? If so you're probably fine. However, if the Neg tries to run topicality just state generic positions that they could have brought up to show you're fair.

 

I know that I haven't really answered any questions about your specific plan but as long as it (and any other plan) can abide by these guidelines you should be fine.

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...