What is Topicality?
At the core, the basic Affirmative burden is to promote the resolution. Their plan must put the resolution into effect; the plan must draw its advantages from the specifics of the resolution; the case must explain why the resolution is vital.
The Negative topicality argument is the supreme challenge to this viewpoint. The Negative will argue that the Affirmative team is abandoning this duty to support the resolution, in effect, that the Affirmative team is cheating. Because of the extraordinary nature of this claim, in many cases the Negative team will win automatically if they win a topicality argument.
There are three types of topicality challenge the Negative can make. The nontopicality challenge argues that the Affirmative hasn't done enough to sponsor the resolution; sometimes this argument is called subtopicality. The nontopicality challenge is the most common, and is the argument most debaters refer to when they mention "topicality." The extratopicality argument claims that the Affirmative has gone too far, that they have gone beyond the resolution in order to gain their advantages. Lastly, the topicality justification (often, simply justification) argument claims that the case doesn't give enough explanation for why the resolution, rather than the plan, need be adopted.
Topicality, and counterplans, which are discussed in the following chapter, are parts of intermediate debate theory. Every debater needs to know and understand the nature of topicality arguments, but the other stuff is more important. Don't read this chapter until you are familiar with speaker duties, stock issues, and the other material covered in the earlier chapters.
An Introduction of T for the Novice Debater
Should Negatives Use Topicality?
No. In fact, overuse of topicality arguments is one of the traps many Negatives fall into. Topicality should be used sparingly. A strong Negative challenge will take several minutes to present, and will cut time for presenting other arguments. So you should reserve topicality challenges for those instances where either you have no other arguments to make, or you are confident of winning the topicality issue because it is so clear-cut.
Additionally, many judges are reluctant to vote on topicality if that would involve an automatic loss for the Affirmative team, since the judge would rather see the case debated on its merits rather than on a procedural issue. Other judges don't understand the nature of the topicality argument, and won't grant it the importance that the Negative wants. Judges are an independent bunch, they can refuse to decide which way an argument like topicality falls, and there is no appeal from their decision. And many judges at invitational tournaments or league debates may not be completely familiar with debate theory, and will fail to grasp what topicality means. Since you may not know until after the round if you're facing one of these judges, the best approach is to save topicality until you really need it.
Topicality is best reserved for the so-called squirrel cases: Affirmative cases that rely on an unusual twist to the meaning of the resolution's terms. Since topicality arguments deal closely with definitions, they are the most powerful tool you have to fight squirrel approaches.
How does the negative demonstrate that the standards are violated?
After presenting one or more standards, the Negative speaker then cites each instance where the Affirmative distorts or ignores the meanings of the words involved. Usually, the Negative presents a formal definition of his or her own. He reminds the judge of the Affirmative definition, if one was presented. He then argues that the Affirmative definition violates the standards, while the Negative definition preserves them. Then he moves on to the next phrase under dispute.
Who presents the nontopicality argument?
Since this is by its nature a new issue in the debate, nontopicality must appear in a Negative constructive speech. At one time it was standard for it to be assigned to the Second Negative. But judges reasoned that, since this was so important an issue to the Negative, they're accusing the Affirmative of cheating, after all, delaying the presentation until 2NC was unethical.
It is now standard to introduce nontopicality as an issue in 1NC, usually as an overview before the speaker begins with case arguments. If the Negative team delays until 2NC to present it, many judges will not vote on the issue, in effect deciding for the Affirmative on this point. You are advised to begin your nontopicality arguments in the First Negative Constructive, if you are planning to use such attacks.
How does the affirmative respond to nontopicality arguments?
Since nontopicality carries so large a penalty, loss of the debate! If the Negative wins the issue, the Affirmative cannot afford to give the argument anything less than their full attention. Most of the burden will be on the Second Affirmative, of course, since he or she must provide the initial answers to the 1NC argument.
If topicality was not introduced in the round until 2NC, then the First Affirmative must grapple with the issue in the rebuttal. The 1AR speaker should first point out to the judge that delaying the argument to this late point weakens the Negative position. Then 1AR should refute topicality as quickly as possible.
Affirmatives will first argue the issue of standards. You may want to accept the Negative standards, especially a Meaningfulness standard. Against any form of the Better Definition standard, the best response is to insist that Reasonability is a superior standard. In other words, the Affirmative will argue that "better" definitions are irrelevant: the Affirmative is entitled to use any definitions that it wants, provided they are legitimate meanings of the words in question, just as the Affirmative is granted the right to choose the specific harm and inherency issues to be debated.
Against the violation arguments, the Affirmative has a number of choices. They can argue that they do, if fact, meet the Negative definitions. Or they can propose their own definitions (either dictionary definitions or the operational ones), and argue that the plan meets these definitions "reasonably" well, under the Reasonableness standard. Or they can argue that their definitions meet the Negative standards, for example, that the Affirmative definition is better than the Negative's .The Affirmative must make at least one response to each of the violation arguments.
Of course, it's common for Affirmatives to offer multiple responses to a nontopicality challenge. They can (1) argue that the Negative standards are bad ones; (2) that the Negative definitions don't meet the Negative standards; (3) that the Affirmative plan meets the Negative definitions, so there is no violation; (4) that better Affirmative standards exist; and/or (5) that Affirmative definitions meet the superior Affirmative standards, so those definitions should be used to prove the plan is topical. If an Affirmative team makes all five of these claims, then they have five different potential ways to defeat the topicality argument before the round is over.