Topicality
From Debate One World
What Is Topicality?
Debate is about making good policy, and you can't have a good policy unless you know what the key words of the policy mean. Some words are very difficult to define, and there are huge debates about them. How do you define"good"or"bad,"for example? It's easy to understand this concept by thinking about a conversation you might have with your parents. Let's say your parents tell you to be home"at a reasonable hour."When you show up at 2:00 a.m., you get in big trouble."But I was home at a reasonable hour,"you complain."All my friends stay out until 4:00."Your parents are not impressed by this argument."Reasonable means midnight,"they say. How were you supposed to know what reasonable"meant? Topicality deals with arguments about what words mean.
Every year there is a different resolution for high school policy debate. It is the affirmative's job to come up with specific policies (or"plans") that support the general idea of the resolution. What if the affirmative policy is a good idea, but it doesn't support the resolution? For example, the affirmative might argue that every hungry child in America should be fed. This may seem like a good idea, but what if the resolution says we ought to make schools better? The plan is fine, but it doesn't support the resolution. The negative would argue that the affirmative plan is"NOT TOPICAL."This kind of argument can be even more powerful than a disadvantage.
For example, your history teacher asked you to write a paper about the Civil War. You, however, decided to write a paper about the Vietnam War. Your history teacher might very well give you a grade of"F"because that wasn't the assignment. Likewise, the affirmative is assigned to write a case about the topic, and if they don't do that, then they"flunk"or"lose"the debate. But, it isn't usually that simple. You might tell your history teacher that your paper was about why the Vietnam War was like the Civil War and the important lessons one can teach us about the other. Likewise, even affirmative's with cases which don't seem to be about the topic often have a reason why they are topical.
Another way to understand topicality is to think of the topic as a"contract."A professional sports star knows that he or she has to fulfill their contract if they want to get paid. If they violate any part of the contract they may not get paid. The affirmative has to meet every part of the topic, every part of the contract, in order to win. If the negative can show the affirmative did not fulfill some part of the topic, their contract, they could defeat the affirmative.
Arguing About Definitions
Of course, most affirmative plans seem fairly topical at first. However, if you research different definitions for the words in the resolution, it is easy to find definitions that contradict what the affirmative plan does. For example, what if the resolution says we should increase aid to African nations? The affirmative might offer a plan to increase aid to Egypt. Is Egypt an African nation? Many people might say"yes,"since Egypt is on the continent of Africa. Many experts might say"no,"however, because Egyptian culture might be considered"Middle Eastern"instead of"African."There is no right or wrong answer for what a word means, but it is possible to make arguments about which definition is better.
Winning With Topicality
Topicality exists to LIMIT what the affirmative may talk about so the negative can have a reasonable chance to argue against the case. If the affirmative could talk about anything, how could the negative prepare for the debate? The negative argues that topicality is a VOTING ISSUE. In other words, they argue that the affirmative should lose the debate if the negative can prove that the affirmative plan does not support the resolution. You can win the debate by talking about definitions!
Topicality is a very powerful argument because the affirmative can lose the debate on topicality even if they are winning every other argument in the debate! After all, if the plan is not an example of the resolution, then who cares what a great idea it is? The judge would throw out all the affirmative arguments, just like a judge in a courtroom can throw out a case if it is irrelevant. This argument is referred to as"jurisdiction."It means that The judge cannot vote for a non-topical plan because it is not in her jurisdiction.
Making a Topicality Argument
Topicality arguments can be written ahead of time, just like disadvantages. In general"T"arguments have the following format:
A) Definition
Evidence that defines one or more important words in the resolution.
B) Violation
An explanation of why the affirmative plan is not an example of the kind of action described by the resolution. Answers the question"why does the plan violate the negative definition(s)?"
C) Reasons to Prefer the Negative Definition
Arguments about why the negative definition is better for debate than other definitions of the word(s) being contested. If the affirmative offers a different definition, why should The judge prefer the negative definition?
D) Voting Issue
Reasons why the affirmative should lose if the negative wins topicality. The two main reasons are jurisdiction and Debatability.
Jurisdiction means the judge can't vote for the plan if it is not part of the topic . Debatability means that the negative would not have a fair chance in the debate if the affirmative did not have to operate within the limits of the resolution.
Reasons to Prefer the Negative Definition(s)
There are basically two types of arguments negatives use to prove their definitions are the best: Standards and Specific Arguments.
Standards
Standards are very general arguments about definitions. They describe what kinds of definitions -- in general-are best. For example, many negatives argue that definitions that draw a Bright Line are best. This means that the definition makes it clear what is topical and what is not. For example, if I wanted to find a definition of the word"apple,"I would not want a definition that described it as"a fruit."That definition does NOT draw a bright line between apples and all other fruit. I would want a definition that distinguished apples from other kinds of fruit.
There are hundreds of possible standards for definitions.
Specific Arguments
Specific arguments talk about the negative definition in the context of the resolution or the debate round. If the resolution is about computers, for example, I might argue that the word ,.apple"should mean"a specific brand of computer"instead of"a fruit"because the first definition is more specific to the other words in the resolution.
Specific arguments might also include arguments about grammar. For example, some words can be nouns or verbs. A specific topicality argument might discuss the fact that one of the words in the resolution should be defined in a certain way because it is used as a noun and not a verb. Like standards, there are hundreds of possible specific arguments.
Remember: To Win Topicality, the Negative Must Prove
That the Negative Definition(s) are Superior AND That the Affirmative Plan Does Not Meet Those Definitions. Answering Topicality
Don't panic! Just because the negative makes an argument, don't assume that it's true. The truth is that it is very difficult to win topicality on the negative and relatively easy to win topicality on the affirmative. Don't get cocky, though. If you're not careful, topicality can ruin an otherwise successful affirmative round.
Affirmative Topicality Tips
1. Write your plan with an eye to topicality. When you write your affirmative case, you make a series of strategic decisions. Most of these revolve around solving the problem your case identifies. Usually, you try to find the policy that solves the problem the best. Similarly, you should look for a policy that seems to be a clear example of the resolution. Does the plan sound like it takes the kind of action required by the resolution? Write the plan using as many of the words in the resolution as possible.
2. Research the words of the resolution. The negative will research various definitions of the important words in the resolution. The affirmative should do the same thing. Look for definitions that clearly include the kind of action taken by the plan. Failing that, look for the broadest possible definitions.
3. Research"contextual"evidence. Most people believe the function of topicality is to provide a reasonable limit on the number of cases the affirmative can run. If you can find evidence that talks about your policy and the words of the resolution in the same sentence or paragraph, you can read that evidence against topicality violations to make your case sound reasonable.
4. Remember: Advantages don't make you topical. Topicality focuses on what the PLAN does. The fact that your advantages talk about the same things as the resolution is largely irrelevant. Make sure your PLAN is topical.
5. Prepare your topicality answers ahead of time. Anticipate the kinds of topicality arguments the negative is likely to run against you and write out answers and counter-definitions before the tournament.
Common Answers to Topicality
1. Counter-definitions. The negative will read a definition of one of the words in the resolution that makes your plan sound non-topical. It is your job to answer that definition with a"counter-definition": a different definition of the same word that makes your plan sound topical. Once you read a counter-definition, make sure to make additional arguments about why your definition is better than the negative definition.
2. Contextual evidence. Reading evidence from the topic literature that links your plan with the words of the resolution can help make your plan sound reasonable.
3. The"We Meet"answer. Read the negative's definition. Most of the time it isn't as exclusive as they say it is. Try to think of reasons your plan actually"meets"their definition. In other words, think of reasons why the negative's definition actually describes the plan, instead of excluding it.
4. Things that check abuse. Negatives will try to argue that the plan is abusive; they will say that, if the judge allows the plan to be topical, hundreds of other plans will also become topical. This is"abusive"because it puts too much of a burden on the negative to research those hundreds of new plans. The affirmative often argues that other things"check"or prevent this abuse:
A) Literature checks. The affirmative should argue that their plan is reasonable because it is based on evidence found in the topic literature. In other words, the affirmative argues that the judge should not worry too much about topicality because the affirmative case generally concerns itself with the same issues as the resolution.
B) Other words check. The resolution is composed of many different words. The affirmative often argues that, since the plan has to be an example of ALL the different words in the resolution, then violating a single word is not such a big deal. If the plan meets all the words in the resolution except one, for example, then it is still talking about the same general things as the resolution.
C) Solvency checks. The affirmative has to prove that its plan solves the problem identified by the case. On topicality, the affirmative often argues that its definitions could not really add hundreds of new plans to the topic because most of those new plans would not solve any significant problem.
5. Counter-standards. The negative assumes that The judge must use certain standards to decide the issue of topicality. The affirmative should think of its own standards. The most common affirmative counter-standard is"reasonability,"also known as"debatability."The affirmative argues that, as long as the plan is reasonable, the judge should ignore topicality. The affirmative must provide reasons why its plan is reasonable. These reasons might include things like"if the negative has evidence against the case-if the negative can fairly DEBATE the case-then the plan is reasonably topical. The bottom line of reasonability is that it urges the judge not to choose between' two competing definitions. Instead The judge is urged to decide whether or not the plan unfairly harms the negative in the round.
6. Reasons why topicality is NOT a voting issue. Most debater are taught that topicality is an absolute voting issue, which means that the negative can win the entire round just by winning topicality. Not everyone agrees that this is true, however. Here are some common reasons affirmatives give why the judge should not consider topicality:
A) Language is indeterminate. Is there such thing as"the best"definition? Ultimately, the words we use to describe things are not precise. Using an earlier example, what is"a reasonable hour"for a teenager to get home at night? There is no precise answer to this question. Because language is imprecise (or"indeterminate"), many affirmatives argue that it is unfair to base a decision in a round on competing definitions. Besides, meaning is not found in words but in people.
B) Topicality is not"real world."Many topicality arguments are based on the assumption that a debate round is like a courtroom. In a courtroom, a judge can throw out a case if it does not meet certain strict definitions. In such a case, we would say that the judge lacks jurisdiction over the case. Many people believe that debate rounds are more like legislatures than court rooms. In a legislature (such as Congress), representatives are free to debate about anything, as long as it is important. Many affirmatives argue that topicality does not reflect the"real world"requirements of policy-making.
C) Topicality silences important voices. In many cases, important ideas are not heard by policy-makers because they come from people who have unpopular opinions. Policy-makers avoid listening to these important ideas by using obscure rules and procedures. Some affirmatives argue that topicality is just another meaningless procedure which prevents important ideas from being debated. Evidence describing the importance of the plan is helpful in making this claim.
