Topicality Lecture
You should view topicality as an argument that you can win debate rounds on, not something that is an
afterthought or something that is merely a throw away argument. This is an argument that can be
quickly deployed and lead to a great time trade-off in the debate, and can also devastate an affirmative
if there is an argument that is dropped. It’s the silver bullet of a debate – one mistake by the affirmative
and it is deadly. Topicality to a large extent, is about what each interpretation justifies. More
importantly, however, topicality is about the quality of the debate that each interpretation ensures.
Topicality is an important debate to have great technical skills. This is a debate argument that requires
that debaters keep an impeccable flow. The line by line on this flow is one of the most important places
to have great line by line.
Part One : The four basic ingredients that make a T debate happen are:
1.
The resolution – every word of the resolution has a meaning to it, and it also has phrases within
the resolution that can alter the way in which we interpret the resolution. Depending on the
way in which we interpret the resolution will determine the course of what direction the topic
should go in. It will either lead to better debates on the topic or it will lead to poor debates.
And this is the crux of all topicality discussions – whose interpretations enables for a better,
more productive and educational debate.
2. The plan – the plan text is certainly essential for developing a topicality argument. The wording
of a plan text can be tricky, and every time that a new plan text is made, affirmatives must keep
in mind the wording and how it will affect them on issues like topicality. It is important to stem
all topicality violations off of the plan text – it’s the easiest way to evaluate the debate and make
it less arbitrary than it already is.
3. Negative interpretations – without the right interpretation in a debate the argument is a non
starter from the get go. Negatives must really put a lot of effort into strategic thinking of their
violation after careful consideration of the plan text.
4. Reasons to prefer – this is where the majority of the topicality debates reside today. Sadly, the
majority of individuals use buzz words in this area and do not do a lot of warranted explanations
of what these words mean or how a judge should evaluate topicality.
Part Two: How should you debate topicality?
Many debaters lack the strategic thinking necessary to effectively have a good topicality debate. You
should think of topicality in the same context as you do for every other argument in the debate. All
debate arguments have essentially two parts – a link and an impact. In this case the link is the
interpretation and the explanation of how the affirmative violates that interpretation. The impact is the
reason to prefer the negative interpretation and defense of topicality as a voting issue. On the
standards debate, topicality can become a debate about the impact of including the affirmative. Just
like every other argument, if you cannot win the link and the impact then you cannot win the argument.
Part Three: Why does topicality matter?
If the affirmative isn’t held to the standard of defending an example of the resolution, then the two
basic aspects of debate – the reasons why we enjoy it so much and what makes it intellectual and
scholarly, are undermined, if not lost altogether.
1. The first reason is Education – a lot of standards listed in a T debate will revolve around
education. The academic benefits of debate – research skills, critical analysis of persuasion,
comprehensive learning about a particular subject – require that affirmatives defend the
resolution.
2. Gaming – the competitive component of debate – fairness, interest – what makes one want
to keep debating and coming back, require that the affirmative play in a way that is
somewhat predictably constrained by the resolution.
3. Everything else that you hear on these debates is a derivative of one of those. For example
– division of ground.
Part Four: Why you should run Topicality?
Again it’s a quick argument to deploy in the 1nc –but it needs to be comprehensible and easy to
understand. If you make your interpretation complicated and thus requires a lot of time to explain – the
chances of you being able to win the round on that argument are a lot harder than if you had simplified
the argument from the get go.
In terms of debate, topicality is important because defining words is what we like to do, and is what we
know how to do. It sets up unique discussions of what we believe the sentence of the resolution means.
Debate is the only arena that this type of discussion occurs. We like to talk about what will be and not
be included in these debates. Figuring out what the topic means is essential in understanding the topic.
Part Five: How you should run topicality
1. Refer back to the basic ingredients of T.
2. The shell
a. The negative interpretation
b. The violation
c. Reasons to prefer the negative and to reject the affirmative
d. Voting issues as warranted by the reasons to prefer.
3. Debate topicality by examples and analogy. Explain what would be included in your
interpretation and what would be excluded. Here is where you should explain why these
inclusions provide plenty of options for affirmatives and why the exclusions are necessary for
meaningful topic debates throughout the course of the year.
4. Rely on topicality “tests.” The phrase – the topical version of the plan is as follows – should
always be in the block.
5. Minimize the violations and maximize the reasons to prefer the negative interpretation. You
should be able to quickly and succinctly explain your topicality violation and spend a good
amount of time on the reasons to prefer. You should avoid sitting on buzz words and rereading
the arguments from the shell. Instead you should be giving warranted analysis of what those
standards mean and how it shapes future debates and most importantly impacting those
arguments.
6. Avoid repetition – most debaters are incredibly repetitious when it comes to a T debate. If you
feel as though you are repeating yourself or making the same arguments , then it’s a good sign
that you are not impacting your arguments or explaining them beyond buzz words.
7. Read evidence – evidence is your friend. The more evidence that you can read explaining your
interpretation the better. Definitions are complicated and here are a couple of things to
remember when trying to win your interpretation.
a. Field contextual definitions – these are sweet. You should always try to find an author
form within the field who can explain a concept – especially on this year’s topic with
space development and exploration.
b. Definitions that are inclusive and exclusive
c. Term of art phrasing
d. Find limiting terms
8. Bad 2ac answers should equal to good negative opportunities – but you should not take their
arguments lightly, and you should make sure that you debate each of those arguments as if it
were a round winner for them. A poorly answered 2ac can still win a T debate with a cocky
block.
9. Again – T is a line by line debate – be sure to be very meticulous – always ask to see their T
block. Read it carefully and make sure you’ve answered every one of their arguments and
explained why they do not get the job done for them.
10. Make the original violation a complicated and your extensions as simple as possible. The block
should make it very apparent why the affirmative does not meet the interpretation. If its too
complicated and requires a lot of thought as to what you are trying to argue, then it will be
harder for judges to vote for that argument. If you start out complicated that’s fine – but make
sure the block simplifies it within the extensions.
11. Be strategic in allocating time to the violation. Make sure it is obvious why their we meets are
not good – this is also where your discussion of the “topical version of the plan,” should come in
handy.
12. You can go for other arguments in the 2NR – topicality is not always a zero sum game. You will
just have to be sure that your 2NR coverage is adequate and closes doors.
13. Practice extending topicality mini debates. The more debates you have on T the better you will
become, but on the affirmative as well as the negative.
Part Six: Standards Debate
It is important to always develop and impact these arguments. This may sound repetitive by now, but
that is because this is the most important part of the T debate.
Topic becomes huge? So What?
Weapon of the week? So What?
Lose your links to Politics? So What?
Have the bigger impacts – debate is impossible, can’t research, have to remain grounded in the
literature base for productive discussions – these are just the beginning of those arguments – it is your
job to impact them.
Division of Ground – when you debate this standard, you must argue that an interpretation of the
resolution must provide both the affirmative and negative ample opportunity to discuss the issues
surrounding the resolution. You have to explain that the ground that you get is bad ground –and give
examples of what type of ground you have lost, be specific, do not leave this to generics.
Limitation – you must argue that it is better to limit the topic to a small number of cases than a large
number of cases. Limitation best enhances the in-depth nature and quality of discussion of complicated
topics. Its essential for leveling the playing field.
Predictability – you are arguing that the topic serves to limit the range of cases to those that are
predictable via the terms of the topic. This is best served by surrounding yourself with the literature.
Field Context – this one will be important on the topic. I think its necessary to have a definition from
someone within the field as opposed to some random definition from a person who is not qualified.
Brightline – this is good to establish what would and would not be within the parameters of the
resolution. The merit of this arguments has its roots back to fairness but makes it easier to distinguish
what should and should not be T on the topic.
Legal Context – Legal experts spend a lot of time discussing what words and terms mean and the context
from which they should be used. Debaters are called to do this in a very similar way.
Resolutional Context – what the framer’s intent was with the topic. How we discuss or define a word
can either enhance or destroy this context.
Topical version of the affirmative – you are explaining to the judge that even a slight modification of the
case could make the affirmative topical. This hold persuasive value to the judge in that you are not
trying to overlimit the resolution, but merely provide fair ground for the negative.
Precision – you are arguing that having a precise interpretation of the topic is more important than
having an interpretation that provides adequate ground for both teams. Often, an interpretation of the
resolution may provide fair ground for both teams without being precise in some fundamental way.
Better definition Versus Reasonability – many affirmatives will claim their interpretation of the
resolution needs only to be reasonable interpretation of the resolution. This interpretation also gains
insight from the rules of statutory construction, that if two interpretations of a statute exist, one which
would provide each word of the statute with meaning, and one which would leave even a single word in
the statute devoid of meaning, there is a heavy presumption that the interpretation which provides
meaning to each word in the statute is the correct interpretation. Thus, if an affirmative interpretation
risks “writing a work out of the resolution,” it should be considered inaccurate.
Affirmatives will argue that they should only be reasonably topical and that competing interpretations is
bad because if there is an argument as to why they are topical then they should be deemed T – because
after all, they have the right to define the terms since they begin the debate. Negatives will have to win
that judges should vote on the better definition – and if they win that then they should also be winning
their standards.
Answering Topicality
(First the 2AC SHOULD ALWAYS read the violation – do not assume that you understand it, make sure
you have answered effects and extra arguments)
We Meet
Counter interpretation
We Meet to the Counter Interpretation
Reasons to Prefer the Counter Interpretation
Reasons why the negative interpretation is bad – this includes reasonability and competing
interpretations bad.
Other arguments like literature checks, cx checks, etc.
Explanation of why Topicality is not a voter.
Debating the Topic
1AC’s should never immediately defend in CX what side of the resolution they are – ie are they
development or exploration – this sets up for a messy debate.
Space Exploration
And/or
Development
Its
Beyond
Substantially
Debating Effects on this resolution