1 / 22

Topicality

Topicality. A guide to preventing affirmative shenanigans. Part I. Topicality Basics. What Is Topicality?. Topicality is a test for determining whether or not an affirmative plan falls under the broader resolution This year, the resolution is:

laszlo
Download Presentation

Topicality

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Topicality A guide to preventing affirmative shenanigans

  2. Part I Topicality Basics

  3. What Is Topicality? • Topicality is a test for determining whether or not an affirmative plan falls under the broader resolution • This year, the resolution is: • Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic engagement toward Cuba, Mexico or Venezuela. • If a plan is topical, it falls under the topic listed above, and is an example of the resolution • Example: Lifting the Cuban Embargo • If a plan is not topical, it will be unrelated to or only tangentially related to the resolution • Example: Trade with Brazil

  4. The Structure of Topicality (Neg) • A. Interpretation • The interpretation defines the word (or words) in the topic that the affirmative violates, using carded evidence • B. Violation • The violation explains how the affirmative plan falls outside of the definition(s) laid out in the interpretation • C. Standards • Standards are reasons to prefer your interpretation • Common negative standards include limits, ground, and predictability • D. Voters • Voters are reasons that the affirmative team should be rejected

  5. The Structure of Topicality (AFF) • A. We Meet • The “We Meet” argues that the affirmative plan is topical under the negative’s interpretation of the resolution • B. Counter-Interpretation • The affirmative redefines the words that the negative defined in the 1NC violation • C. We Meet the Counter-Interpretation • The affirmative explains how their plan falls under their counter-interpretation • D. Standards • See above • Common affirmative standards include ground and education • E. Not a Voter • Explain why topicality should not be a voting issue

  6. Special Types of Topicality • Extra-Topicality • Part of the plan is topical, but the plan also includes other, non-topical components • Example: Lift the Cuba embargo and have peace talks with North Korea • Unfair because affirmative teams can claim advantages from actions that have nothing to do with the resolution • Effects-Topicality • The result of the plan is a topical action, but the plan itself is not topical • Example: Remove Venezuela from the Terror Watch List • Unfair because there are nearly infinite actions that could eventually result in the goal of the resolution

  7. Why Does Topicality Matter? • In Debate • Non-topical cases are annoying • Requires more research time • Skews the debate to one side • In the Real World • Legal procedural rules matter • http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/26/tech/social-media/texas-filibuster-twitter/index.html

  8. Part II Debating Topicality

  9. Tip #1: Stay Organized • Basic Format • Short overview on top explaining the interpretation and violation, your best standards, and why the impacts to those standards outweigh • Then, answer the affirmative arguments specifically • Think of topicality like a disadvantage • Alternative Format • Forgo the overview and embed your argument extensions in the line-by-line • For example, do your “impact calc” during the standards debate

  10. Tip #2: Do Evidence Comparison • Source Qualifications • What are the qualifications of the author? • Are the qualifications relevant to the question at hand? • How predictable is a definition to a given source? • Intent to Define • Is the author defining a word, or just using it? • If they are defining it, what are they defining it for? • Topicality evidence is often cut out of context • Especially true with “substantial” debates

  11. Example:

  12. Tip #3: Do Impact Calculus • Fairness vs. Education • Types of Education • Research, critical thinking, advocacy skills, etc. • Breadth vs. Depth • Possible Comparisons • Real world importance • How important are certain types of education (or fairness) in the real world? • Necessity of debate • Is debate necessary to teach the skill? • Implications for other impacts • How does a lack of fairness effect education?

  13. Tip #4: Frame The Debate • Competing Interpretations • The debate should be won by the team that has the best interpretation of the topic, which is determined by the standards • It’s the only objective way to determine the debate • Reasonability • The debate should be won by the affirmative as long as their interpretation of the topic is a reasonable one, even if it isn’t the BEST one • Reasonability is way more persuasive if you define what it means to be “reasonable”

  14. Tip #5: Pick and Choose Arguments • Standards = Advantages • Think of each standard as an “advantage” to your interpretation • You don’t have to win all of your advantages to win a debate • Same with topicality standards—just pick the BEST one and compare it to the other team’s standards

  15. Tip #6: Know Your Judge • Smelko Effect • Smelko hates topicality, and he’s not the only one • Even judges who don’t hate T are hesitant to vote on it • Perceived as a “cheap shot” • Truth is Key • If an affirmative seems un-topical on face, judges are far more likely to vote against it • Especially true at the beginning and end of the season

  16. Part III Topicality This Year

  17. Economic Engagement • Types of Economic Engagement • Trade, finance, etc. • System of incentives • Not cultural, political, or military • Positive vs. Negative • Possible that one could engage “negatively” • “Engagement is positive” evidence is okay • Conditional vs. Unconditional • Economic engagement is probably both • T-QPQ is a bad argument

  18. ITS • Direct Engagement • “Its economic engagement” refers to the United States federal government • Third Party Engagement • Some evidence suggests that “U.S. engagement” can go through a third party • This is probably extra-topical

  19. Toward • Highly Broad • Means “in the direction of” • Much less limiting than “to” or “for” • Uncertainty • Including “toward” in the resolution provides additional support for affirmatives that give conditional aid • Third Parties • NGOs, internal groups, etc. all can be included “towards” one of the topic countries • Engagement doesn’t necessarily have to be with the government of the country

  20. Cuba, Venezuela, OR MExico • Who is the target of our aid? • Governments • Cuba, Mexico, and Venezuela = Governments • Groups and/or the People • Cuba, Mexico, and Venezuela = People/Groups • Critical affirmatives could potentially go this route • Likely these affirmatives will be read at some point

  21. Limiting the Topic • Option 1: Mechanism • The plan itself must be economic engagement • Problem: Limits out incentives for economic engagement, which is the core of the literature • Option 2: Goal • Goal of the plan must be economic engagement • Problem: Too broad, and allows for effects topicality • Option 3: Target • Must be government to government • Problem: No Venezuela affirmatives

  22. THE END

More Related