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

Join the conversation

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

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.


  • Create New...