FXT: Effectual Topicality

[Arabian Knight]

FXT... who cares?

Can someone please explain to me why we care about FXT?

Lets take a debate that we've all seen:

"It Takes An International Community To Raise A State"

To some, the ILSA case that was run under the res. was effectually topical, my question is... so what?

Firstly, when is a case effectually topical? Everything is effectually topical to some degree, especially when you adopt a large burden.

Secondly, even if, doesn't it still prove the resolution, despite the FXT? See, even if all solvency is effectually topical, if Govt can prove that the outside actor will act accordingly, doesn't that still show that Plan must be passed?

FXT should be no more than a solvency TO.

And finally, since Advantages can generally be effectually topical, why not just move all the harms with "extra-topical solvency" and place them under Advantages and, instead, place a few simpler problems that aren't effectually topical under harms?

EDIT:

The FXT I am referring to is not an nonresolutional case that is only resolutional if plan solves. I'm referring to a case that is resolutional but its solvency is effectually topical.

As in, you let an outside actor solve your harm for you.

[skibum]

I think that there is a little bit of conflating extra T with effects T that is going on.

Extra T: adding parts of plan that go beyond the resolution - note, that generally, the only time this is a issue is if the gov team claims advantages from those extra planks. Blantanlty plagiarized example: Res: save the rain forsts, plan: US funds a buy land forests for national parks initiative, fund by eliminatind NMD. Advantage: eliminating NMD means no nuclear war.

Effects T: the plan only becomes topical if it solves. Example: Res: THW reform education, Plan: THW would increase funding for public schools. Solvency, public schools would use this money to reform blah blah blah. Clearly the plan doesn't reform education, but the effects of plan do. Hence the effects T. The plan, on its face, does not reform education, hence, the plan is not topical.

J

[patio11]

A couple of reasons off the top of my head:

Firstly, when is a case effectually topical? Everything is effectually topical to some degree, especially when you adopt a large burden.

Question: Do you have to answer the question "Does the gov win solvency or not?" to figure out if the plan is topical?

If you answered yes, they are effects topical -- voter for the following reasons.

If you answered no, they are clearly topical regardless of whether their plan achieves its stated goals.

Effects topicality explodes the number of topical cases. Say, for example, "THW increase spending on education". Government makes the argument that spending on education is a fixed percentage of taxes, and taxes goes up when the economy is booming, so any plan which has a benefit for the economy is topical. Plan: Leave Iraq. Adv #1: Increases foreign trade. Adv #2: Causes Bush to lose re-election, leading to repeal of tax cuts, tax cuts bad. Adv #3: Something with the word "imperialist" in it.

A resolution with no limits is also a resolution with poor ground division, by definition, because smart gov teams will pick the most skewed topical interpretation.

This outweighs "upholding the resolution", since the resulting debates can have little, if anything, to do with the actual resolution. Pull in reasons why resolution matters here (competitive equity, jurisdiction, etc).

FXT should be no more than a solvency TO.

No, wrong answer. Take a look at the somewhat strained Iraq example above. Lets say you win FXT as a solvency takeout against advantages 1 and 2, but gov wins advantage 3. Opp still loses (plan is comparitively advantageous to status quo), despite that the case is proven to be non-topical (plan does not support resolution whatsoever). Thus, effects topical has to include actual topicality voters.

Patrick McKenzie

[ddirgo]

One of the simplest ways to look at this is to consider whether topicality is based on the whole of the affirmative case, or simply on plan text. If you evaluate T on plan text (and there are legitimate jurisdictional reasons for this standard), then FXT cases lose because plan text rarely reflects resolutional language.

This is more pertinent to tight-res situations. Where a res is more metaphorical or aspirational, such as "it takes an international community to raise a state," then the government's latitute to define or parametricize opens up cases that might be more difficult to justify when the resolutional language is more precise.

[Arabian Knight]

skibum

• You're right, I do conflate the two a little. What I meant to tackle is effectually topical solvency.
  
• the plan only becomes topical if it solves
  
  But if it doesn't solve it loses anyway.

patio11

• Effects topicality explodes the number of topical cases. Say, for example, "THW increase spending on education". Government makes the argument that spending on education is a fixed percentage of taxes, and taxes goes up when the economy is booming, so any plan which has a benefit for the economy is topical. Plan: Leave Iraq. Adv #1: Increases foreign trade. Adv #2: Causes Bush to lose re-election, leading to repeal of tax cuts, tax cuts bad. Adv #3: Something with the word "imperialist" in it.
  
  Okay, so let me rephrase. In a situation like that, I can see that it is effectually topical because you are dealing with a wholly different issue. But what if the case is resolutional, its solvency is topical:
  
  Harm: "30,000 Pengo Pengans die / month from lack of infrastructure"
  Plan: Give Pengo Pengo gov't more money
  Solvency: Pengo Pengo has been begging for $$$ from int. community to fix infrastructure. When Pengo Pengo was getting money up and till '97, they spent it on maintaining their infrastructure.
  
  You can make a case that this is effectually topical.
  
• No, wrong answer. Take a look at the somewhat strained Iraq example above. Lets say you win FXT as a solvency takeout against advantages 1 and 2, but gov wins advantage 3. Opp still loses (plan is comparitively advantageous to status quo), despite that the case is proven to be non-topical (plan does not support resolution whatsoever). Thus, effects topical has to include actual topicality voters.
  
  Why? Masking K? Some DA's? FXT don't take too long to shell out. Besides, you could make a resolutionality/topicality argument here.

[moviemaniac2]

FX-T as a standard on a normal t arg is good. I run it like that and give a few subpoints on it. As a separate argument, it is hard to prove unless you are addressing the res as a whole.

[Meyer @ SoCal]

You're right, I do conflate the two a little. What I meant to tackle is effectually topical solvency.

Solvency and advantages are, by definition, always effectually topical. That's the point - why should we do this plan? because of the good effects. It's important to recognize that FXT and Extra-T violations involve the plan text, not the advantages.

Effects-T also doesn't have anything to do with severance - solvency and advantages don't have to be topical; plan does. Severance in the way Arabian Knight and patio 11 refer to it is an implication of part of plan being Extra-T, in which case any advantage that stems solely from a plan mandate that is not authorized by the resolution should not be considered in evaluating it. The distinction is important because the impact to FXT is a voter, since it means the resolution hasn't been proven prima facie; the impact to Extra-T may simply be severance of one or more advantages, in which case Gov. might still win the net-benefit.


Andreas
USC

[Branigan]

Originally posted by moviemaniac2
FX-T as a standard on a normal t arg is good. I run it like that and give a few subpoints on it. As a separate argument, it is hard to prove unless you are addressing the res as a whole.

I think this is by far the best way to do it for a couple of reasons.
1. Sometimes as a standard teams miss it and you have the opportunity to blow it up.
2. Its direct pre-empt to the "we meet" arg that the govt. puts out in the member speech. Usually the we meet arg is a stretch, and when that stretch is exemplified by the opp with the effects standard it makes the T look far more persuasive.

ON a different note. In high school when I debated policy, I ran a non topical case. Effects was one of the biggest args my partner and I had to beat. What we did is that we claimed "Effects good" as long as its reasonable; and we had like 7 reasons. I think this took alot of teams back because it is against the norm.
I guess I would like to hear somebody elses input on this issue.

Branigan

[boredguy8]

I think almost always even plan text is effects topical. "Reform the death penalty" Plan: Pass a bill that reforms the death penalty. The plan effects of you plan make it topical.

Often, solvency/advtantages are non-topical. For example, reforming education might solve for crime or poverty...clearly "non-topical" points of solvency. Harms/Solvency doesn't need to be topical, only plan text does.

--Joey

[thedancingbear]

Originally posted by joecool12321
Often, solvency/advtantages are non-topical. For example, reforming education might solve for crime or poverty...clearly "non-topical" points of solvency. Harms/Solvency doesn't need to be topical, only plan text does.

That really depends on the resolution. "The effects of higher income taxes are more good than bad" certainly seems to require "topical advantages."

IS

[boredguy8]

Hence the modal qualifier there, Ian

[thedancingbear]

Originally posted by joecool12321
Hence the modal qualifier there, Ian

Where? You say, "Harms/Solvency doesn't need to be topical, only plan text does."

IS

[boredguy8]

oh gotcha. Yeah, that's in the context of "if you buy F/X T then..." Plus, you showed a value res, not a policy res :P

[thedancingbear]

Originally posted by joecool12321
Plus, you showed a value res, not a policy res :P

What's the difference?

[boredguy8]

Presence or absense of a call to action is one standard. there may be more.

--Joey

[thedancingbear]

How does the resolution above not contain a "call to action?" How do we know what a call to action is or looks like?

[boredguy8]

A call to action says some action must be taken. "The effects of higher income taxes are more good than bad" at most calls for a debate on the effects of higher income tax.

--Joey

[thedancingbear]

Doesn't saying "higher taxes are good" call for higher taxes? Doesn't it say that action should be taken?

[boredguy8]

Saying "taxes are good" is saying taxes are good. To get to action, you're missing something.

[thedancingbear]

What are you missing? "The benefits of going to get some ice cream right now far outweigh the costs." "Let's go, then." "Oh no, I wasn't suggesting we should actually go do it. Only that it would be good if we did."

IS

[Seoulman]

Originally posted by ISamuel
What are you missing? "The benefits of going to get some ice cream right now far outweigh the costs." "Let's go, then." "Oh no, I wasn't suggesting we should actually go do it. Only that it would be good if we did."

Using that example, even without a plan of sorts you are weighing impacts derived from what would happen if there was action. In that case no plan needs to be offered for it to even be debated--you can't avoid it.

Yet there are plenty of examples of simply making a value claim, (obviously), without taking any action. Dogs are better than cats does not require someone to buy a pet.

Originally posted by ISamuel

Doesn't saying "higher taxes are good" call for higher taxes? Doesn't it say that action should be taken?

No, it does not. Maybe the taxes have recently been raised, and you are arguing over the benefits of that move. If you are looking to the future, and what should be done, then there does seem to be a "plan without a plan" situation. You have to weigh the effects of action--which is exactly what you would do with a formalized plan.

-Dan in Seoul

[boredguy8]

Originally posted by ISamuel
What are you missing? "The benefits of going to get some ice cream right now far outweigh the costs." "Let's go, then." "Oh no, I wasn't suggesting we should actually go do it. Only that it would be good if we did."

IS

Actually, you're cheating on that one. "going to get some ice cream right now" is a call to action. OTOH, "The effects of higher income taxes are more good than bad" has no call to action. Now: "The effect of implementing a higher income tax right now in the US will do more good than bad" does have a call to action, and is more simply stated in resolution format as: "The US needs a higher income tax right now."

--Joey

[Seoulman]

Originally posted by joecool12321
Actually, you're cheating on that one. "going to get some ice cream right now" is a call to action. OTOH, "The effects of higher income taxes are more good than bad" has no call to action. Now: "The effect of implementing a higher income tax right now in the US will do more good than bad" does have a call to action, and is more simply stated in resolution format as: "The US needs a higher income tax right now."

--Joey

Yeah!
Cheating.
That's what I was trying to say. You were cheating.
You got me beat on word choice Joey.

[boredguy8]

Originally posted by Seoulman
Yeah!
Cheating.
That's what I was trying to say. You were cheating.
You got me beat on word choice Joey.

Actually, I was cheating I was going a different route 'till I read your post I was going to talk about how the call to action is added in by the friends comment, you pointed out that it was already in the res. To say "income tax does more harm than good" is not to say "it should be implemented now". The two differ in their informational content. But then I read your post before I posted, realized you had the better argument, and so stole it and made it more explicit

--Joey

[Seoulman]

Ok.
But we agree there was some cheating.
and we can agree that it wasn't me.
I can live with that.

[boredguy8]

Oh, I'm more than willing to admit anything good I've ever said was stolen from someone else

[Seoulman]

Originally posted by joecool12321
Oh, I'm more than willing to admit anything good I've ever said was stolen from someone else

One of these days,
I will too.

[thedancingbear]

Originally posted by Seoulman
Using that example, even without a plan of sorts you are weighing impacts derived from what would happen if there was action. In that case no plan needs to be offered for it to even be debated--you can't avoid it.

What are you talking about? Debating consequences derived from some action is the definition of a policy debate. Even if you're being vague and never stating the plan, that doesn't change what you're doing: defending some course of action.

Yet there are plenty of examples of simply making a value claim, (obviously), without taking any action. Dogs are better than cats does not require someone to buy a pet.

But if they were going to buy a pet, it would require them to choose a dog before a cat. That's, then, the advocacy you're defending, the course of action that is set out and defended by the government. Another policy debate. No difference at all. Debate advantages, disadvantages, or anything else.

No, it does not. Maybe the taxes have recently been raised

Then the resolution "higher taxes" would obviously require a defense of taxes still higher, if you choose the measuring point for "higher" to be "now." Even if you didn't, you're still defending a course of action -- just one that has already been taken. Still a policy debate; still proceeds like absolutely any other debate.

If you are looking to the future, and what should be done, then there does seem to be a "plan without a plan" situation. You have to weigh the effects of action--which is exactly what you would do with a formalized plan.

I have no idea what any of this means.

At the end of this post, I am still left mystified as to what constitutes a "call to action," how we are intended to divine the difference between resolutions of "policy" and "value," and how on earth they differ from one another. I do understand better the various superstitions people hold regarding those terms, but that's about it.

IS

[thedancingbear]

Originally posted by joecool12321
Actually, you're cheating on that one. "going to get some ice cream right now" is a call to action. OTOH, "The effects of higher income taxes are more good than bad" has no call to action. Now: "The effect of implementing a higher income tax right now in the US will do more good than bad" does have a call to action, and is more simply stated in resolution format as: "The US needs a higher income tax right now."

You're just begging the question and arguing in circles. What is a call to action? How do we know where one exists? Saying we ought to have higher taxes seems to be a "call" to raise taxes, but somehow it isn't. Why? Higher. A comparative term.

Your resolution is more complicated and contains an agent of action and timeframe specification. Are those the requirements for this quasi-religious "call to action?" A complicated, agent-and-timeframe-specified resolution? Anything else is "value?"

This is certainly all very complicated.

IS

[Seoulman]

Originally posted by ISamuel
What are you talking about? Debating consequences derived from some action is the definition of a policy debate. Even if you're being vague and never stating the plan, that doesn't change what you're doing: defending some course of action.

Joe's earlier point was that you offered a value res, and not a policy one.

Originally posted by ISamuel


But if they were going to buy a pet, it would require them to choose a dog before a cat. That's, then, the advocacy you're defending, the course of action that is set out and defended by the government. Another policy debate. No difference at all. Debate advantages, disadvantages, or anything else.

IF they were going to choose. I was simply saying you can have advocacy without action.

Originally posted by ISamuel


Then the resolution "higher taxes" would obviously require a defense of taxes still higher, if you choose the measuring point for "higher" to be "now." Even if you didn't, you're still defending a course of action -- just one that has already been taken. Still a policy debate; still proceeds like absolutely any other debate.

It doesn't have to be policy. Even with taxes, you can have a value debate.

Originally posted by ISamuel


I have no idea what any of this means.

At the end of this post, I am still left mystified as to what constitutes a "call to action," how we are intended to divine the difference between resolutions of "policy" and "value," and how on earth they differ from one another. I do understand better the various superstitions people hold regarding those terms, but that's about it.

IS

No one will ever be able so set what a call to action is in stone. It's one of those many things that are intended to be determined by the arguments in the round. I was just arguing with yah, thats all. The tax res had no call to action in my opinion, the ice cream example did.

We both know that there are times when the resolution makes a call to action explicit: This house would DO x.
Other times it's all debateable.
Even, if adding action to a resolution that doesn't call for action is legitimate in it's own little way. (Tough to win with, but you could argue.)

-Dan in Seoul
I'm always confused. Welcome Ian.