Ask Coach Vance: Effects Topicality with Illegal Immigration
Q. What is your advice for dealing with “effects topical” cases this year? There’s a team in our region running a case that runs on the premise that if we fix our legal immigration system, we can solve for illegal immigration. It doesn’t sound topical, but they defend it by defining the word “on” to mean “effecting.” — B.
A. Good question.
1. First, make the decision whether a topicality attack is going to be worth your time or not. While topicality can be a powerful issue, if your judgment is that it will be a difficult battle, or that the case is probably going to sound reasonable to a judge, then even though you might be able to think of a good T argument, it might not be the best investment of your time. Just like disads: if you can think of a disadvantage, it doesn’t necessarily mean you should run it - maybe there are other disads that have more impact or other stock issues you can more easily win.
2. Understand that “effects topicality” varies year to year in how “bad” of a problem judges will perceive it to be. Since illegal immigration is illegal and that’s our “policy” on it, the resolution taken literally tends to lend itself to generous broadness for effects-topical cases. My guess is that judges are open a bit more to things that affect illegal immigration just due to the nature of the resolution. Not saying that’s good nor bad, just observing. But if that observation is true, then again, maybe this isn’t the best investment of time.
3. Unless… it’s all you’ve got. If you don’t have a lot of evidence against their mandates and policies, then it makes topicality more attractive as something to use to fill up some speeches. How would you go about it in that case? Some ideas:
A. “Where does it end?” theory. Judge, if you allow any Aff policy that could “affect” the quantity of illegal immigration in the US, then you’ve opened up this year’s debate season to literally any economic policy that anyone could propose. That’s because the economy and jobs drive a big part of immigration - so any economic policy that creates or destroys or influences employment in the US is going to impact immigration. [maybe read a card here about employment drives immigration] Judge, that means they could offer a minimum wage plan, or have the Federal Reserve change interest rates, or reduce the budget deficit, or a new trade policy - where does it end? If you allow them to argue that anything that affects immigration is topical, then they can literally run any economic policy they want.” From here, draw conclusions, impact of abusiveness on topicality, reason to vote Neg, etc.
B. The Am. Heritage Dict. definition violation. “American Heritage Dict 4th Ed. 2000: 4a. Used to indicate the object affected by actual, perceptible action: The spotlight fell on the actress. He knocked on the door.” [If they are using this definition of "on" to justify "affecting" something] Judge, they don’t meet this definition for one simple reason: They are explaining the effect of the action differently from the way the authors of the definition explained it. Notice in the examples that American Heritage gave (spotlight, door knock) - the action was applied *directly* to the object it was “on”. There was no intermediary or indirect action. The spotlight did not fall on someone with a mirror who redirected it “on” the actress. He didn’t push someone else who then fell on the door. The action in this definition, to fit the meaning of “on” - is applied directly to the object. If the Aff wants to follow this definition, they have to apply their mandates directly to the object of the resolution - “illegal immigration” - not to legal immigration and then hope that it will have a secondary effect on illegal immigrants.
C. If they don’t read the Am. Heritage Dic. definition or don’t read one at all, use this and show they violate it:
“Used to indicate contact with or extent over (a surface) regardless of position:” (also from American Heritage Dict 4th Ed. 2000)
The mandates are not in “contact with” illegal immigration and they do not have any “extent over” it. They are in contact with something else - legal visas - hence are not policies “on” illegal immigration.