Topicality

1. Topicality Matt Bevens

2. 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.

3. Example • Plan: The United States federal government should remove all tariffs on trade with Cuba. • Which is better and why? • Aff’s interpretation of the United States • Neg’s interpretation of the United States

4. Why Read Topicality? • #Winning – It is an a priori issue meaning it comes first in the round. If you win T, you win the debate. • Generate Links – Topicality can be used to get links for disadvantages or for solvency deficits. (i.e Spending DA and Substantially) • Time Suck – If done right, T takes the 1NC significantly less time to read than it takes the 2AC to respond. • Prevent Cheap 2AC tricks – Affs will be less willing to pull a 2AC trick to spike out of a DA or make a CP uncompetitive. Don’t want to prove abuse. • Last Play Hail Mary Pass – You’re down by 6 with 50 yards to go and it’s the last play of the game. You don’t want to go for T but it’s the only option you have.

5. Negative Components of Topicality • Interpretation – How a word or group of words should be defined. • Violation – How the affirmative does not meet the negative’s interpretation. • Standards – Why an interpretation is superior to other interpretations and should be used. • Voters – Why we should care if an interpretation is superior.

6. Interpretation/Violation • Types of interpretations: • General – Very general in definition. • 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: • Latin America, Cuba, Venezuela, or Mexico • Be from a US government agency, economic development group, recipient nation agencies, etc. • Context of the specific mechanism the aff is implementing • Violation: Reason(s) why the aff doesn’t meet your interpretation.

7. Standards • Credibility of Source • 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. • 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.

8. 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 engagements with Mexico, Cuba or Venezuela • 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.

9. 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.

10. Voters • Education: • Can be more nuanced • Topic Specific Education • Issue Specific Education • Non-Resolutional Education (Prevent Stale Debates) • There needs to be an explanation of why your type of education outweighs all other forms of education.

11. Voters • Fairness • Why do we debate? • To just play the game? To lose? To learn? • How should we define what is and isn’t fair? • Who should determine what is and isn’t fair?

12. Voters • Jurisdiction • Perfect for parents! • Just says the judge does not have the authority to vote for a non-topical aff. • Voter at NFL • Hammer it home. It’s in the rule book.

13. Aff Response • We Meet - Explanation of how the aff meets the negative’s interpretation. • Counter Interpretation – A different way of defining the contended word or words. • We Meet our Interpretation – It’s always good to meet your own interpretation. • Counter Standards – First, provide a set of standards that prove your interpretation is better. Second, respond to their standards and explain why their standards are inferior or your interpretation upholds their standards better. • Not a Voter – Reasons why there is no abuse in the round.

14. 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. • Lit checks, clash checks, substantially checks, debate camps check

15. Example T Shells

17. Two Types of Topicality • Effects T • The affirmative takes a non-topical step to reach a topical endpoint. • Why is that bad? • Extra T • The affirmative prevents a topical plan but adds a clause that is not part of the resolution • i.e. The USFG should sign a free trade agreement with Mexico and build a death star. • Why is that bad?

18. Economic Engagement • Long Lists – These exist in different forms. The list will either only provide what is part of economic engagement OR it will provide what is and is not economic engagement. • Quid-Pro-Quo – I will give you/do for you “X” if you give me/do for me “Y” • Implications: • Bidirectional – If we require quid-pro-quo then we give aid but a country may say no causing a backlash reducing economic engagement. • Limits – Negs can work to limit affsto a certain aspect of the literature base.

19. Questions?