8/7/2019 extra T generic

1/2

Extra T, cuz were cool

1NC Extra Topicality

Violation:

The affirmative team goes beyond the scope of the resolution by doing:

[insert extra T]

Standards & Voter

1. Proves Resolved insufficient - - by adding extratopical planks the aff admits the resolvedis not enough for a policy change. The aff admits that by not adding the extra topicalty,

theyre proving that their plan without the extra T is insufficient2. thus, the judge must reject entire plan - - like in congress, you must reject the policy

wholly, a separate vote is called for an amendment. In this round you can only vote onplan text as of the 1AC

3. Unpredictable - - we have no way to predict actions outside of the scope of the resolved,so I have no disads to link to the case

4. Jurisdiction - - you cant vote for anything outside of the resolved, so you CANT voteaff. the plan is outside of the resolution because the affirmative team is promoting to do

[insert extra T]5. Promotes Lazy debate - - no reason to settle for clash when you can just be extra-topical,

and likely claim fat advantages6. Violates Burden of proof - - extra-topical action lowers thresholds for proof by

encouraging superficial debate about non-resolutional issues7. No longer prima facie - - plan is not legitimate by face value, it needs additional action to

be beneficial.

8. Ground withers - - We lose counter plan ground when they blur the line between our andtheir ground

9. Kills education - - extratopicality makes us debate issues not germane to the resolved,destroys depth in favor of breadth

10.Set a precedent - - voting against extra-topicality sends a message to the aff and othersthat you believe all the above arguments

11.Not universal - - topical cases are exclusively within the topic, aff is clear violation,disproves resolved

12.explodes topic- if the judge votes for the affirmative with the extra T, the topic isexploded. this is unfair for the negative team because the affirmative team can say

whatever they want and we can NEVER be prepared for it. the aff can say the USFG

must withdraw troops and a pencil and we can never be prepared for it. the plan canchange every week and the neg team can never catch up.

8/7/2019 extra T generic

2/2

Extra T, cuz were cool

2NC Extra Topicality

Justification for rejecting the entire affirmative plan on the basis on any extratopical provisions isfound in the following subpoints.

1. Legislative paradigms: You are asked to render a single decision on the plan asoffered by the Affirmative in this round. If a bill in Congress is to be amended, aseparate vote must be taken first and then they vote to accept or reject the bill.Likewise if the Aff. is to be amended, you should vote negative this round and

next time you hear it you can vote Aff.2. Judicial paradigm: If a law has unconstitutional provisions it will be overturned

by the courts, regardless if it's 1% or 99% unconstitutional. If the Aff. containsany extratopical provisions it should likewise be rejected.

3. Forensic precedent: Extratopical provisions should be a basis for decisionbecause they limit clash.

a. Extratopical provisions generate extraneous issues to debate and detractfrom the time available for resolutional issues.

b.

Allowing extratopical provisions to be simply ignored is an after-the-factsolution. Time has already been wasted by both teams.

c. This would represent hypothesis testing. The original plan minus each ofthe different extratopical provisions represents different plans, and should

be rejected.B. Extratopical is not limited by rules. It is debate theory and as such should be discussed

and persuasively argued. In light of the independent justifications offered for therejection of Affirmative's inclusion of extratopical provisions, the Aff. must offer their

own rationale for the acceptance of such provisions or their rejection for the round as alegitimate forensic policy.

C. The Affirmative offers the plan as an operational definition of the resolution. Theinclusion of (nontopical) or extratopical provisions make the plan an illegitimate

operational definition. None of the before-mentioned items can be operationally equatedwith a limitation on the use of weapons of mass destruction. They go beyond the scope

of the resolution. They are simply not analogous, and thus the plan as a total statementdoes not represent a reasonable operational definition, and should be rejected.