Use the following format:
I.
THE PLAN IS NOT TOPICAL
A. The Plan
violates THIS term IN THE TOPIC
[Include
definition and statement of how the plan violates the definition.]
B. This interpretation/definition is superior.
[Write
in the reasons that your interpretation/definition is good.]
C.
TOPICALITY IS A VOTING ISSUE
[State
why topicality is a voting issue—keep this very brief.]
SAMPLE
VIOLATION SPECIFIC TOPICALITY FORMAT
I. THE PLAN IS NOT TOPICAL
A. (THE PLAN)
VIOLATES THE TERM COMPREHENSIVE
This is because the
definition of comprehensive is:
CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM
1976
Comprehensive: The word
"comprehensive" is defined as meaning including much; comprising many
things; have a wide scope
The plan only focuses on
one aspect of health insurance--AIDS.
It is therefore not topical.
B. FOCUSING ON JUST ONE
DISEASE SHOULD NOT BE TOPICAL
1. IT COMPLETELY
UNLIMITS THE TOPIC
The affirmative could
choose the flu, one kind of sinus infection, one type of cancer, etc. and the
negative could never win.
2. COMPREHENSIVE
MODIFIES HEALTH INSURANCE
It does not modify a
specific kind of insurance. Hence,
health must be comprehensively covered--not just one illness.
C. TOPICALITY IS A
VOTING ISSUE
because the affirmative
does not affirm the topic and negative ground is eroded.
TIPS
ON WRITING WHY YOUR INTERPRETATION IS
SUPERIOR
There are many reasons you can
offer to support your topicality interpretations or definitions. BE SURE TO SHOW THAT THE AFFIRMATIVE
INTERPRETATION WOULD BE HARMFUL. At a minimum, you can argue that:
1.
Your interpretation prevents the topic
from becoming unlimited making it impossible for the negative to be prepared to
debate.
2.
Your interpretation clearly divides
negative and affirmative ground so affirmatives cannot usurp negative arguments
and claim that they are actually affirmative arguments.
3.
Other terms in the topic support your
interpretation.
Be sure to
identify how your definition or interpretation specifically does any of the
above. For example, specifically state
how your interpretation prevents too many affirmatives cases.