Topicality

Topicality, sometimes called T or resolutionality, is a debate argument made by the opposition that the case or advocacy espoused by the affirmative team does not uphold the resolution and should be rejected as a result.

Topicality is classically organized in terms of four sub-arguments. There is an interpretation by the negative of how one or more words in the resolution is to be construed. There is a violation arguing that the affirmative's case does not fall within this interpretation. There are generally one or more standards given as to why this interpretation is to be preferred over any interpretation given by the affirmative team. Finally, there are voters which connect the offense of being untopical to the loss of the debate round.

Like most debate theory, there is a spectrum of beliefs with regards to topicality, and these beliefs are sometimes malleable in-round due to arguments made. That being said, most of the parliamentary community believes the following in absence of argumentation to the contrary:


 * Topicality is decided on the basis of the mandates of plan, not based on the harms plan attempts to solve for, effects of doing plan, or any other feature of the government speech. Effects topicality is a special position which attempts to prove that the plan, if topical, is only topical through effects, and should therefore be rejected.
 * Topicality is a gateway issue. If the affirmative is untopical, nothing else in the round matters.
 * If the affirmative prevails on any one of the four sub-arguments of topicality, they are topical, and the position is moot.
 * Topicality is not an all-or-nothing issue for the negative team -- there is not, in the absence of argumentation to the contrary, any penalty for "crying wolf" on topicality.

II. How to structure a topicality argument (Some people may put these elements in a different order – but they all need to be present)

a. Definition – Offer the Opposition interpretation of the resolution. Here you explain how you think the term should be defined. Dictionary, Law, Context, etc.

b. Violation – - How does the Government case violate (is inconsistent with) your definition.

c. Standards – Why is your definition the best way to understand the resolution. Reasons to prefer the Opp interpretation:

i. Dictionary - Dictionary definitions are best because they are accessible to everyone.

ii. Each word has meaning - This is a good standard to use when the gov interprets the resolution as something similar but not exactly the same. This standard says that each word must have had meaning in the framing of the resolution, so each word must be met by the government.

iii. Contextual - Sometimes it is best to look at words in context - like "universal health care" or "weapons of mass destruction."

iv. Field specific - This is similar to context, but even more specific. For example, forensics means something different in medicine than in communication studies. Also term of art.

v. Framers intent - This indicates that the opp interpretation is the most consistent with the intended interpretation of the framers.

vi. Bright-line - This interpretation provides the best way to determine between topical and non-topical plans, i.e. a "bright line" in the sand.

vii. Grammar - Sometimes people forget what are adjectives and verbs and how they should be defined differently. It's nice to remind them.

viii. Phrases draw distinctions – Sometimes phrases mean something different when read together than separately. A warm german shepherd is not a hot dog.

d. Voting Issue – Why should the aff lose on topicality/Why is topicality important?

i. Fairness - Non-topical plans attempt to subvert the rules by misinterpreting the resolution, which isn't fair.

ii. Ground - Non-topical plans stray outside the ground of the resolution reserved for the opp.

iii. Jurisdiction - The judge is offered two options - for and against the resolution. If the plan is outside of the jurisdiction of the resolution, the judge cannot cast a vote for the government

iv. Education - Running a non-topical case decreases education by seeking competitive gain over fair competition. If we don't talk about the issue the resolution dictates, that decreases education on the issue and leads to technical discussions (like this) that don't really increase education.

III. How to answer a topicality argument

a. We meet – Our interpretation meets the opp interpretation, so there is no problem.

b. Counter-definition – the Gov case is consistent with a different definition of the term

c. Counter-standards – why the Gov definition is a better way to interpret the resolution than the Opp definition. Just like in all debate, you need some defense and some offense. The same is true with topicality. Counter-standards and counter-definitions offer the gov a chance to define terms and justify their own interpretation. No matter what, gov should always provide a counter-interpretation.

d. Gov right to define – since the Government has the burden to prove the resolution while the Opp has no burden, the Government should have the right to define the terms and if they are reasonable, the Opp should go along.

e. Reasonability/Debatability – the Gov. interpretation may not be the only way to define the resolution, but it offers adequate ground for the Opp to debate, and therefore should be accepted

f. Gov presumption – Topicality is an all or nothing issue for the affirmative, but only one of many possible arguments that the negative can win on, therefore, the judge should only vote on Topicality if he/she is 100% sure

g. Other words check abuse - Some times other words make the topicality of the gov case obvious, or check the crazy potential abuse claimed by the opp. It's good to point this out.

h. Predictability - Interpretation is predictable. The gov doesn't have to ensure the opp can get the maximum benefit of their prep time, as long as the interpretation is logically consistent, it should be accepted.

i. Breadth vs. Depth - This argument can go either way, either a broad interpretation that covers many issues is best or a limited interpretation that allows depth of analysis is best.

j. Language is indeterminate - This argues that there are multiple meaning to words, so no interpretation can be exactly right or wrong. This is an argument for leeway and a justification for multiple interpretations.

k. Must prove specific ground abuse - In the end, the reason topicality is a rule is to provide ground for a fair debate. If the opp can't prove what ground they have lost, they are playing a semantical game to avoid debating more substantive issues, and the gov should not be punished.

l. Show cases that meet - In the same vein as above, the opp should provide cases that would have met their interpretation. This is especially good when the opp runs multiple T arguments. If they can't show a case that meets, it is obviously an abusive interpretation.

m. Must prove 100% non-topical - Since this is an all or nothing issue for the gov, you must be 100% sure to reject us on topicality.

n. Topicality is an argument to exclude minority voices -This argues that standard definitions and limits have long served the elite to exclude discussion of issues germane to the minority.