Jump to content

Effects T - How do I answer it?

Recommended Posts

The resolution suggests that some goal should be achieved--this year's high school topic has the goal of decreased restrictions on immigration.

A topical plan reduces restrictions on immigration.

A plan that is effectually topical "effects-T" takes an action that leads to reduced restrictions on immigration.

An extra-topical plan reduces restrictions on immigration and does something besides reducing restrictions on immigration.

Effects- and extra-topicality are either run independently or as a standard on a normal topicality shell. If you're on the Affirmative trying to answer this argument, you either need to defend why your plan is not effects topical or extra-topical or justify why the action of your plan should still be considered part of the topic.

A common instance of effects-topicality seems to be on the debate over whether legal immigration means legal permanent residence. The 2AC might say "we meet--the visas the Affirmative provides could lead to legal permanent residence." The Negative could respond "that means the plan is effects topical because anything "could lead" to legal permanent residence." The Affirmative could argue that the Negative's interpretation excludes really important Affirmatives like Dreamers or H1-Bs and the Negative could say including those cases doesn't limit the topic enough.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now