Thinking Topically
"I didn't work for Jimmy Carter all those years to go to cocktail parties. I was there as a political adviser, a short-order cook, to work on topical matters."
Hamilton Jordan served as Chief of Staff for President Jimmy Carter from 1979 to 1980. While Jordan was working, he was not around to make decisions for the EU or Australia. Hamilton Jordan was present to work on pressing issues. Similarly, the debaters inside of a debate room aren’t there to discuss things outside of the resolution. Oftentimes, debaters may choose to run a case that is not the most topical. In those times, you should run topicality against that case. If you find yourself wondering how to run a topicality argument, I have the perfect strategy for you.
In order to run topicality, there must be a reason to believe that the case is outside of the resolution. The key to having this reason to believe non-topicality is through definitions. A definition of crucial terms inside the resolution will help you to understand what the resolution entails. For example, the current resolution is: "The United States Federal Government should significantly reform its import and or export policy within the bounds of international trade." Under this resolution, definitions for import, export, and trade are crucial. Understanding the parts of trade can help you determine certain cases as non-topical.
Topicality has four components to it: the interpretation, the violation, the standards, and the impact. Without all four parts, you will not run the topicality press as effectively or as persuasively as possible. As a side note, make sure to keep hammering on topicality in the rebuttals and not lean off of it after the first speeches.
The first step towards topicality is defining the resolution. For something to stray from a topic, there has to be a set idea for that topic. The interpretation of topicality is where you outline what exactly the resolution is and what it is not. This is where the definitions that you found earlier come into play. If the aff’s case is to send military aid to another country, you can pull up a definition of export that says that an item has to be sold to be considered an export. That definition will show that an export is something that is purchased.
Now that the interpretation is set in place, you have to show the judge where the aff’s case strays from the resolution. Concerning the prior example, you would explain to the judge that military aid is not exported because nothing is being purchased. While a definition is not always crucial for this part, it can make the point more impactful and credible, as a definition of military aid can certify that it is indeed given without a purchase.
Every single person has their own interpretation of the resolution. While most will have the same or at least a similar interpretation, some will have a unique interpretation that allows for some cases to be considered topical. The third step of topicality is where you outline the reason for preferring your interpretation of the resolution above the aff’s interpretation. For you to win topicality, your interpretation has to be preferred over the aff. The aff, while writing the case, likely had an idea of how it fits into the resolution through unique definitions. But a strong standard such as the context standard can help prove your interpretation.
A context standard outlines the normal context in which a word is used. For example, the word "export," when used in the context of trade, means "a commodity, article, or service sold abroad." However, if you removed it from the context of international trade and used a different definition, it could become "to send abroad." The second definition allows for much more affirmative ground than the first. However, it is in an improper context. Thus, the standard of context would suggest that we should prefer the interpretation of the resolution that uses proper context over an interpretation that uses improper context.
The final part of topicality is impact. Why does it matter that the affirmative team is outside the bounds of the resolution? Clearly, the main impact is that the negative team wins the round. But how do you show that? The warrants for the impact can include a couple of different points. The main warrants include Education and Fairness, Resolution Insufficiency, and Resolution Authority.
One of the primary goals of a debate round is to educate both the debaters and the listening audience/judge. However, that cannot be done by allowing teams to disregard the agreed-upon resolution and is unfair to the negative team. Furthermore, the affirmative team would not be able to have a strong press against their case, disabling them from having a good round. That is unfair to the affirmative team. Finally, the judge is unable to see as a fair clash of ideas, leading to their expectations of an educational round to be disappointed.
The next warrant is for a Resolution of Insufficiency. The resolution outlines a specific task for the affirmative team to uphold. However, if they do not uphold that resolution, nobody is affirming the resolution. When nobody affirms the resolution, what happens? Well, the affirmative team would fail their resolutional requirement, and lose the round.
The third and final warrant is a Resolution Authority. This establishes a connection between the debate round and a governmental entity. In Congress, committees work on a specific subject and do not leave that subject. Similarly, in a round, the affirmative team is only given authority over a specific topic within the resolution. However, if the affirmative team leaves the bounds of the resolution, what can they do? Without the authority granted by the resolution, they cannot pass their proposed policy and thus the negative team would win the round.
Now that you understand how to run an effective topicality press, you’ll be at an advantage over teams with questionable topicality justifications.
