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 an expanded version of a section taken from The West Coast Debate Seminar Policy Topicbook (1995).
AN EXTRA-TOPICALITY ARGUMENT shows that PART OF THE PLAN IS NOT TOPICAL. For example, a plan to send an unstaffed mission to the sun and to increase technology sales to China is extra topical. The part of the plan that sends the unstaffed mission is not topical. The part that increases technology sales is topical. So, the plan is "extra-topical."
How to structure an Extra-Topicality Argument
You structure an Extra-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. THIS PORTION OF THE PLAN IS NOT TOPICAL
A. THIS PORTION OF THE PLAN VIOLATES THIS TERM IN THE TOPIC
[Include definition and statement of how this portion of the plan violates the definition.]
B. THIS INTERPRETATION IS SUPERIOR
[Write in the reasons that your interpretation/definition is good.]
C. EXTRA-TOPICALITY IS A VOTING ISSUE
[State why extra-topicality is a voting issue.]
Now, since you want to make an extra-topicality argument--you just argue that extra topicality is a voting issue in the C subpoint (Your standards will be basically the same as any other topicality argument). Here are arguments you might use:
1. Extra-topical planks should be severed from the plan. Do not consider any advantages from these parts of the plan as they are not relevant to the resolution.
2. Vote against extra topical plans because harms discussion of substantive issues. We have to spend valuable time attacking a part of their plan that they never should have included.
3. They skew our ground. Because we have to debate the plan as it was read in the 1ac, our strategic options are reduced. For example, we could not argue x, y and z.
4. They shift advocacy during the debate. If you sever the extra-topical plank, then what we are attacking has shifted making our ability to argue extremely difficult. The affirmative should be punished for putting the negative in such a position.
How to respond to an Extra-Topicality Argument
The affirmative, of course, can and should respond to extra topicality arguments. They should argue the following:
1. That portion of the plan is topical (explain how)
2. Extra-topicality is okay--it just means sever that portion of the plan; but we still have advantages from the topical portions of our plan
3. Any plan has some extra-topical sections including funding and enforcement
4. Extra-topicality is not an absolute voting issue--we don't shift--the negative is the one who makes us sever; we don't abuse negative ground; none of the negative strategies are excluded; we didn't intentionally seek to hurt the negative; severing is enough of a punishment.
Thanks to Jason Wilden for this question.