Debating Topicality - Merrell-2

Concordia Debate Topicality
Merrell Pre-Jewell 2012
***Table of Contents ***
***EXPLANATION*** ......................................................................................................................................................2
Introduction / What is Topicality? ....................................................................................................................................2
Structure of Topicality .....................................................................................................................................................3
How to Win a Topicality Debate ......................................................................................................................................4
What Are Standards? .....................................................................................................................................................5
Topicality Voters .............................................................................................................................................................8
Reasonability ..................................................................................................................................................................9
Extra and FX Topicality .................................................................................................................................................10
AT: Dont Vote on Potential Abuse / RVIs ....................................................................................................................11
Other Arguments / Suggestions ....................................................................................................................................12
***EXAMPLE SHELLS*** ..............................................................................................................................................13

LOC Topicality Shell [Example] ....................................................................................................................................13
MG AT: Topicality [Verbatim] ........................................................................................................................................14
MG AT: SPEC [Verbatim] .............................................................................................................................................15
MG AT: OSPEC [Verbatim] ..........................................................................................................................................16
Most controversies would soon be ended if those engaged in them would first
accurately define their terms and then adhere to their definitions. Tryon Edwards 1
***EXPLANATION***
Introduction / What is Topicality?
We often hear people talk about T as if its just another procedural. Thats how our debate vernacular
has evolved. Unfortunately, it really isnt true. Topicality is fundamentally different than every other
procedural or theory argument, and the best way to start thinking about topicality is to ask, Why?
The purpose of a procedural or theory position, from framework to SPEC to PICs bad is to set the
parameters of the debate and determine how the round should be evaluated by the judge.
- When the affirmative reads framework to answer a kritik, theyre usually arguing that the plans fiated
impacts should take precedence over the rhetorical, methodological, or presentational choices of the
negative team.
- In a _-SPEC debate, the negative team might argue that the affirmative plan should be required to
include an explicit statement describing the particular mechanism that its policy uses.
- In a debate about PICs, the teams argue about whether the negative should be allowed to advocate
for all but a tiny component of the affirmatives plan.
In each case, the arguments seek to determine for the judge what behavior is acceptable from each
team, what should be required of each team, and how the judge should evaluate the round.
Topicality is different. When we debate topicality, we dont really argue about what is required of the
affirmative. Rather, we pretty much take for granted that the affirmative plan is required to justify the
resolution. Sure, people occasionally kritik topicality, but 1) thats not a topicality debate, thats a Kritik of
T debate; 2) thats a bad argument thats easy to answer (just ask Kevin), and 3) well have to wait to get
into that discussion for later if we have time. For now, were going to focus on the topicality argument
proper and explain how it occurs in upwards of 95% of rounds.
Weve established that topicality doesnt serve to determine how the round should function, so what is its
purpose? We all know the answer to that question. Fundamentally, a topicality debate asks two
questions: (1) What is the topic? and (2) Is the affirmative plan a direct justification for that topic? If the
affirmative plan doesnt justify the resolution, the affirmative isnt topical and should lose. Thus, when we
debate about topicality we debate about the meaning of the terms in the resolution, because depending
on how the words in the topic are defined different plans may be required in order to prove the resolution
true.
For example, imagine that the resolution is, The United States should significantly increase its military
presence in the Greater Horn of Africa, and the plan is The United States should deploy 20,000 military
personnel in Yemen. In that case, the negative team might argue that the affirmatives plan is not topical
because the Greater Horn of Africa is defined by USAID as a region comprised of 10 African countries
(Burundi, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda), a definition
that does not include Yemen. On the other hand, the affirmative could respond that they found a definition
of the Greater Horn of Africa that includes Yemen, despite the fact that it is separated from Somalia by
the Gulf of Aden and from Eritrea by the Red Sea. In that case, the teams can then debate about which
definition is better. If the affirmatives definition is better, the plan is considered topical and the debate can
be resolved elsewhere. If the negatives definition is better, then the plan is not topical and the affirmative
team should lose.
Also remember that topicality is only determined by looking at the words in the plan. It doesnt matter
what the advantages are. Tying in with the example, if the plan increased troops in Djibouti but claimed
an advantage about Yemen, it would still be perfectly acceptable. Theres no such thing as a non-topical
advantage. Topicality is evaluated only by looking at the words in the plan itself. It also doesnt matter
whether the plan is a good or bad idea or how the remainder of the debate plays out. The only question is
whether the words in the plan are a direct representation of the topic.
Structure of Topicality
There are four parts to a topicality argument presented by the negative: the definition, the violation, the
standards, and the reasons to vote.
A) Definition this is the negatives definition of a word (or several words) from the resolution. Note
that I use the term definition as opposed to interpretation. Whereas theory and procedural
arguments revolve around interpretations of how debate should operate, topicality is a search for the
most accurate definition of a word. Like any other argument, it should be grounded in the literature.
I.E., you should have found an actual definition for the term during prep time; you cannot simply
fabricate an interpretation of a word that you think would be desirable. That said, this is parli and so
you may not always have access to a definition, especially if your opponents plan is potentially non-
topical in an unpredictable way. In that context, some leniency about using your best recollection of a
definition is probably acceptable.
In our example, we said that the Greater Horn of Africa was a term coined by USAID and defined as
ten Northeast Africa countries: Burundi, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan,
Tanzania, and Uganda.
B) Violation this is the reason (or reasons) why the plan does not comply with or meet the
negative definition. In the example, the violation was that the plan increased troop presence in Yemen
as opposed to in any of the ten countries that are actually within the Greater Horn of Africa. This is
the most important part of a topicality debate, because if the negative does not win a violation, they
cannot win the round on topicality. They must prove that the affirmative plan does not comply with the
best definition of the word. Otherwise, the affirmative is topical.
C) Standards these are the reasons why the definition presented by the negative is the best
definition. For example, the negative might argue that their definition is the one used by the
organization which coined the term, or that their definition is widely followed by policymaking bodies.
This is the part of topicality on which people most often make mistakes, so Ill explain more about
standards in a minute.
D) Voters these are the reasons why the judge should vote negative if the plan does not meet the
negatives definition. My teams always said, Topicality is an a priori voting issue for reasons of fair
and predictable ground, topic-specific education, and because its a rule of the game. Not voting on
topicality would cause the death of debate, which is bad. Ill further explain voting issues in a minute
as well.
How to Win a Topicality Debate
For the negative to win a topicality debate, they must do all of the following four things:
1) Present a definition of a term in the resolution.

2) Explain why the affirmative plan does not comply with that definition.
3) Explain why that definition is better than any alternative definition presented by the affirmative to
which the plan does comply.
4) Explain why the judge should vote negative on topicality.
For the affirmative to win a topicality debate, they can do any of the following:
1) Demonstrate that they comply with the definition provided by the negative.
2) Demonstrate that they comply with a different definition that is at least as good as the negatives
definition.
3*) Win that failure to defend a topical plan is not a reason the judge should vote negative.
*Ive starred the last option because strictly speaking it isnt actually a valid argument. However,
because most judges are confused about topicality its an argument we need to discuss.
What Are Standards?
On topicality, the definition and violation are fairly straight-forward. The negative presents a definition of a
word and then explains why the affirmative plan does not meet that definition. The heart of the topicality
debate normally occurs in the standards, because the standards determine how the judge can pick
between the negatives definition and a counter-definition presented by the affirmative.
In my opinion, almost everyone in parli is confused about the standards debate. The good news is that
because most teams debate the standards incorrectly, they spend a lot of time making responses that are
largely irrelevant and that you can dismiss quickly once you learn to debate T correctly. The bad news is
that you have to be fairly precise when you explain why theyre wrong, because the judges
understanding of topicality is also likely to be flawed. That said, explaining is easier than you might think
because debating topicality correctly is actually much more logical and more intuitive than debating it
incorrectly. As long as youre clear, you should be fine. In fact, Ive known several judges who said they
experienced a light-bulb moment, so to speak, after hearing topicality debated properly for the first time.
Fundamentally, what you have to remember is that topicality is a two-stage process. In the first stage, we
determine what the best definition of a word is. In the second stage, we determine whether the plan
complies with that definition. The standards debate is how we evaluate the first step, and the violation
debate is how we evaluate the second step. It might surprise you, but thats how topicality was originally
structured Definition with Standards, then the Violation, then Voters. It only changed to the current
structure because some high school camps rearranged the order in an effort to be trendy and everyone
followed suit without questioning whether the new structure made sense. Frankly, I think the original one
was much more logical, but bad habits are hard to break.
Theres a third series of arguments people read on topicality, but theyre actually flawed, as Ill explain
later. For now, were going to focus on the first step how we select the best definition of a word.
As I said before, theres a lot of confusion about standards these days. Heres the rule: standards are
reasons why a particular definition of a word is good in the abstract, but they have nothing to do with how
the debate round is affected by that definition. Again, standards do not explain how using a definition
would affect the debate round; rather, they are criteria by which we select the best definition of a word in
the abstract. For example, a definition might be good because it is very precise, because its author
intentionally defined the term in a specific way (the intros to academic articles, for example), because it is
field contextual, because it has historically been used by policy-making bodies, because it makes
grammatical sense in the context of the resolution, because it is a term of art used in the literature, etc.
Why is there confusion about standards?
Unfortunately, about fifteen years ago affirmatives started to respond to the standards with arguments
that were not actually counter-standards. Im sure youve heard ground or education or limits used as
standards, for example. The thing is, those arguments arent standards, because they dont explain why a
particular definition is good in the abstract. Instead, they argue that using a particular definition of a word
would be useful in debate. For example, education is not a standard because it does not help us
determine whether a particular definition is accurate, it only illustrates why plans that complied with
definition would provide education. Similarly, ground isnt a standard because it doesnt explain why a
definition is accurate it only explains why allowing plans that fall within that definition would provide
ground for the debaters.
Going back to the beginning, when debaters make these arguments, theyre asking the wrong question.
Theyre supposed to ask, What do the words in the topic mean? What are we supposed to debate? and
then selecting a plan that complies with their answer. Instead, debaters are asking, How do I want to
debate / what plan would I like to read? and then finding a definition that allows them to use that plan.
Heres why thats a bad way of debating. Imagine if the resolution was The President of the United
States should do X, and the affirmative plan was Hillary Clinton should do X. The aff could argue that a
debate about Hillary Clinton exercising executive authority would provide a lot of new and interesting
education, and would also provide a lot of ground because there are probably a lot of political process
disads and no solvency arguments that would link to that plan. But regardless of how interesting it would
make the round, we shouldnt allow those arguments to serve as justifications for the plan because Hillary
Clinton simply isnt a valid definition for The President of the United States.
Heres another example. Negatives started to make arguments like, Adopt means to pass a bill, not to
enforce it. In essence, to be topical a plan could not be enforced. As a standard, they said that this
interpretation was good for ground because it ensured the negative had access to no-solvency
arguments. Yeah, thats true. Its awfully convenient that in every round you can either prove your
opponent isnt topical or cant enforce their plan. Unfortunately, pass but not enforce isnt actually a
definition of adopt. No one in history has ever defined adoption by a policy-making body in a way that
prevents enforcement of the plan.
In effect, if you can justify a definition because it would be good for debaters, then the definition itself
becomes irrelevant. Were no longer asking what the resolution is actually about. Instead, were looking
for the topic that we think would provide the best ground, education, etc. and were asserting that
because the topic is so good we should accept definitions that allow us to discuss it. What does that
sound like? Theres another argument in which teams say, You shouldnt force us to comply with the
best definition because talking about X is more important. What does that sound like? Thats right. Its a
kritik of topicality. Thats what most teams are actually saying when they debate T. The only difference is
they dont realize it and they pretend to comply with a definition.
Thats why we have to proceed through topicality in the right order. Rather than looking for the best topic
to debate and then finding a definition that facilitates that debate, we should identify the best definition
independent of how it would affect the round.
Example Standards:
Precision / Bright-Line this argues that a specific definition is more precise / narrow than another
definition. For example, one definition of development assistance might be any aid given by
governments to support the economic, social, and political development of developing countries.
Thats very broad. Another definition might be only bilateral assistance between governments meant
to address poverty within the recipient nation. Thats somewhat more specific. It has to be
government-to-government and it needs to address poverty. Hence, a more precise definition can be
a better definition because it is (potentially) more accurate. BE AWARE: this is NOT a traditional
limits argument. Precision is NOT good because it might narrow the number of cases that are
available under a definition. Instead, it is good because it narrows the definition of a relevant word
and better informs us what the resolution as a whole is meant to actually discuss. Limits as you are
probably familiar with it is an internal link to a ground or education voter, not a standard.
Each word should have only one meaning, because that allows for one clear understanding of the
word. If each word had multiple meanings, then the resolution would have multiple meanings
(exponentially more actually, some function of permutations or combinations).
Intent to define sometimes people find definitions where someone uses a term offhand, but without
the express intent to define it. For example, a reporter or a textbook might write, engagement is
when two states interact. Thats just a superficial explanation to help the immediate audience
understand what rough idea the writer is conveying. Its not the same as a journal article or a
dictionary or a piece of legislation that specifically intends to define a given term. Intent to define is
better because you know that your definition is a more accurate interpretation that is intended to be
used in policymaking or discussion.
Field context This argument argues either that literature on the topic is focused in a specific way,
and your definition supports that focus. For example, in Europe capital punishment doesnt
necessarily refer to the death penalty because most countries dont have the death penalty; it might
literally refer to a fiduciary penalty (i.e., a fine on capital). However, if the resolution was The USFG
should promote human rights by banning capital punishment, then because were talking about the
US and human rights, its better to assume were discussing the death penalty. Likewise, there are
certain terms that mean something specifically within the context of foreign policy, so you can argue
that if the resolution is about the military you should use a definition provided by a military source.
Common-Person People will argue that common-person or common-understanding definitions

are preferable because they allow people better access to the round. Not a very good argument, in
my opinion, because were role-playing as informed policymakers and no one wants a race to the
bottom for the most basic method of debate. Its academia, theres no reason you should default to
the simplest definition, additionally specific understandings are required sometimes which is why
legislative and legal bodies dont use the definitions in Websters.
Source credibility Similar to above, you can argue that your source is better. If US officials define
Latin America as a region constituting a specific set of countries, thats probably preferable to the
definition you found online from a middle school social studies quiz.
Resolutional Context / Grammar In some rounds, there is an interaction between the words
within the resolution that relies that further informs which definitions may best apply. See the example
topicality shell for an example.
Term of Art / Current Literature A collection of words means something different than when each
of the words are independently defined, and/or a specific term is being used in the literature in a
specific way.
Topicality Voters
The voting issues are where you explain why the judge should vote negative if the plan is not topical.
What you need to remember is that failure to adhere to the most preferable definition automatically does
each of the following:
1) Violates a rule of the game - If the affirmative plan isnt topical, the affirmative team has failed to
fulfill the minimum requirement for their side and should lose. The judge only has the jurisdiction to
vote for a plan that demonstrates the resolution true. Voting for a plan that falls outside the topics
purview is not an option. Lots of people overlook this, but in parli (and LD) this is actually a rule. The
NPDA handbook (rule 2) says that the team must affirm the resolution by presenting and defending a
sufficient case for that resolution. If the case presented by the affirmative does not affirm the
resolution (i.e., if it isnt topical), the affirmative team cannot win.
2) Skews predictable ground If the affirmative plan isnt topical, predictable ground is
automatically impacted. The negative is only expected to prepare answers to plans that fall within the
best definition of the resolution. If the plan doesnt adhere to the best definition, the negative team
cannot be expected to adequately prepare for it. Thats why topicality exists. This is especially true in
parli, because prep time is highly restricted and we dont have files or blocks that allow us to debate
unpredictable plans. Predictable ground is automatically lost if the affirmative isnt topical.
3) Reduces topic education If the affirmative plan isnt topical, topical education is automatically
reduced. We might get more education, we might get better education, and we might receive a lot of
education that still seems to be related to the topic, but theres automatically at least some reduction
in topic education.
For example, military assistance, as defined by the DOD, covers a list of seven categories including
the sale of military equipment, demining assistance, giving money directly to another countrys
military, etc. Assume the resolution is The United States should increase its military assistance to
South Korea and the plan sends 10k additional troops to South Korea. In that situation, we still get
education about US-Korean relations and about how North Korea or China might react, and we
potentially get a lot of additional education we wouldnt otherwise have had about how additional U.S.
troops would function. However, we lose education about an actual increase in military assistance
because instead the plan increases military personnel. If the plan isnt topical according to the best
definition, some topic education has automatically been lost.
Again, remember that these happen automatically if the affirmative plan is not topical.
The (Flawed) Third Step:
Finally, theres another series of arguments that affirmatives make when answering topicality. Lets
quickly revisit the confusion that other teams have with standards. As we discussed a while ago, when
affirmatives say, Our definition gives good ground, they arent actually explaining why their definition is
good. Instead, theyre arguing that their definition should be tolerated. Theyre saying, Even if this isnt
the best definition, it still provides good ground so you dont have to vote against us. It isnt a counter-
standard. Its actually defense against the voters.
However, weve already explained why these arguments are flawed. Even if there is a net improvement in
education or ground because the affirmative plan is not topical, it isnt topic education and it isnt
predictable ground based on the best definition of the word. Some amount of topic education and some
amount of predictable ground are automatically denied. The affirmative team might try to argue that the
amount of ground and education that are lost are insignificant and should not merit a negative ballot, but
theyll never win 100% defense, and even if they did its still a rule of the game.
Reasonability
Finally, some affirmatives will make one more argument: reasonability. These days, most of the time
when teams say reasonability they babble a few words without making an argument, like T is a 100%
issue or Plus, be reasonable. When they do say something coherent, its usually rubbish about how the
plan is pretty close to topical so he judge should be lenient in assessing the violation. Thats a dumb
argument the violation is the easiest part of topicality to assess if the negative is doing their job, it
should be very clear.
Nevertheless, judges tend to 1) believe this argument because they grew up making it themselves, and 2)
appreciate this argument because theyre lazy and it gives them a way out of judging (i.e., if they buy
reasonability they dont look at the rest of the topicality debate and probably end up voting affirmative
because it was the only issue in the round the negative went for).
If they make this argument, you should have a few responses.
1) Reasonability is silly and makes no sense in any other context. You wouldnt give the ballot to a
team that said okay, so we dont outweigh the disad, but were really close!
2) Allowing the judge to determine subjectively that the plan is almost topical invites intervention and
definitional preconceptions, negating the purpose of topicality: to allow debaters to determine
specifically what the terms in the resolution mean.
A better form of the reasonability argument is that words have multiple meanings and figuring out exactly
which one is the best during 20 minutes of prep time is a lot to ask of the affirmative. Thus, if the plan
complies with a very good definition the judge should tolerate it even if it doesnt comply with the best
definition because the marginal distinction in quality between the two definitions is not significant enough
to vote on.
It isnt strictly true, because the plan is still non-topical according to the best definition, and thus according
to the rules the aff should lose. However, in some ways it seems fair when the difference in quality
between the two definitions is incredibly narrow.
Extra and FX Topicality
Extra Topicality
Extra topicality is when the affirmative plan contains a component that is not topical. For example, if
the resolution was The USFG should increase its troop deployment in Afghanistan and the plan was
to deploy troops to Afghanistan AND Pakistan, then the deployment of troops to Pakistan would be
extra topical. Thats bad because it allows the affirmative to A) claim advantages that are outside the
purview of the resolution, B) solve negative arguments with an extra-topical mandate of the plan, and
C) distracts from topic focus.
FX Topicality
Effects topicality argues that the plan is not topical because although the plan may eventually yield
topical results, it does so by triggering the first of a series of internal links rather than directly
mandating topical action. For example, if the resolution was The United States should replace
Barack Obama as President of the United States, we could write a plan that said Give President
Obama a lobotomy and then argue that he would be replaced by Joe Biden under the 25th
Amendment. Thats only within the scope of the resolution based on an effect of the plan, so the plan
itself is not topical. Always remember that topicality is based exclusively on the plan text. You do not
look at the effect of the plan to determine whether or not it is topical, only on the mandate itself.
Sometimes the distinction is harder, though. For example, if the plan is the US should increase the
use of renewable energy in the US, a plan that provides incentives for the construction of wind
turbines may seem topical, but because it doesnt directly create wind turbines and only incentivizes
their creation, its not actually legitimate.
Effects topicality is bad because it potentially justifies any plan if you can come up with reasons it
eventually results in topical action. It also means the negative loses uniqueness for their arguments
because a period of time can elapse between the plan and the topical action. Finally, T isnt a
question of what the plan causes, its a question of what the plan does on its own.
AT: Dont Vote on Potential Abuse / RVIs
AT: Dont vote on potential abuse.
1. There is real abuse because access to predictable ground occurred as an automatic result of not
being topical.
2. Also, topicality isnt about abuse its about guaranteeing access to predictable ground, topic
education, and its a rule of the game.
3. Finally, ignoring potential abuse would mean the negative always loses. If we were forced to read a
disad to prove abuse they could concede the link, which gets them out of T since we cant prove
abuse, and then spend the time it took us to read both positions impact turning the DA. Then the
negatives really screwed.
AT: RVIs
Topicality is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. Dont waste your time making RVIs,
theyre silly, easy to beat, and normally they make you look desperate. Plus, no one is going to vote
on them unless you dedicate the entire PMR to it.
There are two types of RVIs the first says simply that the affirmative should win the round if they
prove they are topical. Thats dumb. Use the courtroom analogy T is a gateway issue you dont
win a legal case merely by showing up to the right courtroom, you still have to stand trial. Likewise,
the aff doesnt win by being topical, they still have to validate the resolution by demonstrating that
their plan is desirable.
The second type of RVI argues that by reading topicality the negative somehow abused the
affirmative. Most of the time the aff argues that the topicality position was silly and was obviously only
read in an attempt to create a time-tradeoff, and that the judge should set a precedent against bad
procedurals by punishing the negative. You have a few answers.
1. Theres no bright-line for bad topicality, that argument is arbitrary and self-serving.
Furthermore, this was a legitimate argument topicality is necessary to check abusive affs and
prevent abusive clarifications in the MG.
2. Questioning topicality unsuccessfully is no different than questioning solvency unsuccessfully

the judge doesnt vote against the negative for failing to win an argument; they still have to
evaluate the rest of the debate.
3. There wasnt a time skew the position took as much time to read as it did to answer, plus
time skews are inevitable and if the argument was really that bad the MG should have been more
efficient at answering it.
4. Voting on RVIs means the negative could never win affirmatives would deliberately read non-
topical plans so the negative couldnt go for substance, and on topicality theyd load up on RVIs
where they have the last word.
Other Arguments / Suggestions
1) Replacement test. Repeat the other teams interpretation and then re-read their interpretation within
the resolution.
2) Remind the judge that the resolution was written in a specific way and that the words interact with one
another, so even if a definition for a word makes sense in the abstract, it may not make sense in the
context of the whole topic.
3) If they say topicality is not a voting issue, explain why the alternative is worse. Not voting on topicality
means the affirmative could run whatever case they wanted (their favorite case or something that is
effectively a truism), destroying fairness and eroding education. Topicality is also a rule of the game. Its
the only thing other than the time limits that absolutely cannot be debated.
4) Consider not reading topicality first in your order. People need a few seconds to get used to your voice
so they can accurately flow the interp / violation. When you spit those out at the start of your speech,
people miss words.
5) The MG answers are a list dont get sucked off your own structure by following their strategy. Answer
their points, but extend your own shell as well.
6) Topicality must be flowed perfectly. Individual concessions can be more damning here than anywhere
else.
7) When answering topicality, re-read the plan and the resolution. If youre confident that you are topical
(and you will be, because one of your coaches will check your plan text before you leave the room to
ensure it is as topical as possible in our judgment), then you should remind the judge of exactly what your
plan is. It will also sound intuitively topical to them.
***EXAMPLE SHELLS***
LOC Topicality Shell [Example]
Resolution: The USFG should substantially increase its Constructive Engagement with Cuba.
Plan: The USFG should repeal the Cuban embargo.
Sub-Point A) Definition Constructive Engagement is a conditional quid-pro-quo arrangement in which

the U.S. softens its diplomatic stance in exchange for internal change on behalf of the target country.
[Defined by Chester Crocker, Professor of Strategic Studies at Georgetown University]
Sub-Point B) Violation The plan is an unconditional removal of the embargo with no specified
condition that Cuba must accomplish in exchange for the change in policy.
Sub-Point C) Standards
1) Historical Accuracy our definition is based on the one used by the State Department during
engagement with China in the 1960s and 1970s, with North Korea in 1992, and with Vietnam in
1995.
2) Bright-Line Our definition distinguishes constructive engagement from alternative

approaches such as appeasement, containment, and isolation
3) Grammar With in the topic implies a process involving both U.S. and Cuban interaction,
thereby supporting a QPQ definition of constructive engagement.
4) Effects and Extra Topicality are bad they explode affirmative ground and sidestep a
discussion of the topic.
Sub-Point D) Topicality is an a priori voting issue for reasons of: fair and predictable ground, topic
education, and its a rule of the game. Not voting on topicality would cause the death of debate, which is
bad.
MG AT: Topicality [Verbatim]
1. We meet [Explanation] / Their definition is impossible to meet [Explanation].
2. [WHEN APPROPRIATE] That isnt a definition you should require a definition from the negative.
Dont allow invented interpretations, theyre self-serving and impossible to predict.
3. Counter-Definition [Explain]
4. We meet the Counter-Definition
5. Reasons to prefer:
A. Standard #1
B. Standard #2
6. Dont vote on potential abuse its arbitrary, infinitely regressive, and creates an impossible burden
for the affirmative.
7. We solve the impact to topicality [ground / education].
8. Reasonability there are multiple ways to define each word; good is good enough, especially given
the constraints on prep time. If we meet a definition and win a standard in support of it, thats a sufficient
reason not to vote negative.
MG AT: SPEC [Verbatim]
1. Specification is infinitely regressive; there are an infinite number of things they could ask us to
specify, creating an impossible burden for the aff.
2. Counter-interpretation the aff should defend the normal means implementation of the plan.
3. We meet we will defend the normal means scenario determined in the round.
4. Net-benefits
A. Provides stable ground they still get all of their link arguments because we cant over-specify
out of their ground. The negative can define the normal means of the plan if they justify their
explanation.
B. Solves PICs, which are bad because they steal affirmative ground, moot the entirety of the PMC,
drive debate toward meaningless implementation issues, and because the literature does not suit
their comparison.
C. POIs check the only reason not to ask is to win on a theory cheap-shot.
D. Creates a fair burden its better for the negative to research this if its relevant to their strategy
rather than bifurcate aff prep on an issue that may not matter.
7. Theres no abuse we dont shift and its not topicality, just a theoretical issue so you cant vote
without abuse.
MG AT: OSPEC [Verbatim]
1. Counter-interpretation the affirmative plan should specify _____.
2. Net-benefits.
A. Real world our interpretation is the most real world, because policymakers are required to
specify the mechanisms through which their policies would operate.
B. Education our interpretation promotes better education about the mechanics of policy decisions,
which is better than generic education about the same impact scenarios we hear every round.
C. Ground our interpretation preserves stable and salient link ground for the negative. Failure to
specify would mean we could clarify in later speeches or shift in order to no-link their arguments.
3. No abuse specifying the normal means scenario is better for the negative because it means they
dont waste LOC time only to have us shift. The plan is stable and we wont change our interpretation.
4. The ground they claimed wasnt guaranteed as long as were topical, we have the right to
determine the specifics of how the plan is implemented.
5. Dont vote on potential abuse its arbitrary, infinitely regressive, and creates an impossible burden
for the affirmative.

Debating Topicality - Merrell-2

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Debating Topicality - Merrell-2

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Concordia Debate Topicality

Merrell Pre-Jewell 2012

***Table of Contents ***

***EXAMPLE SHELLS*** ..............................................................................................................................................13

How to Win a Topicality Debate

1) Present a definition of a term in the resolution.

What Are Standards?

Why is there confusion about standards?

Common-Person People will argue that common-person or common-understanding definitions

The (Flawed) Third Step:

If they make this argument, you should have a few responses.

Extra and FX Topicality

AT: Dont Vote on Potential Abuse / RVIs

AT: Dont vote on potential abuse.

2. Questioning topicality unsuccessfully is no different than questioning solvency unsuccessfully

Other Arguments / Suggestions

Sub-Point A) Definition Constructive Engagement is a conditional quid-pro-quo arrangement in which

2) Bright-Line Our definition distinguishes constructive engagement from alternative

MG AT: Topicality [Verbatim]

1. We meet [Explanation] / Their definition is impossible to meet [Explanation].

4. We meet the Counter-Definition

7. We solve the impact to topicality [ground / education].

MG AT: SPEC [Verbatim]

MG AT: OSPEC [Verbatim]

1. Counter-interpretation the affirmative plan should specify _____.

Você também pode gostar

Table of Contents

EXAMPLE SHELLS ..............................................................................................................................................13