Topicality

1. Topicality Everyone’s ‘Favorite’ Debate!

2. A. Definition Define the word (or phrase) the Affirmative is not topical under.

3. B. Violation Explain why the Affirmative is not topical.

4. C. Standards (Neg) • Logical Standards: Eliminating vagueness • Bright Line: Definition is better because it draws a clear distinction between what is topical and what is not whereas aff definition is vague. • Framer’s Intent: Definition is better because it more accurately represents what the framers of the resolution had intended. • Grammatical Context: Definition is better because it fits into the resolution and still works. • Common Person: Neg interpretation uses a more common, widely accepted definition. Aff definition is obscure and rarely used. • Empirical Examples: Definition is better because it uses examples to show what is topical and what is not. • Fairness and Education Standards: Producing the best debates • Education: Definition is better because it allows both sides to gain a greater education of the issues at hand. • Fair Limits/Predictability/Ground: The negative team’s interpretation of the resolution restricts the number of cases that fall within the topic. It’s more fair, feasible, and educational when we know what to expect. NEG Definition is better because it fairly limits both teams to an acceptable amount of ground. • Breadth v. Depth: We preserve educational value by having an in-depth debate on core topic issues. It is more educational to read one book than the titles of seven.  • Infinite prep time: The affirmative has had an unlimited amount of prep time to come up with a topical case. A more expansive definition makes it impossible for the NEG to prepare for every case debate.

5. C. Standards(Aff) • We meet: Aff meets the neg definition because (explain why) and is therefore topical. • Lit checks abuse: The negative came prepared with case-specific arguments in anticipation that we would run this case. They would have no reason to research a case that isn’t topical. • Clash checks abuse: We are able to debate this with evidence supporting both sides; the fact that we are able to support these arguments under the resolution proves that we fall under it and are therefore topical. • Education: Having a wider range of cases provides better education for students involved because we learn more about more ideas.

6. D)Voters • Apriori: Judge Topicality first • Stock issues: Topicality is a stock issue of debate; if a case is not topical, you must vote against it. • Fairness: You cannot promote unfair treatment of the neg by the aff by granting them your ballot. • Clash: We could not present effective clash not because of our own lack of skill or preparation but because they presented a case that we had no way of preparing for. • Jurisdiction: It is not within your jurisdiction as judge to vote for a nontopical case. • Education: Debate is supposed to be about education, and we can learn only by being able to debate cases that we can prepare for and argue effectively. You, as the judge, should not vote for a case that impedes education rather than promotes it. • Predictability: Affirmative interpretation forces the negative to debate trivial issues that it is impossible to prepare for. Your ballot should support only those cases that the neg can predict and prepare for. • Competing Interp/Equity

7. SPEC : AKA Specification • ASPEC: Agent Specification: The Affirmative does not specify their agent of action • ISPEC: Inherency Specification: The Affirmative does not specify their inherent barrier • OSPEC: Over Specification: The Affirmative over specifies the resolution = unfairness