1. Topicality
Casey Parsons

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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