Topicality. Our Focus Significance Harms Inherency Topicality Solvency.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
How to Give an Effective 2ar. 1. Think About the Big Picture  Remember: focus on offense – defend your house  Isolate 1 or 2 Impacts  Decide on impacts.
Advertisements

(Counter) Plans Because they didn’t limit the topic.
 The plan says “United States”. The CP replaces that with the word “global” and the net benefit is a critique of ethno-centrism.  2AC says “perm: do.
A Firm Foundation: CX Debate Basics (Part I) A N INTRODUCTION TO P OLICY D EBATE - The Minnesota Urban Debate League -
Mike Shackelford. Factors that make a good counterplan Does it solve the aff better? Is it competitive Does it solve the aff or a portion of the aff.
Advanced cp competition exercises
POLICY DEBATE Cross-Examination (CX). POLICY DEBATE  Purpose of policy debate is to compare policies and decide which is best  Affirmative: Supports.
Cross Examination (CX) Debate
TOPICALITY Where debate begins.
Debating Case and Disadvantages CODI 2014 Lecture 1.
Theory CODI 2014 Lecture. Rules of Debate Debate has surprisingly few rules Time limits and speaking order There must be a winner and loser No outside.
TOPICALITY James Stevenson, with due credit to Mike Hester.
The 1ar: Debate’s Paramedic Get the patient to the hospital…alive.
What is Debate? A debater’s guide to the argumentative universe…
By Beth Mendenhall. Introduction Why you should listen Please ask questions.
Introduction to Debate -Negative- To access audio: Skype: freeconferencecallhd and enter # Or call and enter # © L. Husick,
Everyone’s ‘Favorite’ Debate! Topicality. Define the word (or phrase) the Affirmative is not topical under.
Gateway to the Future.  Purpose of a Topic  Topicality in Practice  Topicality on the Space Topic.
POLICY DEBATE Will look like CX on the sign up sheet.
Introduction to Debate -Affirmative- To access audio: Skype: freeconferencecallhd and enter # Or call and enter # © L.
Intro to Critiques. Fiat The assumption in the debate game that we pretend the plan gets passed by the USFG. Then, we can debate out the Costs (DA’s)
Constructive Speeches (1AC)- 6 MINUTES CX 1A to 2N- 3 MINUTES (1NC)- 6 MINUTES CX- 1N to 1A- 3 MINUTES (2AC)- 6 MINUTES CX- 2A to 1N- 3 MINUTES (2NC)-
Most important things Keep your personal views outside the room Debaters must adapt to you Be honest about your judging experience.
ORDER AND PURPOSE OF THE SPEECHES
Debate Tournaments.  Competitive High School Debate involves preparing for, and attending Tournaments, where you will debate against teams from other.
And other things… DISADVANTAGES. BUT FIRST, LETS REVIEW FOR THE QUIZ The quiz on Wednesday will be open note and will cover the two primary topics and.
Counterplans The Negative’s Best Friend The Negative’s Best Friend.
ITS OUR PARTY WE CAN DO WHAT WE WANT: TOPICALITY AND PROCEDURALS Tuesday, August 5th Baxter and Steve.
The Stock Issues of Debate 5 Things Every Debater Needs, and Needs to Know!
Week 1. Q. From where did LD debate come? Q. Where policy debate involves federal policy, what does LD involve? Q. LD involves which civilization?
Opposition Strategy NCFA Rookie Debate Camp. Agenda ❖ A Brief Word on Trichotomy ❖ Basic Path to Winning ❖ Opposition Strategies by Position* ❖ Quick.
Theory Debating Baxter MDAW  It Really is  There are 4 Components of a Theory Argument  Interp  Violation  Standards  Voting Issue  You.
The Disadvantage Provides an added measure to vote against the affirmative plan and vote for the present system.
Advanced Debate Friday, August 21,  Speaking Drills  Counterplans  Work on cases  Exam 1: Next Friday Preview.
Getting Started in CX Debate Julian Erdmann. What is CX debate? Team debate made up by two students from the same school. They will defend either Affirmative.
Going Negative The Surveillance Topic. Outline for the topic I. Categories of neg ground -Go over the specific arguments we have II. Dealing.
Policy Debate THISPAD.
Debating the case.
Affirmative Strategy Austin Layton. Overview At least, take two things from this lecture Main Advantage of Being Aff: Familiarity – Preparation Matters.
Debate The Essentials Ariail, Robert. “Let the Debates Begin.” 18 Aug orig. published in The State, South Carolina. 26 Sept
Judging Policy Debate Rich Edwards Baylor University July 2013.
Intro to Counterplans Casey Parsons. Introduction to Counterplans Thus far in debate, we have assumed that the neg defends the status quo In the vast.
SCFI 2011 SJK. Understand how to structure and write basic LD constructives Understand the basic components of contention-level argumentation Begin to.
TOPICALITY DALLAS URBAN DEBATE ALLIANCE DEBATE CENTER SMU
 4 th stock issue  Significance means that the issue addressed by the Affirmative team is a major force affecting a large group.  The penalty for not.
Counterplans. Counterplan Burdens Competitiveness To be competitive, CP must be: – Mutually exclusive – Net beneficial Topicality – Traditional theory.
POLICY DEBATE. WHAT IS POLICY DEBATE? A structured format for fairly arguing a topic of policy TEAM DEBATE: two teams of two students each 8 speeches.
Judging Policy Debate Rich Edwards & Russell Kirkscey June 2015.
Beginning Policy Debate: I ain’t scared ! NSDA Nationals 2014 Jane Boyd Grapevine HS, TEXAS.
Hays Watson Head Debate Coach UGA.  It is the counterpoint to the Affirmative – instead of Affirming a particular course of action (i.e. the resolution),
Basic Structure of a Round. a) Before the Round Pre-flowed arguments.
Topicality “That sounds good. That’s a good skill to have.” –Julia Marshall “Naw. Advantages don’t matter when it comes to Topicality.” –Humza Tahir.
Affirmative vs. negative
Topicality.
KRITIKS Melissa Witt.
Policy Debate Speaker Duties
Do Words have Power- Do words have power?
Debate: The Basics.
Negative Strategies.
Policy Analysis in Cross-ex Debate
Debate What is Debate?.
Introduction to Policy Debate
ORDER AND PURPOSE OF POLICY SPEECHES
Informative, Persuasive, and Impromptu Speaking all rolled into one!
Negative Attacks.
Topicality Casey Parsons.
Why Words Matter….
Introduction to the Neg
A Firm Foundation: CX Debate Basics (Part I)
Getting To Know Debate:
Presentation transcript:

Topicality

Our Focus Significance Harms Inherency Topicality Solvency

Our Focus Significance Harms Inherency Solvency

What is Topicality? Topicality is an argument that tests the affirmative’s plan text to determine if it satisfies the terms of the resolution. Topicality is also used to determine which definition is the best for framing the resolution.

Why Do We Need Topicality? If debaters did not agree on one topic to debate, and instead debated anything anybody wanted, it would be difficult for any debater to be prepared. Debating one topic, which is worded through a resolution, prevents the affirmative from running an unlimited number cases. If the affirmative were allowed to run an unlimited number of cases, the negative would not be prepared to debate all of them.

Example Plan: The United States federal government should increase its oil exploration and development of the Outer Continental Shelf. Which is better and why? – Aff’s interpretation of the United States – Neg’s interpretation of the United States

The Resolution Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its nonmilitary exploration and/or development of Earth’s oceans.

Negative Components of Topicality 1.Interpretation – How a word or group of words should be defined. 2.Violation – How the affirmative does not meet the negative’s interpretation. 3.Standards – Why an interpretation is superior to other interpretations and should be used. 4.Voters – Why we should care if an interpretation is superior.

Interpretation Identify and define the word or phrase of the resolution you think the affirmative fails to meet. You can use a dictionary or field specific evidence to provide the definition. – Denotative – dictionary definitions – Connotative – context definitions

Interpretation Types of interpretations: 1.General – Very general in definition. 2.Lists – These will often say what is part of the resolution but does not have the intent to define what is not part of the resolution. What makes a good interpretation? – Topic Specific – Best definitions should be in the context of: 1.Development and exploration 2.Be from a US government agency, economic development group, recipient nation agencies, etc. 3.Context of the specific mechanism the aff is implementing

Violation The explanation of how the affirmative plan fails to meet your interpretation. This is usually accomplished with a one or two se ntence explanation in the debater’s own w ords.

Review from Yesterday… Topicality is a “rule of the game” – Think of it like a disad Interpretation = Uniqueness Violation = Link Standards = Internal Link Voting Issue = Impact – It is a “gateway issue”

Standards The reasons to prefer your interpretation of the resolution over the affirmative’s. Topicality arguments are based on how the negative team views the topic. The reasons to prefer provide an argumentative justification for how the negative views the topic.

Most Important Part of Debate Topicality debates are about competing interpretations – Standards help us make that claim through comparisons of different visions of debate – Often times, this means that the debate is about who has a better vision of debate that ensures competitive equity and information processing Standards are separated into two categories – Education – what framework allows us to learn more – Fairness – what framework allows for equitable chance to win between the affirmative and the negative

Standards Credibility of Source – Denotative definitions Common Person – This is a standard used for dictionary.com and easy- access definitions from common sources Law Dictionary – Considered better because they have an intent to define the parameters of the word or term of art they are dealing with. Agent-Specific – A definition from the USFG agency the aff deals with is beneficial to putting the words of the resolution in context. – Connotative Definitions Blogs – Usually not as good because they do not have an intent to define but it is possible to find quality cards because blogs can be written by experts. Empirics – History shows how the interpretation has been used before giving us context for its use today.

Standards Continued Education Based – Clash – If an aff is not topical we can’t have topic specific clash which is key to a better understanding of the resolution. – Breadth – Our interpretation allows for us to address the resolution with more affs and advantages which increases the number of arguments we learn about. – Depth – Our interpretation narrows the debate down to a core set of arguments allowing us to learn more about specific exploration or development of the ocean. – Out of Round Research – Non-topical affs give negs less incentive to research before rounds because of issues with predictability. – Grammar – A definition may impact the other words of the resolution in such a way it changes the dynamics of the resolution.

Standards Continued Fairness Based – Predictability – This frames most T arguments. If the plan is not predictable, it makes the debate more difficult for the negative because we can’t be prepared for it. – Ground – This is commonly what the negative has lost in terms of DA links, CPs that can be read, and solvency deficits to the aff. It can also give the aff ground that they shouldn’t have. – Limits – Sets how big the topic should be. An interpretation can potentially make any aff topical which stretches the boundaries of the resolution further than they should be. – Bright Line – Used for saying that “X” category is topical, “Y” category is not. This should be used with definitions that clearly define the resolution.

So what part of resolution is most important? Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its non-military exploration and/or development of the Earth’s oceans.

Impact / Voting Issue Explain why this issue should decide the round and why the affirmative should lose. There are two common components: 1. Ground/Education Explain why you have lost key ground in the debate round and why the affirmative case would make debate less educational. 2. Jurisdiction/Rule of the Game The negative can claim that being topical is a basic affirmative obligation; if they are not topical they should always lose.

Affirmative answers We meet Counter interpretation Reasons to prefer Topicality is not a voting issue

Aff Response 1.We Meet - Explanation of how the aff meets the negative’s interpretation. 2.Counter Interpretation – A different way of defining the contended word or words. 3.Reasons to Prefer– 1.First, provide a set of standards that prove your interpretation is better. 2.Second, respond to their standards and explain why their standards are inferior or your interpretation upholds their standards better. 4.Not a Voter – Reasons why there is no abuse in the round.

Framing the Debate Competing Interpretations (Neg) – Looks at topicality as an offense-defense debate – Aff may be topical under their “reasonable” interpretation but not under the neg’s interpretation. Reasonability (Aff) – All or nothing for the aff – If the aff allows for competitiveness in the round, that’s good enough. Literature checks clash checks substantially checks

So what part of resolution is most important? Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its non-military exploration and/or development of the Earth’s oceans.

1NC – Topicality Violation for “Its”

2AC – Topicality “Its”

1NC – Topicality Violation for “Development”

2AC – Topicality “Development”

A precise definition is important Predictable debates Education about a relevant topic Resnik, 1 – Assistant Professor of Political Science at Yeshiva University (Evan, Journal of International Affairs, “Defining Engagement” v54, n2, political science complete) In matters of national security, establishing a clear definition of terms is a precondition for effective policymaking. Decisionmakers who invoke critical terms in an erratic, ad hoc fashion risk alienating their constituencies. They also risk exacerbating misperceptions and hostility among those the policies target. Scholars who commit the same error undercut their ability to conduct valuable empirical research. Hence, if scholars and policymakers fail rigorously to define "engagement," they undermine the ability to build an effective foreign policy.

Ocean Exploration Need to talk about – Its – Extraction