Effects Topicality, Topicality Part 4

Posted by Danny

February 8, 2008

Effects topicality is a variant of topicality. Here, rather than interpreting a specific word in the resolution, you interpret the direct relationship of the plan to the topic. You argue that instead of proving the resolution true, the affirmative team proves something else true, which by an effect of the that being true, proves the resolution true. Symbolically, we might represent like this:

Resolution = R
Case = C

C does not prove R to be true. Instead, it proves X to be true. Then, by an effect of X, R is then proven true. So,
C->X->R. That middle step is the problem.

In terms of a case on this topic imagine the following case:

Case: Raise taxes on the richest 1% of Americans to increase foreign aid budget.

The affirmative, in their case, then argues that with more revenue the US Federal Government can increase assistance to Greater Horn of Africa. You can see how the plan itself has nothing to do with US foreign policy towards the Greater Horn but instead US budget policy. Only by an effect of case does the plan become topical.

This can become problematic because one must ask – where do we draw the line? Almost any policy will at some point down the line affect foreign policy towards the Greater Horn – where do you decide what is unreasonable?

The increase tax example above might sound reasonable – what about electing Barack Obama to US President? Obama states on his website that, as President, he would

Obama is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe.

You could argue that this means we’d probably increase foreign aid to Greater Horn with Obama. A topical case? Now, as I mentioned in part 3 of this series, running topicality is your choice. If you think you could win a debate why electing Obama is a bad idea, then for all means, go for it even under this topic. But I think you are squandering an opportunity to win an easy ballot by forgoing topicality – but that’s your strategic choice.

The final main idea under effects topicality is what is known as the vacuum test. It’s important that you understand this concept when arguing as either the affirmative or negative on effects topicality. The vacuum test argues that when deciding topicality the judge should look to the plan text in a vacuum – outside of the rest of case. The negative argues that anyone can having solvency evidence proving your case topical but that does not prove why we should adopt the resolution. If, without reading the rest of the case, the plan itself is too far away from the resolution, then we would say the affirmative team does not meet the vacuum test. This standard argues that there should be 0 steps between the affirmative team’s plan and the resolution.

Structuring Effects Topicality

I think the most straightforward way to run effects-t is to follow the basic topicality model outlined in the previous 2 posts here and here.

Interpretation

However, rather than providing an interpretation of a specific word in the resolution, you argue that the affirmative case must be directly topical. Your interpretation of the resolution/debate is that the case must be onface topical.

Violation

For the violation, you then argue that the case is effects-topical. That onface, it does not prove the resolution true. Explain the steps you see the case has to go before it proves the resolution true.

Standards

For the standards, you argue the same ones mentioned in part 3 of the series. However, the first standard to run is the vacuum test as explained above. To win effects topicality one must almost always win that the plan, in a vacuum, must be topical. If you can win this standard, and prove in the violation section that the plan needs steps to be topical, you will likely win the debate on topicality.

Voter

Follow the same voters as a normal topicality position.

Effects Topicality is an interesting position that you will often see in policy debates. Sometimes, by the wording of the resolution – almost all cases are effects topical. It’d be good to have a frontline before the tournament on answers to effects topicality.

Some standard answers are that all plans are effects, effects explode negative ground (they have more to argue against), it’s more real world, it’s impossible to actually increase human rights – you can only do a plan that by an effect increases human rights, etc. There is also the magical “tell me 3 cases that meet your interp” standard – where you force the negative to tell cases that would not be effects topical. If she cannot do so then the neg interpretation is probably too overlimiting.

This is the fourth part of a five part series of posts discussing topicality:

1. Introduction to Topicality
2. Structuring Topicality Part 1/2 (interp and violation)
3. Structuring Topicality Part 2/2 (standards & voters)
4. Effects Topicality
5. Extra Topicality

Part 5 will discuss a variation on topicality called extra topicality.

Share on Facebook

Coaching, Competing, Instructional

Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.