Topicality
•The GOV team must remain on topic so that the round is fair, for instance if the define a word in a weird sense: such as defining ring as a nuclear weapon you should run T because clearly they are defying the round to be skewed in there favor
•Side notes
•• Topicality is a gateway issue. If the affirmative is untopical, nothing else in the round matters.
•• If the affirmative prevails on any one of the four sub-arguments of topicality, they are topical, and the position is moot.
•• Topicality is not an all-or-nothing issue for the negative team
•Organization
•Topicality is classically organized in terms of four sub-arguments. There is an interpretation by the negative of how one or more words in the resolution is to be construed. There is a violation arguing that the affirmative’s case does not fall within this interpretation. There are generally one or more standards given as to why this interpretation is to be preferred over any interpretation given by the affirmative team. Finally, there are voters which connect the offense of being untopical to the loss of the debate round.
•A. Interpretation- state how must would view this word to be interpreted/defined
•B. Counter Definition – Offer the Opposition interpretation of the resolution. Here you explain how you think the term should be defined. Dictionary, Law, Context, etc.
•C. Violation – - How does the Government case violate (is inconsistent with) your definition.
•D. Standards – Why is your definition the best way to understand the resolution.
•E. Voters Reasons for the judge to vote/ prefer the Opp interpretation(some voter can be standards too, just not all of the)
•Example of standards
•i. Dictionary - Dictionary definitions are best because they are accessible to everyone.
•ii. Each word has meaning - This is a good standard to use when the Gov interprets the resolution as something similar but not exactly the same. This standard says that each word must have had meaning in the framing of the resolution, so each word must be met by the government.
•iii. Contextual - Sometimes it is best to look at words in context - like “universal health care” or “weapons of mass destruction.”
•iv. Field specific - This is similar to context, but even more specific. For example, forensics means something different in medicine than in communication studies. Also term of art.
•v. Framers intent - This indicates that the opp interpretation is the most consistent with the intended interpretation of the framers.
•vi. Bright-line - This interpretation provides the best way to determine between topical and non-topical plans, i.e. a “bright line” in the sand.
•vii. Grammar - Sometimes people forget what are adjectives and verbs and how they should be defined differently. It’s nice to remind them.
•iii. Phrases draw distinctions – Sometimes phrases mean something different when read together than separately. A warm german shepherd is not a hot dog.
F. Main Voting Issue – Why should the aff lose on topicality/Why is topicality important?
•i. Fairness - Non-topical plans attempt to subvert the rules by misinterpreting the resolution, which isn’t fair.
•ii. Ground - Non-topical plans stray outside the ground of the resolution reserved for the opp.
•iii. Jurisdiction - The judge is offered two options - for and against the resolution. If the plan is outside of the jurisdiction of the resolution, the judge cannot cast a vote for the government
•iv. Education - Running a non-topical case decreases education by seeking competitive gain over fair competition. If we don’t talk about the issue the resolution dictates, that decreases education on the issue and leads to technical discussions (like this) that don’t really increase education.