Extra-T Curry 1

Extra Topicality Shell

I. The affirmative plan contains a number of extra-topical provision(s). (Insert the plan planks that are extra topical) A. B. C. II. Justification for rejecting the entire affirmative plan on the basis of any extratopical provisions is found in the following sub-points: A. Legislative paradigms: You are asked to render a single decision on the plan as offered by the Affirmative in this round. If a bill in Congress is to be amended, a separate vote must be taken first and then they vote to accept or reject the bill. Likewise if the Affirmative is to be amended, you should vote negative this round and next time you hear it you can vote Affirmative. B. 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 Affirmative contains any extra-topical provisions it should likewise be rejected. 1. Forensic precedent: Extra-topical provisions should be a basis for decision because they limit clash. i. Extra-topical provisions generate extraneous issues to debate and detract from the time available for resolutional issues. ii. Allowing extra-topical provisions to be simply ignored is an after-the-fact solution. Time has already been wasted by both teams. iii. This would represent hypothesis testing. The original plan minus each of the different extra-topical provisions represents different plans, and should be rejected. C. Extra-topicality 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 the rejection of Affirmative's inclusion of extratopical provisions, the Affirmative must offer their own rationale for the acceptance of such provisions or their rejection for the round as a legitimate forensic policy. D. Illegitimate Operational Definitions: The Affirmative offers the plan as an operational definition of the resolution. The inclusion of (non-topical) or extra-topical provisions make the plan an illegitimate operational definition. None of the before-mentioned items can be operationally

Extra-T Curry 2 equated with civil rights. They go beyond the scope of the resolution. They are simply not analogous, and thus the plan as a total statement does not represent a reasonable operational definition, and should be rejected.