Topicality

Our Focus

• Significance• Harms• Inherency• Topicality• Solvency

Our Focus

• Significance• Harms• Inherency• Solvency T

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 exploration2. 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 sentence explanation in the debater’s own words.

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 topicResnik, 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