Mostly from Dave W's lectures on Topicality (Resolutionality).
Extra-Topicality A plan is extra-topical if part of the plan (a "plank") fits under the resolution, but part (the non-topical plank) is non-topical. The non-topical planks of the plan are abusive. In your violation, explain which parts of the plan don't meet your interpretation, and that the plan (as a whole) is extra-topical. In your voters, explain why specifically why extra-T is a voter: it skews the opposition's time by making them debate things outside the resolution, it's abusive because it allows the Gov to claim impacts larger than the scope of the resolution (and therefore the opp), it allows the Gov to act as a moving target by adding to and subtracting from the resolution. As a worst-case scenario, you should be able to win that the judge should ignore any impacts that rely on the non-topical planks of plan.
Effectually Topicality: A plan is effects T if the plan's text itself does not fall under the resolution, but an effect of the plan does what the resolution says.
Res: THW increase taxes. Plan: reduce government spending. This stimulates the economy, and increases wealth, so everyone will pay more in the end.
FX T requires solvency to bridge the plan to the resolution. The example here doesn't do anything to raise taxes, and taxes don't rise unless they can prove that the plan will cause taxes revenues to increase. This is mixing burdens, by bringing solvency into the topicality debate. FX T is bad because it mixes burdens, because T is a gateway issue (and shouldn't involve substantive debate). Like extra-topicality, you should explain why a plan is effects T in the violation, and why that's a voting issue with your voters.