Topicality
What is Topicality?
Topicality (T) is an argument debating whether or not the affirmative’s plan follows the resolution. The negative team can use this argument to prove that the affirmative's plan promotes definitions of words in the resolution are incorrect or not good enough. If the negative proves that their definitions are better and that the affirmative doesn't meet those definitions with their plan, the negative proves that the affirmative has failed to uphold the resolution which is their only job. How embarrassing.
This is a stock issue, which means that this argument is incredibly important. If the negative wins this argument, then it doesn't matter if they're losing extremely badly as far as the actual plan is concerned; they win the entire debate.
✪ REVIEW
A resolution is a firm decision to do or not do something. This is the topic which you are debating.
A plan text is a statement of what the affirmative team does in order to support the resolution.
This is a stock issue, which means that this argument is incredibly important. If the negative wins this argument, then it doesn't matter if they're losing extremely badly as far as the actual plan is concerned; they win the entire debate.
✪ REVIEW
A resolution is a firm decision to do or not do something. This is the topic which you are debating.
A plan text is a statement of what the affirmative team does in order to support the resolution.
Parts of Topicality
Example of a Topicality shell
|
There are four parts to a topicality argument:
1. Interpretation: This is the negative team’s definition of a word in the resolution. Definitions can come from dictionaries, legal dictionaries, laws, academic papers, court rulings, etc. 2. Violation: This is an explanation as to why the affirmative team’s plan doesn’t meet the interpretation/definition that the negative team provides. 3. Standards: These are values of the negative team that they maintain through their interpretation. Usually, these are reasons why the negative team's definition is better, or the advantages that we get out of using the negative team's definition. 4. Voter: All this does is say that this is a voting issue, meaning that it's a reason for the other team to lose. |
Standards
You can think of topicality standards as impacts. While your case might have an extinction impact, your topicality argument might have an education standard, which is essentially an impact to topicality. You'll always run multiple standards, because they are all closely related. (For example, you might have a predictability impact. But not being predictable might also hurt fairness.)
Here are some commonly used standards:
Predictability - The negative team will argue that because the affirmative doesn't meet their interpretation, they are an unpredictable case. The negative uses the resolution as a starting point for their research. If the affirmative is outside of the resolution, there is a very slim chance that the negative has answers to their case. It's important to be predictable, because it ensures that we get education on the resolution and that the negative team can adequately answer their case and have a chance of winning the round.
Limits - The negative team will argue that there should be a limit on the number of cases that are topical under the resolution. This goes hand-in-hand with predictability, because if the topic isn't limited, then the negative won't possibly be able to research every single thing about the resolution and the affirmative could always pick some obscure thing vaguely related to the resolution for their plan. This is also important for in-round education, because without limits, we will never be able to get an in-depth understanding on any one thing because the topic is much too big.
Ground - This is a measure of the quantity of quality of arguments that are available to both teams. In an ideal world, both affirmative and negative teams would have the same amount of good arguments that they can use in every round. The negative team will argue that the affirmative's interpretation takes away specific arguments that the negative should be able to run (such as super generic disadvantages and counterplans).
Fairness - This is a standard you would read in conjunction with one or any combination of the standards mentioned above.The argument is that because the affirmative is unpredictable, explodes limits, and/or destroys ground, this makes it unfair because the affirmative team will always have a greater chance of winning the round.
Education - This is a standard you would read in conjunction with one or any combination of the standards mentioned above. The argument is that because the affirmative is unpredictable, explodes limits, destroys ground, and/or is unfair, the education we get in the round is lost.
Here are some commonly used standards:
Predictability - The negative team will argue that because the affirmative doesn't meet their interpretation, they are an unpredictable case. The negative uses the resolution as a starting point for their research. If the affirmative is outside of the resolution, there is a very slim chance that the negative has answers to their case. It's important to be predictable, because it ensures that we get education on the resolution and that the negative team can adequately answer their case and have a chance of winning the round.
Limits - The negative team will argue that there should be a limit on the number of cases that are topical under the resolution. This goes hand-in-hand with predictability, because if the topic isn't limited, then the negative won't possibly be able to research every single thing about the resolution and the affirmative could always pick some obscure thing vaguely related to the resolution for their plan. This is also important for in-round education, because without limits, we will never be able to get an in-depth understanding on any one thing because the topic is much too big.
Ground - This is a measure of the quantity of quality of arguments that are available to both teams. In an ideal world, both affirmative and negative teams would have the same amount of good arguments that they can use in every round. The negative team will argue that the affirmative's interpretation takes away specific arguments that the negative should be able to run (such as super generic disadvantages and counterplans).
Fairness - This is a standard you would read in conjunction with one or any combination of the standards mentioned above.The argument is that because the affirmative is unpredictable, explodes limits, and/or destroys ground, this makes it unfair because the affirmative team will always have a greater chance of winning the round.
Education - This is a standard you would read in conjunction with one or any combination of the standards mentioned above. The argument is that because the affirmative is unpredictable, explodes limits, destroys ground, and/or is unfair, the education we get in the round is lost.
How to Answer Topicality
Here are seven easy steps to use when answering topicality:
1. We Meet
"We meet our opponent's interpretation/definition." Think about it: in simple terms, topicality is defining a word in the resolution and claiming that your plan doesn't fall within that definition. If you can prove that you actually do meet that definition, then the topicality argument goes away.
2. Counter-Interpretation
A counter-interpretation is an alternative definition of the word that your opponents called you out for. This is something that your plan should most definitely meet. This way, if you lose the "we meet" argument, you can argue that you still have a topical plan that is a reasonable extension of the topic.
More often than not, the affirmative team vouches for a broader definition that is inclusive of more affirmative cases. For example, the 2014-2015 high school policy resolution focused on ocean development. Let's say that I'm affirmative and my plan was about aquaculture (fish farming). The negative team may say ocean development is ONLY extraction of resources, such as minerals and oil. That definition of ocean development does not include aquaculture at all; what does fish farming have to do with mining oil in the sea? So in response, I would offer a broader definition of ocean development, such as "a state of creation," that considers my plan to be topical.
3. Prefer our definition.
This is where you compare your definition with your opponents' definition. This can be done by comparing authors and their credibility, recency, the type of definition it is (for example, a definition from a legal dictionary versus one from a regular dictionary), etc.
4. Answer the Limits DA.
As stated in the previous section explaining standards, the negative team's Limits argument will go something along the lines of, "We need to limit what the affirmative can talk about so that the negative team can anticipate these arguments for there to be a debate in the first place." Remember how we discussed that negative interpretations are purposefully limiting? Here, you should point out how they overlimit the topic.
Let's revisit our earlier discussion regarding the definition of "ocean development." If all debates were about mining for minerals and oil in the ocean, how much do we as students learn about ocean development as a whole? Probably not very much. And so, in this case, the affirmative could easily say that the negative team excludes cases that should be discussed, even though they might not be about resource extraction.
You also will want to mention that your interpretation doesn't explode limits, but rather gives the affirmative team flexibility to be creative with their arguments to ensure that we are always learning something new rather than having the same boring debate over and over again.
5. Answer the Ground DA.
As stated in the previous section explaining standards, the negative team's Ground argument will go something along the lines of, "The affirmative's plan is so off-topic, we are unable to run even the most basic arguments." Here, though it may be counter-intuitive, you should list all of the arguments that they could've ran (and in some cases, the arguments that they did run). Your answer should go along the lines of: "They still have plenty of ground -- we still link into (list possible disadvantages they could've read here) and (list possible kritiks they could've read here)."
6. Predictability
Predictability is just an argument claiming that your plan is predictable, that the negative team should've been able to anticipate this case and prepare for it. Maybe if your affirmative was about how you plan to adopt all the puppies in the world, there'd be an issue if you're supposed to be talking about ocean development (and really, who can argue against puppies?). But if you're talking about fish farming, it's very likely that a negative team preparing for topics about the ocean should have at least seen it coming.
7. Reasonability
This argument is the perfect concluding statement to your topicality answer. Simple and sweet, you can state (word for word, if you do so please): "Our affirmative is a reasonable extension of the topic because, as we have previously proven, our case doesn't explode limits and it gives the negative sufficient ground." The idea is, even if you don't meet their definition perfectly, you don't have to. All you have to prove is that your affirmative provides for a fair debate and that you're talking about the topic in a constructive, educational way. After all, that's why we debate in the first place, right?
1. We Meet
"We meet our opponent's interpretation/definition." Think about it: in simple terms, topicality is defining a word in the resolution and claiming that your plan doesn't fall within that definition. If you can prove that you actually do meet that definition, then the topicality argument goes away.
2. Counter-Interpretation
A counter-interpretation is an alternative definition of the word that your opponents called you out for. This is something that your plan should most definitely meet. This way, if you lose the "we meet" argument, you can argue that you still have a topical plan that is a reasonable extension of the topic.
More often than not, the affirmative team vouches for a broader definition that is inclusive of more affirmative cases. For example, the 2014-2015 high school policy resolution focused on ocean development. Let's say that I'm affirmative and my plan was about aquaculture (fish farming). The negative team may say ocean development is ONLY extraction of resources, such as minerals and oil. That definition of ocean development does not include aquaculture at all; what does fish farming have to do with mining oil in the sea? So in response, I would offer a broader definition of ocean development, such as "a state of creation," that considers my plan to be topical.
3. Prefer our definition.
This is where you compare your definition with your opponents' definition. This can be done by comparing authors and their credibility, recency, the type of definition it is (for example, a definition from a legal dictionary versus one from a regular dictionary), etc.
4. Answer the Limits DA.
As stated in the previous section explaining standards, the negative team's Limits argument will go something along the lines of, "We need to limit what the affirmative can talk about so that the negative team can anticipate these arguments for there to be a debate in the first place." Remember how we discussed that negative interpretations are purposefully limiting? Here, you should point out how they overlimit the topic.
Let's revisit our earlier discussion regarding the definition of "ocean development." If all debates were about mining for minerals and oil in the ocean, how much do we as students learn about ocean development as a whole? Probably not very much. And so, in this case, the affirmative could easily say that the negative team excludes cases that should be discussed, even though they might not be about resource extraction.
You also will want to mention that your interpretation doesn't explode limits, but rather gives the affirmative team flexibility to be creative with their arguments to ensure that we are always learning something new rather than having the same boring debate over and over again.
5. Answer the Ground DA.
As stated in the previous section explaining standards, the negative team's Ground argument will go something along the lines of, "The affirmative's plan is so off-topic, we are unable to run even the most basic arguments." Here, though it may be counter-intuitive, you should list all of the arguments that they could've ran (and in some cases, the arguments that they did run). Your answer should go along the lines of: "They still have plenty of ground -- we still link into (list possible disadvantages they could've read here) and (list possible kritiks they could've read here)."
6. Predictability
Predictability is just an argument claiming that your plan is predictable, that the negative team should've been able to anticipate this case and prepare for it. Maybe if your affirmative was about how you plan to adopt all the puppies in the world, there'd be an issue if you're supposed to be talking about ocean development (and really, who can argue against puppies?). But if you're talking about fish farming, it's very likely that a negative team preparing for topics about the ocean should have at least seen it coming.
7. Reasonability
This argument is the perfect concluding statement to your topicality answer. Simple and sweet, you can state (word for word, if you do so please): "Our affirmative is a reasonable extension of the topic because, as we have previously proven, our case doesn't explode limits and it gives the negative sufficient ground." The idea is, even if you don't meet their definition perfectly, you don't have to. All you have to prove is that your affirmative provides for a fair debate and that you're talking about the topic in a constructive, educational way. After all, that's why we debate in the first place, right?
Extras
Callie Chappell, a debater for the University of Michigan, has prepared the following videos on topicality aimed towards novices as part of her Go Fight Win! Novice Debate series.
Topicality: Part 1 -- The Basics
Topicality: Part 2 -- How to Run T
Topicality: Part 3 -- Developing T
Topicality: Part 1 -- The Basics
Topicality: Part 2 -- How to Run T
Topicality: Part 3 -- Developing T
