homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:32 pm
Not a member? Guests can only see part of the forums. To see the whole thing (and add your voice!), just register a free account by following these steps.

All times are UTC+01:00




Forum locked  This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 8 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Effects (FXT) topicality
PostPosted: Fri Feb 04, 2011 8:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2010 1:09 pm
Posts: 390
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: wandering down the rabbit hole
What do you guys think about FXT presses? And how would you run them as neg?

Forgive me if there is already a thread on this.

_________________
The world may be broken but hope is not crazy.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Feb 05, 2011 2:29 pm 
Offline
The boy with the one eyed mechanical girlfriend.
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 4:33 pm
Posts: 799
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Rented to Jacob Deans relationship counselling
They must be run. And, get any reasonable definition of toward.

_________________
Peter Lewis [17] | Alumni, SC | Profile | Picasa | RailPictures | Flickr

Christian. Rail Photographer. Debater. Speaker. Cyclist.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Feb 06, 2011 2:58 am 
Offline
melancholy milkshakes. no straws.
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:31 pm
Posts: 3985
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Hinnom, TX
Effects topicality makes reasonable sense to me, depending on the standards. Launching nuclear missiles starts with the press of a button.

_________________
Joe Hughey
joehughey24@gmail.com

Two roads diverged in a wood and I -
I took the one less traveled
And that has made all the difference


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Feb 06, 2011 5:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:29 am
Posts: 133
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Tennessee
Could someone explain what this is?

_________________
- Joshua Rooney

My soul thirsts for you oh Lord


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Feb 06, 2011 8:32 pm 
Offline
melancholy milkshakes. no straws.
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:31 pm
Posts: 3985
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Hinnom, TX
Cartman wrote:
Could someone explain what this is?

If I understand the concept right, effects topicality is essentially the theory that significance topicality depends on impacts or effects rather than the magnitude of the actual change. Basically, effects topicality believers will say that the significance of a policy change is measured by the significance of its impacts rather than the actual magnitude of the change.

It makes sense to me.

_________________
Joe Hughey
joehughey24@gmail.com

Two roads diverged in a wood and I -
I took the one less traveled
And that has made all the difference


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Feb 06, 2011 10:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 5:54 pm
Posts: 1074
Home Schooled: Yes
Not exactly.

Effects topicality is the concept that a plan is topical through its effects rather than through the actual text of the plan. For example, on an agricultural policy topic, a plan to end NAFTA would probably not be topical (it's foreign policy, it's not included or implemented in the appropriate title of federal law, it's not administered by USDA, etc.), but it could be "effectually topical" because NAFTA has huge implications for US agriculture.

Effects topicality is better understood as a standard than as a topicality argument in and of itself. You would argue as the negative that the affirmative interpretation is bad because it is functionally effects topicality, and that effects topicality isn't okay because any change in policy can ultimately affect something topical. Negatives also like to put FXT in their topicality shells to prevent affirmative teams from arguing that their plan effectually meets the negative's interpretation.

Affirmatives generally respond to FXT standards in one of a couple different ways. First, affirmatives will argue that their interpretation isn't FXT. This argument can be either credible or obvious BS, depending on context. Next, affirmatives often argue that FXT is inevitable. This argument most often takes the form that passing a bill in Congress or signing an executive order is not, in and of itself, a change in policy (much less a change toward a specific entity, if that's in the resolution). Finally, if affirmatives are going for the inevitability argument, they will then argue that a certain number of "steps" between passing the legislation and the "topical change" is legitimate, and that their interpretation allows for some affirmative ground and still maintains a brightline.

I can give an example debate if anyone needs it. I had a lot of FXT debates my last couple years at the college level.

_________________
-Chris


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 5:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:35 pm
Posts: 2441
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Omaha, NE
If you're running FX-T as a violation, a great standard is plan in a vacuum. Basically the only way to adjudicate topicality is to look at the plan text, absent the case. Most plans are FX-T under PIV.

Conversely, PIV is an excellent aff counter-standard for Extra-T violations. A lot of the time (especially NFA this year) advantages are super X-T, but that's spiked out in the PT and rarely caught by the neg. So the aff response is "Look at PIV. It specifically says only to the chronically mentally ill. Thus, even if some of my advantages aren't specifically about CMI, I'm topical." Then go into severance-ok theory.

_________________
-Bryan
Co-Founder of Olympus Forensics

Google it, we're the second link that pops up. We're pretty proud of that.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 4:41 pm 
Offline
melancholy milkshakes. no straws.
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:31 pm
Posts: 3985
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Hinnom, TX
LocutusofBorg wrote:
If you're running FX-T as a violation, a great standard is plan in a vacuum. Basically the only way to adjudicate topicality is to look at the plan text, absent the case. Most plans are FX-T under PIV.

[Arctic Mil Arctic Mil Arctic Mil]

The vacuum idea also makes it super easy to understand. It's one thing to say "it only "effects Russia so Aff loses," and another thing completely to look at the plan in a vacuum. Responding to Russian threats are not the same thing as changing policy toward Russia.

_________________
Joe Hughey
joehughey24@gmail.com

Two roads diverged in a wood and I -
I took the one less traveled
And that has made all the difference


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked  This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 8 posts ] 

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited