8/4/2019 Topicality Standards and Voters

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/topicality-standards-and-voters 1/4

Topicality is a stock issue in policy debate which pertains to whetheror not the plan affirms the resolution as worded. To contest thetopicality of the affirmative, the negative interprets a word or words inthe resolution and argues that the affirmative does not meet thatdefinition, that the interpretation is preferable, and that non-topicality

should be a voting issue.

 The issue of topicality has also been raised in relations to counterplans with judges and debaters arguing that counterplans either should orshould not be topical.

Structure of a Violation

A topicality violation, as presented in the 1NC, is generally as follows:

• Interpretation - Interpretation of a word or words in the resolution, often

supported by evidence. Evidence to support an interpretation can come from virtually

any source (dictionary, legal dictionary, academic paper, laws, court rulings, etc.) andemphasis is placed on both the desirability of the interpretation and the quality of the

evidence which supports the interpretation.

• Violation - Reason(s) why the plan does not meet the interpretation.

• Standards - Reason(s) why the interpretation is superior.• Voting Issue - Reason(s) why the judge should vote negative if the plan does not

meet the interpretation.

Commonly used Standards

Predictable limits

Limits are a measure of how many cases would be topical under agiven interpretation of the topic and whether that cleavage of cases ispredictable. Teams will often debate the desirability of having a smallor large number of topical cases.

Ground

Ground is a measure of the quantity and quality of arguments andliterature available to both teams under a certain interpretation of thetopic. Teams will often debate the desirability of incorporating orexcluding certain arguments.

Bright line

8/4/2019 Topicality Standards and Voters

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/topicality-standards-and-voters 2/4

Brightline (sometimes called precision) is a measure of how clear thedivision is between topical and non-topical cases under a certaininterpretation.

Grammar

Grammar is a measure of how grammatically correct an interpretationis. Some teams argue that grammar is key to the predictability of aninterpretation.

Education

An Education standard asserts that the negative's interpretation of theresolution focuses the debate down to the most important area(s) forlearning. This involves explaining why the topics and discussionspreserved by the negative's interpretation are more important to the

affirmative case and cases under the counterinterpretation.

Effects (FX) Topicality

Effects topicality alleges that the Affirmative team is not topical in itsdirect mandate(s) or intent, but only arrives at alleviating the Harmsintroduced by the Affirmative team typically associated with the topicthrough a variety of internal links. An example might be a case under atopic about limiting the use or stockpiling of weapons of massdestruction that declares war on North Korea or Iran. The Negativeteam would argue that such a case would only possibly be topical if it

could be proven beyond a doubt not only that Iran or North Korea hadweapons of mass destruction but also if such a war did not increaseglobal proliferation pressures or involve the eventual use of weaponsof mass destruction or did not lead to looting of such stockpiles, allvery tendentious assumptions.Negative teams will typically argue that such plans drastically abusethe resolution (i.e. allow too wide of a variety of cases to be run). Anycase or plan could fall under the topic if enough causal links areallowed, and in running a Topicality attack, the Negative team statestopicality should be decided based on a strict reading of theAffirmative plan text (whether or not it takes the stock issue of solvency into account). Affirmative teams will either argue that theyare not effectual, that the plan's mandate directly falls under the rubricof the topic (though they may continue to claim remote advantagesnot typically associated with topical cases), or that effects topicality isacceptable.

Extra Topicality

8/4/2019 Topicality Standards and Voters

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/topicality-standards-and-voters 3/4

Extra Topicality is sometimes run in conjunction with FX, sometimesseparately. The argument is that the Affirmative plan includes "planks"or components that are not topical. For example, a plan under anenergy-conservation topic might both sign the Kyoto Protocol andincrease general science funding across the board, obviously including

energy conservation. Such a plan might then argue for environmental,economic or military benefits separate from anything having to do withenergy conservation. A Negative team would argue that this would beextra-topical because the plan is acting in areas that are outside theboundaries of the resolution (therefore, "extra"-topicality). Eitherseriously or as an example, sometimes Negatives running against FXand Extra cases will run counterplans that they argue would be thetruly topical version of the Affirmative plan: For example, the Negativein the above case could run a counterplan wherein they only signKyoto. Negative teams will argue that the whole plan's mandate mustbe topical, as otherwise every Affirmative could run a different

permutation of topical and non-topical components and make the topicliterally unlimited. Affirmative teams will either argue that Extra Topicality is legitimate or, much more frequently, that all componentsof their plan are in fact topical. A plan can arguably be extra-topical,not topical and FX-topical all at once: Its arguably topical plank mayboth not be topical no matter the causal links and rely on causal linksto get to its arguable topicality, as well as having non-topical planks. The "extra" in "extra-topicality" is used to mean "outside" (i.e."extraterrestrials") and not to mean "extremely."

Commonly asserted voting issues

Competing Interpretations

Under the competing interpretations framework, if the negativepresents a better interpretation than the affirmative's (which theaffirmative does not meet), the negative wins. In other words, theaffirmative's burden is to meet the best interpretation in the round. The usual affirmative answer is "reasonability", that is, that if theaffirmative meets a good definition of the topic, the affirmative winsthe debate, even if it isn't the best definition of the topic. In other

words, the affirmative's burden is to meet some interpretation in theround that is sufficiently good.

Fairness

Some teams argue that it is unfair for the negative to have to debate anon-topical case and thus the judge should vote against one. Thisvoting issue is sometimes referred to as "competitive equity."

8/4/2019 Topicality Standards and Voters

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/topicality-standards-and-voters 4/4

Education

Some Negative teams argue that non-topical cases decrease theeducational factor of a round. This is true. However, it should notconstitute a real argument in and of itself; simply because the

Affirmative team's plan is not the best provides no reason for the judgeto vote against the Affirmative team.

 Jurisdiction

Some teams argue that the judge only has the jurisdiction to vote forcases which affirm the resolution. This justification has largely fallenout of favor in collegiate debate after the 2001-2002 Native Americans topic led to large numbers of kritiks about how it was the issue andmindset of jurisdiction that destroyed Native American culture.

Affirmative answers to Topicality

Affirmatives can deploy a variety of answers to topicality violations inthe 2AC. They can be generally categorized as follows:

• We Meet - The affirmative can argue that their case meets the negative's

interpretation of the resolution

• Counter-interpretation - The affirmative can offer a different interpretation of 

the word or words that the negative defined. The affirmative will usually argue thattheir interpretation is superior using the same standards outlined above, they can

either use the standards that the negative used or present counterstandards.• Non-voter - The affirmative can argue that the judge shouldn't vote negative evenif they don't meet the negative's interpretation. This argument may be phrased as

"reasonability", that the judge should accept the affirmative's case if it meets a

reasonable interpretation of the resolution.

• Kritik - The affirmative can make kritical arguments as to why topicality is an

unnecessary and oppressive burden placed upon the affirmative.

• Reverse Voting Issue (RVI) - The affirmative can claim that the topicalityargument offered by the negative is abusive in its own right and justifies an

affirmative ballot. Few judges find this argument persuasive