Breaking Down Barriers: Ask Jim about Debate Return to the BDB List of Questions

You can submit questions too, just email Jim at hansonjb@whitman.edu

Topicality-How do you Respond to it?

This answer is taken directly from Breaking Down Barriers: How to Debate 1996 (Edition 3.0)

Here are the main kinds of arguments you can present:

1. We Meet The Negative Interpretation

You should attempt to argue that your plan meets the negative definition. For example, if the negative argues that your federal led and state developed policies violates the phrase "United States government" and defines United States government as "the central government which stands as the centralized body connected to each of the 50 state governments," you should argue that your plan meets the negative definition. You can argue that your plan does use the centralized government with its 50 state branches and your plan therefore supports the topic.

There are at least three different ways to show that your plan meets the negative definition:

• Read a piece of evidence
• Refer to an argument/evidence in the affirmative case
• Use logical reasoning

2. We Meet Our Interpretation

Use the same basic format used for negative topicality arguments:

1. THE PLAN SUPPORTS (THE TERM).

This is because the definition of (the term or phrase) is:

(include definition here)

So, the plan does do what the definition says it does.

There are at least three different ways to show that your plan meets the negative definition:

• Use a definition
• Read a piece of evidence
• Refer to an argument/evidence in the affirmative case
• Use logical reasoning

3. Their Interpretation Is Bad--Your Interpretation Is Good

You should also develop arguments that explain why your interpretation is good and why your opponent's interpretation is bad. When the negative presents a standard, you should be able to respond. Against a best definition standard, be prepared to respond with support for a reasonable definition standard. Use the reasons "why your interpretation is superior" arguments from the previous section in this Chapter to develop your arguments for this.

4. Topicality Is Not A Voting Issue

Some affirmatives may argue that topicality should not be a voting issue. In general, this is a weak argument on which few judges will vote. However, some judges want to dismiss topicality arguments that they feel are not strong. You can argue that a negative topicality argument isn't good enough to vote on in front of these judges. You can argue that:

• Substantive issues are more important than bickering about whether the affirmative fits a specific definition or not
• We are close enough to the topic that we should not lose the entire debate
• We do not abuse the negative's ground, they can run many arguments including . . .
• The negative knew our case beforehand, so they had time to research it.
• As long as the affirmative is reasonable, ignore negative topicality arguments that depend on technicalities
• The negative must very strongly prove that we are not topical. If they don't, ignore the topicality argument or you, the judge, will encourage weak topicality arguments that will make it virtually impossible for affirmatives to win.

5. Topicality Is A Reverse Voting Issue

A few debaters have even gone so far as to suggest that topicality may be a voting issue, not for the negative, but for the affirmative! There is some merit in their arguments that topicality is a "reverse voting issue," though not much in my opinion. Their arguments are threefold. First, topicality is a reverse voting issue because the negative wastes valuable time with their topicality argument. Second, if the negative's interpretation of the topic damages affirmative ground then the judge should vote affirmative. Third, topicality is a reverse voting issue because as soon as the judge decides that the affirmative does support the resolution, the judge makes a decision that the affirmative is in his or her jurisdiction and in so doing casts an affirmative ballot. None of these three reasons are particularly compelling to me, the author. I suggest that judges vote on a reverse voting issue on topicality only if the negative's topicality arguments are so abusive that it erodes the affirmative's ability to argue. The negative should be given the freedom, without penalty, to present any issue they wish.

Thanks to Jigar Desai for asking this question.

Send Jim an e-mail if you have other tips