Topicality
Topicality, unlike the other stock issues, is not an issue
intended to determine the validity of the resolution. It is an
issue of reasonable limits and fairness. If the affirmative was
allowed to define the words of the resolution anyway they wanted,
the number of affirmative possibilities would be unlimited and
the negative would never be able to prepare a defense. Therefore,
topicality serves two purposes:
- It provides the affirmative and
negative with reasonable limits. The topic should provide a
reasonable opportunity for both sides to know what will be
debated within a given round.
- It divides the affirmative and
negative fair ground. The topic should provide an equal territory
(equal ground) for both sides to research issues, gather
evidence, and prepare positions.
Return to top
Return to main directory
Topicality
Violations
In a hope to gain the strategic advantage of surprise, an
affirmative may violate reasonable limits and fairness by
offering cases that do not represent (test the validity) the
resolution. Violations may take one of two forms:
- Twisting, bending, stretching,
changing, or outright ignoring the words, syntax, or context of
the resolutional sentence. A well-structured topicality attack by
the negative can quickly point out this problem and result in the
loss of the round for the affirmative.
- Offering a case that is not
representative (fair ground) of the resolution. These types of
cases usually pick a small, atypical problem that does not
directly violate the words of the resolution, but the case does
not represent the true problem either. The key term used to weed
these cases out is significance (not to be confused with
significant harms). These cases are slippery and much more
difficult to eliminate.
Return to top
Return to main directory
Affirmative's Right To Define
Traditionally, the affirmative has the right to define the
terms of the resolution, and the judge will accept these
definitions as long as they are reasonable - generally acceptable
and sound. The negative, therefore, must accept the ground laid
out by the affirmative unless (1) the affirmative forfeits its
right by not defining a term(s) in the 1AC, (2) the definitions
violate reasonable limits, or (3) the ground covered is not
representative of the resolution.
Return to top
Return to main directory
Negative's
Alternate Right to Define
If the affirmative forfeits its right to define, then the
negative may define the terms during the 1NC. The negative gains
the strategic advantage of this right; however, the negative must
maintain reasonable limits and fairness.
Return to top
Return to main directory
Protecting Reasonable Limits
To prevent the affirmative from twisting, bending, stretching,
changing, or ignoring word, syntax, or context, a number of
standards are used to identify flaws in the affirmative approach.
These standards must be verbalized in the initial attack and
should be used in all explanations. Violation of any single
standard is justification for a negative win:
- Field Context:
terms are best interpreted and defined by experts within
the "real life" discipline. When debaters
ignore the meaning of the expert field and create new
meanings, the affirmative loses the grounds for claiming
they are reasonable. The field where they are regularly
studied best defines terms.
- Legal Definitions:
courts rule on words that are common to legislation
everyday and as a result they gain meaning from judicial
context. When debaters ignore judicial context and create
new meanings, the affirmative loses ground for claiming
they are reasonable. Terms are best defined by the way
they will be interpreted in the law. (other resolutional
terms [should, significantly, change, towards] should be
defined by or consistent with legal definitions found
within an acceptable legal dictionary and/or precedent
law books such as words and phrases. Be sure the
definitions are defined within context of the
resolution.)
- Grammatical Context:
definition of terms must be consistent with their
grammatical use in the resolutional sentence. When a
debater ignores particular parts of speech or syntax, the
affirmative loses the grounds for claiming they are
reasonable. The grammatical context of a word or phrase
cannot be ignored. (the parts of speech or order of words
cannot be changed. To change a verb [regulate - to
control] into a noun [regulation - a rule or law] would
change the entire meaning of the resolution. To change
the order of words from [us towards china - how the us
deals with china] to [china towards us - how china deals
with the us] would change the entire meaning of the
resolution.)
- Framer's Intent:
every resolution possesses a background all its own;
definition or terms must be consistent with the evolution
of the proposition. When a debater ignores what the
wording committee intended students to debate, the
affirmative loses the grounds for claiming they are
reasonable. Terms are best defined in context of why they
were selected for the resolutional sentence. (the
forensic quarterly contains an entire chapter on how and
why the resolution was selected and how and why the words
of the resolution were selected. Debaters should study
this chapter in order to eliminate squirrel affirmatives
that ignore the purpose of debating the resolution.)
- Each Word Has Meaning:
the presumption is that the resolution is a well-written
sentence and that each word is there for a reason. When a
debater ignores the existence of a term or renders two
terms redundant, the affirmative loses the ground for
claiming they are reasonable. Interpretations must
preserve a discreet meaning or function for each term.
(debaters rarely define each term in the resolution and
sometimes wish that one or more words were absent. If a
debater conveniently overlooks a term or seems to make
two terms mean the same thing [redundancy] then kill them
with this standard.)
Return to top
Return to main directory
Topicality
Reasonable Limits Attacks
Topicality is a voting issue - if the affirmative looses a
topicality attack it most certainly will loose the round. Attacks
must include:
- Tagline: An
introduction to the thesis.
- Standard:
Presentation of the topicality standard being applied.
- Definition:
Presentation of an authoritative definition that sets
reasonable afformative and negative limits.
- Criteria:
Description of the affirmative resolutional requirements
as delineated by the standard and definition, i.e. the
affirmative must....
- Violation:
Explanation of how the application of the affirmative's
case/plan fails to meet the established criteria.
- Voting Issue:
Topicality is a voting issue; therefore, a negative
ballot is required.
Return to top
Return to main directory
Presentation
of the Attack
In order to be effective, all six parts must be presented in
the initial attack, usually the 1NC. The definition and formal
standard may be omitted in rebuttals but greater explanation of
the violation will be required. Part six is required by some
judges and should be included in the final rebuttal.
Return to top
Return to main directory
Defending Topicality Reasonability
Topicality attacks are serious charges and must be addressed
regardless of how trivial the attack may seem.
- Lacks Standard:
Negative provides an alternative definition but fails to
provide a standard: The negative's topicality argument is
flawed and, therefore, invalid. They provide no standard
by which to judge reasonability; and, since we employ a
standard our definitions must be considered reasonable
and therefore valid.
- Lacks Definition:
Negative provides an alternative standard but fails to
provide definition: The negative's topicality argument is
flawed and, therefore, invalid. They provide no
alternative definition by which to judge reasonability;
and, since we have and employ a standard our definitions
must be considered reasonable and therefore valid.
- Right To Define:
Negative provides alternate definition and an adequately
structured attack: The negative's topicality argument is
flawed and, therefore, invalid. The Affirmative has the
right to define the terms of the resolution and establish
Affirmative ground as long as our definitions are
reasonable. We employ a standard which is considered
reasonable because. .......... our position, therefore,
is valid.
- Refutation of Application:
Negative claims that the Affirmative does not fulfill
definition. The negative's topicality argument is flawed
and, therefore, invalid. We fulfill our obligation to the
definition by (1)....... (2)........ (3)........
Therefore, we must be considered topical and the
negative's argument considered invalid.
- A first rebuttal of a topicality attack should refute the
main contention of the negative argument, but a debater
need not go one on one with every part of the attack,
i.e. an additional definition may not be needed.
Additional rebuttals should respond to additional issues
raised by the negative. Please remember that once
topicality is raised by the negative, the Affirmative is
required to address the issue in each and every speech.
Return to top
Return to main directory
