Other Forms of Topicality Arguments
Effects topicality. Effects topicality happens when the affirmative’s plan is not directly topical, but only becomes topical through a chain of effects. In other words, the plan itself doesn’t increase U.S. Arctic policy — it just causes something else to happen, and that later effect might increase Arctic policy.
Effects-topical plan: “The U.S. federal government should invest in renewable energy to reduce climate change, which will slow Arctic ice melt, which will improve Arctic exploration.” → The initial action (renewable energy) isn’t Arctic policy. It only indirectly affects the Arctic through a causal chain. That’s effects topical.
Extra topicality. Extra-topicality happens when part of the affirmative plan goes beyond what the resolution requires. The resolution sets a boundary: the affirmative only has to prove that the U.S. federal government should substantially increase its Arctic policy. If the plan contains additional planks or mandates outside that boundary, those are “extra-topical.”
The U.S. federal government funds new icebreakers to expand Arctic exploration and increases Antarctic research funding.
The first part (icebreakers for the Arctic) is topical.
The second part (Antarctic funding) is extra-topical because it falls outside the Arctic policy resolution.
The extra part means the aff is defending more than they are required to by the resolution, which is unfair since the neg shouldn’t have to debate Antarctica.
There is considerable debate as to whether extra-topicality should be a voting issue. Many argue it should not be a voting issue because the affirmative could simply just severe the non-topical part of the plan and continue defending the rest of the topical action. Others argue that it should be a voting issue because if it isn’t it will just encourage the affirmative to write frivolous things into their plan to force the negative to spend time on extra-topicality. Also, if the negative is going to win the argument, they usually need to invest a significant amount of time in it. That time commitment means they have less time to spend on other substantive issues that they’ll need to win the debate on if the affirmative is simply allowed to advocate the topical portions of their plan.