Topicality Casey Parsons

Let’s Review Topicality is: A stock issue for the aff A question of whether or not the plan text satisfies the resolution One of the easiest wins on the neg The aff does not address T in the 1AC – there’s no functional need The neg can choose whether or not to read T Read: You should have a T shell in every 1NC

How do I read T? Topicality has four parts: Interpretation – how you interpret a word in the resolution Violation – Why the plan does not satisfy your interpretation? Standards – why your interpretation should be preferred Voters – why your standards matter Evaluate topicality like you would a disadvantage: Standards are the internal links Voters are the impacts There are two important things to remember about T: There is no such thing as a topical aff There is no such thing as an untopical aff In other words, topicality is an argument you can win every round on the neg or the aff. There’s no whitelist of “topical” affs

Interpretation This is how you think the resolution should be defined Contextual interpretations are better than dictionary definitions For example, a definition of “non-military” in the context of someone defining oceans would be more useful than a definition from a dictionary Interpretations are how you leverage the offense you gain from the standard/voter debate

Violation This is why the plan violates your interpretation Most people don’t think much about this, but it’s the most important part of the T debate Saying “violation: they don’t meet our interp” isn’t enough Be specific

Standards Standards are like internal links on disadvantages – they’re reasons we should prefer your interpretation Common standards include: Limits – Allowing this aff to be topical creates a disproportionately large topic Ground – This aff prevents us from access predictable ground Grammar – Our interpretation is more grammatically correct You should be specific about which standards you are winning and how those connect to your voters

Voters Voters are the impacts on the T flow They’re why T debate is important There are only three real voters: Education – The aff prevents substantive education from happening in the round For example, on the limits standard: If the topic becomes too big, it becomes impossible for the neg to research for the round and prevents clash Fairness – The aff has done something unfair to the negative team For example, on the ground standard: The aff has taken away a core component of neg strat like the politics DA Competitive Equity – This is similar to the fairness standard, but more abstract For example, on the ground standard: By taking away a core component of neg strat, the aff has skewed the round towards them

Voters Not all education, fairness, or competitive equity is created equal You need to be explicit in making comparative voter claims as to why the kind of education you access is better For example, arguing that your education gives you access to the politics disad which is important to debaters’ understanding of the political process outweighs the education claim the aff makes You need to talk about why it’s a big deal that this aff could be considered topical

Sample T Shell So if we’re dealing with an aff that wants to spend $1 million on ocean research… Interpretation: Substantial is at least $50 billion Violation – The aff only spends $1 million Standards Limits – There are literally millions of different affs that could only spend $1 million, forcing them to spend more keeps the debate predictable Ground – We lose our links to our econ and politics disad if they only spend $1 million Voters Education Fairness Competitive Equity

Answering Topicality There are a few essential parts of answering T in the 2AC: We meet – this is where you argue that you don’t violate their interp. If you win this argument then you win the whole flow Counter-interpretation: You provide a different interpretation that your aff meets, and then you read standards and voters just like you would on the neg This is where you should be making comparative voter and standards claims Talk about why your interpretation has better access to certain standards or voters and why that’s significant

Evaluating Topicality There are two main camps of thought when evaluating T Reasonability Something had to happen in round that was abusive This is the less popular camp nationally but it’s more popular locally T is much easier for the aff to win under this framework Competing Interpretations The best definition for debate should win the T debate More popular nationally, less popular locally Usually preferred by the neg except in a few cases Make comparative claims on the T flow as to why one is better than the other