Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
To contest the topicality of the affirmative, the negative interprets a word or words in the resolution and argues that the affirmative does not meet that definition, that the interpretation is preferable, and that non-topicality should be a voting issue. The issue of topicality has also been raised in relations to counterplans with judges and debaters arguing that counterplans either should or should not be topical.
Structure of a Violation
A topicality violation, as presented in the 1NC, is generally as follows: Interpretation - Interpretation of a word or words in the resolution, often supported by evidence. Evidence to support an interpretation can come from virtually any source (dictionary, legal dictionary, academic paper, laws, court rulings, etc.) and emphasis is placed on both the desirability of the interpretation and the quality of the evidence which supports the interpretation. Violation - Reason(s) why the plan does not meet the interpretation. Standards - Reason(s) why the interpretation is superior. Voting Issue - Reason(s) why the judge should vote negative if the plan does not meet the interpretation.
Ground
Ground is a measure of the quantity and quality of arguments and literature available to both teams under a certain interpretation of the topic. Teams will often debate the desirability of incorporating or excluding certain arguments.
Bright line
Brightline (sometimes called precision) is a measure of how clear the division is between topical and non-topical cases under a certain interpretation.
Grammar
Grammar is a measure of how grammatically correct an interpretation is. Some teams argue that grammar is key to the predictability of an interpretation.
Education
An Education standard asserts that the negative's interpretation of the resolution focuses the debate down to the most important area(s) for learning. This involves explaining why the topics and discussions preserved by the negative's interpretation are more important to the affirmative case and cases under the counterinterpretation.
Extra Topicality
Extra Topicality is sometimes run in conjunction with FX, sometimes separately. The argument is that the Affirmative plan includes "planks" or components that are not topical. For example, a plan under an energy-conservation topic might both sign the Kyoto Protocol and increase general science funding across the board, obviously including energy conservation. Such a plan might then argue for environmental, economic or military benefits separate from anything having to do with energy conservation. A Negative team would argue that this would be extra-topical because the plan is acting in areas that are outside the boundaries of the resolution (therefore, "extra"-topicality). Either seriously or as an example, sometimes Negatives running against FX and Extra cases will run counterplans that they argue would be the truly topical version of the Affirmative plan: For example, the Negative in the above case could run a counterplan wherein they only sign Kyoto. Negative teams will argue that the whole plan's mandate must be topical, as otherwise every Affirmative could run a different permutation of topical and non-topical components and make the topic literally unlimited. Affirmative teams will either argue that Extra Topicality is legitimate or, much more frequently, that all components of their plan are in fact topical. A plan can arguably be extra-topical, not topical and FX-topical all at once: Its arguably topical plank may both not be topical no matter the causal links and rely on causal links to get to its arguable topicality, as well as having non-topical planks. The "extra" in "extra-topicality" is used to mean "outside" (i.e. "extraterrestrials") and not to mean "extremely."
Fairness
Some teams argue that it is unfair for the negative to have to debate a non-topical case and thus the judge should vote against one. This voting issue is sometimes referred to as "competitive equity."
Education
Some Negative teams argue that non-topical cases decrease the educational factor of a round. This is true. However, it should not constitute a real argument in and of itself; simply because the Affirmative team's plan is not the best provides no reason for the judge to vote against the Affirmative team.
Jurisdiction
Some teams argue that the judge only has the jurisdiction to vote for cases which affirm the resolution. This justification has largely fallen out of favor in collegiate debate after the 2001-2002 Native Americans topic led to large numbers of kritiks about how it was the issue and mindset of jurisdiction that destroyed Native American culture.