1
EXTRA T BAD
A. Interpretation: The affirmative may only garner offense from topical
arguments.
B. Violation- (Round Specific)
C. Standards
a. Equal Research Burdens- Extra topical arguments put an infinite
research burden on the negative. The neg has to enter the round
prepared for every possible issue, in every field of literature, that
the affirmative could present. This explodes negative research
burdens because the neg has to sufficiently research nearly
infinitely many issues. Extra T further skews research burdens
because it makes the aff’s burden comparatively easier. The
affirmative cherry picks the extra topical issue, and can focus on the
benefits of the extra topical action. This makes the affirmative
research burden significantly easier because the aff can ignore
topical research and focus on an easy to research extra topical
issue. Equal research burdens are key to fairness because debaters
must be able to utilize pre-round prep within debates. Equal
research burdens are key to education because large research
burdens discourage debaters from learning about substantive
issues.
b. Depth of Discussion- Extra topical arguments harm depth of
discussion on the resolution. Instead of focusing on topical issues,
the affirmative can expand breadth of discussion to nearly an
infinite amount of issues. This harms depth of discussion on the
resolutional level because the round shifts from focus on the
resolution to focus on extra topical issues. Extra topical arguments
harm depth of knowledge even outside of the resolution because
debaters only learn fractions of information about a wide variety of
arguments, rather than having a depth of knowledge. Depth of
discussion is key to fairness because it gives debaters access to the
best arguments to the ballot. Depth of discussion is key to
education because without depth debaters learn only about random
fragments of knowledge. Depth of discussion always outweighs
breadth, especially in extra topical issues, because debaters will
always learn more from reading 100 pages of one book than 1 page
of 100 books.
c. Topic Literature- Extra topical arguments nullify the importance of
the topic literature. Debaters could enter rounds with the same
extra topical case throughout the debate season, and never have to
research the literature. Further, it inherently harms topical
discussion because it shifts the focus of the round away from the
resolution. Topic literature is key to fairness because all arguments
relevant to the topic are found within the literature. Topic literature
has the largest impact to fairness because debaters are only given
the resolution before every round; The only predictable arguments
to prep for are found within the literature. Topic literature is key to
education because it provides a depth of knowledge unique to a two
month period.
d. Clash- Extra topical arguments are detrimental to substantive clash.
Debaters cannot formulate responses against random,
unpredictable arguments in round. Especially with extra topical
arguments, because they have no basis in the literature and the aff
can pick the hardest extra topical arguments to answer, substantive
clash is nearly impossible. Clash is key to fairness because without
clash arguments are impossible to compare, and the judge can’t
make a fair decision. Clash is key to education because it is a
gateway to all educational benefits of critical thinking and argument
interaction, thus outweighing all other impacts to education as well.
D. Voter- Fairness is the voter because debate is a competitive activity
based on skill and wins and losses. Vote my opponent down for
preventing fair debate, and to prevent further abuse. Evaluate theory
as a matter of competing interpretations because reasonability is
based on judge preferences for argumentation and invites further
judge intervention.
Also, theory is not an RVI because 1) RVI’s prevent theory from checking
actual abuse. I wouldn’t want to run theory against an abusive position if
my opponent could easily win with an RVI. 2) RVI’s are logically incoherent
as a principle. They turn defensive counter interpretations into offensive
reasons to vote debaters down; debaters don’t just win for being fair or
educational. 3) RVI’s encourage debaters to bait theory. Debaters would
run abusive positions, prepare for the theory debate, and then easily win
rounds from an RVI.
