Introduction to Topicality, Post 1 of 5
When I first started judging and coaching NFA-LD I assumed given the impression of the event from afar that topicality would rarely be argued. Was I wrong! At our first tournament Cerritos did not even have answers to topicality and our affirmative teams were really hit hard with that oversight.
An interesting difference between CEDA/NPDA/NDT and NFA-LD is that topicality is specifically mentioned in the rules as a voting issue. That makes it a bit easier to win rounds and argue Topicality. To view examples of topicality positions click here to go to the free evidence section and view examples of T.
This is the first part of a five part series of posts discussing topicality. I’ve tried to break it into more manageable parts rather than overload you with too much information. The series includes
- Introduction to Topicality
- Structuring Topicality Part 1/2 (interp and violation)
- Structuring Topicality Part 2/2 (standards & voters)
- Effects Topicality
- Extra Topicality
Introduction
The rules of NFA-LD specifically say that topicality is a voting issue. That is unique in debate formats as far as I’ve read and should provide you with an solid tool to attack the affirmative’s case.
Topicality is basically a question of jurisdiction and fairness. First, topicality argues that the affirmative team’s interpretation of the resolution is not correct. They are “non-topical” or in other words, do not fit within the bounds of the resolution. The negative can show the affirmative is not topical through demonstrating the case interpretation does not fall within the judge’s jurisdiction or is unfair to the negative.
Jurisdiction, in the legal field, generally refers to the question on whether or not a judge has the authority to rule on a given case. For example, in the United States, the Supreme Court has limited jurisdiction. Not all cases can be brought before the Supreme Court if there is not a constitutional problem or something that is specified in the constitution. Normally, you would not have your speeding ticket case heard before the Supreme Court.
In debate, jurisdiction refers to whether or not the Judge can vote on the affirmative team’s case given their duty is to either affirm or deny the given resolution for the debate round. If the resolution is, “This House should Feed Africa,” and the affirmative team runs a case to send food aid to China, then the judge, if they voted for the affirmative team, would not be affirming whether or not they should “Feed Africa” if the negative ran topicality and proved the affirmative team’s plan did not meet the resolution. As such, the judge lacks the jurisdiction to vote on the affirmative team’s plan since doing so would not affirm the resolution.
The second notion is that of fairness. Topicality is one way in which you can call the affirmative team on abusing the fairness established by the topic. By showing the affirmative team’s interpretation is unfair to the negative through topicality, the judge would be ensuring the fairest debate. Fair debate promotes education and ensures healthy competition. In sports, fairness is often paramount. In basketball you rarely see one team’s basket at 10 feet while the other team’s basket is 40 feet in the air. In football both teams have to gain 10 yards for a first down. We would say it’s unfair if the home team had to go 5 yards for a first down whereas the visiting team had to go 40 yards. You are making a similar argument with topicality: it is unfair for the negative to have argue this case.
As with most other arguments in debate, there is much variance over the importance different judges, competitors, teams, and regions of the country place on topicality. Some judges feel it is a waste of time to argue topicality and see it as “whining.” Instead, they would rather just have you debate the case given by affirmative team. Other judges or regions of the country are much more likely to “pull the trigger” on topicality.
Topicality always comes down to the debate round in question. The previous example, of a policy towards China when the resolution directed action towards Africa, might be an easier position to win, compared to a policy towards one country in Africa where some might say the resolution required a policy towards the entire continent.
Regardless of the judge’s predisposition towards topicality, however, a well argued topicality position is hard to ignore. While the hurdle might be higher with some judges, if run correctly, they might be inclined to vote on it given the circumstances of the round.
Part 2 will feature specifics about running topicality.
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.
Comments
No comments yet.
Leave a Reply