Jump to content
sfrpeterm

Effects and Extra T as an offcase

Recommended Posts

How many of you independently run FX or Extra T in the 1NC, and if so, how do you phrase it? In the other T thread about T in the 2NR, I saw a few things about "they're still FX/Extra T", but can it be run as an independent argument? 

I've just had a few judges in my circuit saying they would have voted on extra T against some affs because they truly think they are, so I just need some blocks so I can make the argument well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree it's best argued on the violation of a different topicality argument, and structured as an even-if claim to their "we meet" argument. Although, I think there are some instances in which it's pretty clear that the effects- or extra-topicality of the Affirmative are independent of the part of the plan that is topical. For instance, an extra-topical Affirmative might expand funding for education and healthcare, or, an effects-topical Affirmative might establish a department/agency that then implements a topical plan, which is probably both effects- and extra-topical. If it's clear enough of a violation, you could try running something like:

 

1NC Extra-Topicality [---]

 

Our interpretation—the Affirmative must only increase federal funding and/or regulation of education—the Affirmative goes beyond the resolution by [---]—this is a reason to vote Negative because the resolution cannot be tested or justified by policies that are external to the scope of the topic—that’s anti-educational—and it’s unfair because we lose predictable ground.

 

1NC Effects Topicality

 

[---] Our interpretation—the Affirmative must directly increase federal funding and/or regulation of education—the Affirmative indirectly effects education reform by [---]—this is a reason to vote Negative because they have not affirmed the resolution on-face—it’s also unfair because they justify the plan through its mechanism, not its content.

Edited by TheSnowball
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree it's best argued on the violation of a different topicality argument, and structured as an even-if claim to their "we meet" argument. Although, I think there are some instances in which it's pretty clear that the effects- or extra-topicality of the Affirmative are independent of the part of the plan that is topical. For instance, an extra-topical Affirmative might expand funding for education and healthcare, or, an effects-topical Affirmative might establish a department/agency that then implements a topical plan, which is probably both effects- and extra-topical. If it's clear enough of a violation, you could try running something like:

 

1NC Extra-Topicality [---]

 

Our interpretation—the Affirmative must only increase federal funding and/or regulation of education—the Affirmative goes beyond the resolution by [---]—this is a reason to vote Negative because the resolution cannot be tested or justified by policies that are external to the scope of the topic—that’s anti-educational—and it’s unfair because we lose predictable ground.

 

1NC Effects Topicality

 

[---] Our interpretation—the Affirmative must directly increase federal funding and/or regulation of education—the Affirmative indirectly effects education reform by [---]—this is a reason to vote Negative because they have not affirmed the resolution on-face—it’s also unfair because they justify the plan through its mechanism, not its content.

that reply to a we meet argument is a great idea, thanks. I feel as if Topicality is a good argument, just not much is known about it so it isnt run too often well. Thanks for the help

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that reply to a we meet argument is a great idea, thanks. I feel as if Topicality is a good argument, just not much is known about it so it isnt run too often well. Thanks for the help

Yeah, well-run T can be a useful tool.

 

I frame it as "the way they clarify the plan in the we-meet is evidence that the plan is effects/extra" and then make the theoretical objection there.

 

Another fun thing to do is argue that the "we meet" (especially if it's obviously false) means they don't meet their own counter-interpretation. If they drop they don't meet either the interpretation or their counter-interpretation, they'll probably lose absent a god-tier reasonability argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I usually run extra T or FX T along with a regular T shell, then when the 2AC drops the ball I blow it up in the 1nr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I usually run extra T or FX T along with a regular T shell, then when the 2AC drops the ball I blow it up in the 1nr.

This is also viable, but I think it's a trap better set in the block because the 1AR will either drop it or spend ~10 seconds answering it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how would we set it up in the block?

I frame it as "the way they clarify the plan in the we-meet is evidence that the plan is effects/extra" and then make the theoretical objection there.

 

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...