Interpretation(Topicality)

The interpretation in a topicality debate is the opposition team's take on what action or advocacy one or more words in the resolution require of the affirmative team. For example, if the resolution is "Bomb North Korea", one possible interpretation is "North Korea is the soverign state located on the northern half of the Korean penninsula".

Interpretations are typically supported by standards as to why the interpretation should be preferred over the affirmative interpretation. These are generally given in the shell of the topicality position during the LOC, as the affirmative almost always does some degree of resolutional analysis in the PMC and absent competing standards there is no reason to assume that the negative interpretation is to be preferred over the interpretation given by the affirmative.

Some teams choose to answer topicality as a unified position, which is generally acceptable if the responses are clear, but traditionally it is answered along the lines of the four sub-arguments. The answer most frequently flowed alongside the interpretation is an affirmative counter-interpretation, which is the same thing coming from an affirmative perspective. This should be paired with counter-standards as to why the affirmative interpretation is superior.