Ask Jim about Debate
|
Breaking Down Barriers: Ask Jim about Debate |
You can submit questions too, just email Jim at hansonjb@whitman.edu
This answer is a significantly expanded version of a section taken from Breaking Down Barriers: How to Debate, Version 1.0 (1989) and The West Coast Debate Seminar Policy Topicbook (1995).
One way many affirmative teams will respond to topicality arguments is to claim that their plan or value example is topical by its effect. EFFECTS-TOPICALITY is TO ARGUE THAT AN AFFIRMATIVE PLAN IS TOPICAL SOLELY BECAUSE OF ITS EFFECT. For example, the resolution is, "RESOLVED: That United States trade policy toward Africa should be changed". The affirmative argues that we should change our trade policy with Europe to get them to trade more with Africa. The negative can argue that the plan is not topical because it is a change in U.S.-European policy, not U.S.-African policy as the topic calls for. The affirmative, however, can respond that when the European's change their African policy, the United States will be able to increase trade with Africa, thereby changing U.S. policy toward Africa. The negative, however, can argue right back that this plan is effects-topical. They can argue that just because United States-Europe policy changes will effect U.S. policy with Africa does not make the plan topical. Indeed, nearly any action that the United States takes in the world will ultimately affect United States policy with Africa. Such a standard would allow virtually any plan to be topical and would unlimit the topic and the negative would never have a chance.
How to structure an Effects-Topicality Argument
You structure an Effects-Topicality just like you structure any topicality argument. That means, present a violation, then reasons why this violation is a good violation by supporting your definition or interpretation, and then you state why topicality is a voting issue.
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 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.]
Now, since you want to make an effects-topicality argument--you just argue that effects topicality is illegitimate in the B point to show that your interpretation is superior. So, you would argue that effects topicality is illegitimate. Here are arguments you might use:
1. Topicality should focus on the plan--the plan is what needs to be topical, not the advantage
2. The Key Effects Test--does the plan do what the resolution says? If the affirmative must say the plan causes an effect to be topical--then the plan is effects topical. NOTE: DO NOT CONFUSE THIS "They have a mandate in plank one--and then they have a funding mandates--and then they have another action in their plan" as "the plan causes an effect"--these plan planks are just that--parts of the plan, not effects of the plan.
2. Effects-topicality confuses solvency and topicality
3. Effects-topicality unlimits the topic--teams can claim any plan effects the topic, the negative cannot possibly prepare
4. Effects-topicality erodes negative ground--it lets the affirmative run plans that the negative should be able to argue as counterplans
How to respond to an Effects-Topicality Argument
The affirmative, of course, can and should respond to effects topicality arguments. They should argue the following:
1. The plan is directly topical (explain how)
2. Effects-topicality is okay--it increases learning about issues related to the topic
3. Any plan will have some degree of effects
4. Our interpretation does not unlimit the topic--only certain effects or effects one step away from the plan are permitted, this does not unlimit the topic
5. The negative still has ground to debate--they can argue x, y and z
6. Our case does not confuse topicality and solvency--it uses an argument to show that the plan does what the topic says it should.
Note also that depending on the
topic, effects may very well be legitimate. For example, this
year's topic is: Resolved: That the federal government should
establish a program to substantially reduce juvenile crime in the
United States. The affirmative must show an effect of their plan,
that it substantially reduces juvenile crime, to be topical. Any
topic that identifies an advantage that the affirmative must
present requires the affirmative to be effects-topical.
Thanks to Jason Wilden for this question.