You can submit
questions too, just email Jim at hansonjb@whitman.edu
Topicality--Preparing Standards
This answer is adapted from Breaking Down
Barriers 1997 (3.1).
Topicality arguments should be supported by
standards that explain why your interpretations or definitions
are superior. At a minimum, you can argue that:
- Your interpretation would place fair
limits on the topic. Their interpretation would allow too
many/too few affirmative cases.
- Your interpretation creates a bright line
dividing what is and is not topical whereas their
definition is vague leaving us unable to tell what is and
is not topical.
- Your definition uses proper grammar
whereas their definition does not.
- Your definition is fairer to both sides.
Their definition makes it too hard for one side to argue.
- Your definition is clearer in describing
the term.
- Your definition makes sense. Their
definition doesn’t.
- Your definition is more precise. It is
more specific in defining the term than your
opponent’s definition.
- Your definition is field contextual.
Experts in the field use the term the way that you use
it.
- Your definition applies to the wording of
the resolution better. For example, for the phrase
"to the United States" you have the
prepositional definition of "to" whereas your
opponents have an "infinitive" verb definition
of "to."
- Your definition is from an expert source
(legal dictionary, political books, etc.). Their source
is not.
- Your interpretation gives each word in the
topic meaning whereas their interpretation moots the
meaning of a term in the topic.
- Your interpretation defines a phrase in
the topic whereas their interpretation defines one word
thereby ignoring the meaning of the word in relation to
the words next to it.
- Your interpretation fits with other words
or phrases that appear in a different portion of the
topic.
- Your interpretation uses a more common,
widely accepted definition. Their definition is obscure
and rarely used.
- Your definition excludes your
opponent’s interpretation because it says . . .
- Your interpretation fits the
"framer’s interpretation" or "the
spirit of the resolution" (this spirit is a vague
concept, up to question, but it is a standard teams use).
- Their interpretation makes it impossible
to argue because any good arguments would be arguments
for their side.
- The values behind their interpretation are
bad (their definitions are anthopocentric, racist, etc.)
- POLICY ONLY: They cause a bi-directional
approach to the topic that would place too many research
burdens on the negative. See the box on the side for more
on what a bi-directional topic is.
- POLICY ONLY: Your interpretation avoids
effects topicality because it does not depend on looking
to solvency to determine whether the plan is topical or
not.
Be sure to identify how your definition or
interpretation specifically does any of the above. For example,
specifically state how your definition is clearer or how your
definition is precise. So, if you were arguing that your
interpretation gives limits to the topic, you might argue:
1. WE PREVENT AN UNLIMITED TOPIC.
Our definition of renewable energy includes
solar, wind, biomass, ocean thermal, and fusion. Their
interpretation would allow any form of energy including food to
be topical.
Jim
Thanks to Blizrd3@aol.com
for asking this question.
