Structuring Topicality, Topicality Part 2
There are a few varieties of “topicality” positions to run. The first, covered below, is a straight up clash of definitions. There are also “effects-t” and “extra-t” topicality positions that will be discussed in future posts
Topicality Shell – Definitions
There are four basic components of a well-run topicality violation. These are:
A) Interpretation
B) Violation
C) Standards
D) Voter
Make sure to include each part and label each part distinctly. Mumbling through each position or running them out of order will only make it harder for the Topicality violation to win you the round.
A) Interpretation
The first part of the topicality violation is your interpretation of the word or phrase in question. You first want to say what word in the resolution you are defining and then give your definition. That’s all. Here you are simply setting up what you think the best definition should be. For NFA-LD debate this almost HAS to be carded evidence. The affirmative team, if they are well prepared, should have evidence proving their case is topical. Usually at least one of their authors assert the case area is topical. If they have evidence and you have assertions, the judge will probably not vote for you.
Here is an example of an interpretation card on the drought insurance case case:
The U.S. Congress, in passing the Greater Horn of Africa Initiative, claimed the following countries as part of the Greater Horn.
GHAI Strategic Plan, 1997 (http://www.usaid.gov/regions/afr/ghai/strategy_1197.html)
The GHAI countries include Ethiopia, Eritrea, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Somalia, Sudan, Djibouti, Rwanda and Burundi.
B) Violation
Here is where you argue how the affirmative team’s interpretation does not meet your own definition. Usually this is rather obvious, but you want to argue how the affirmative team’s definition is different and distinct from your own. The best answer the affirmative will make is that “we meet their violation” because without this difference the rest of the position does not matter.
If the affirmative team is able to prove to the judge that both “interpretations” of the resolution are the same (sounds more difficult than it is) then the judge would have no justification to vote for topicality.
Here is an example of a card you can run in the violation section:
Lacey, 2006. The New York Times is one of the most prestigious newspaper. in America. Marc Lacey is an experienced journalist for the newspaper. Aid Group Takes Out Insurance on Drought in Ethiopia. Lacey, Mark. New York Times, 3/7/06.//WC
In a pilot project that could someday transform the world’s approach to disaster emergencies, the World Food Program has taken out an insurance policy that will pay it should Ethiopia’s notoriously fickle rains fail this year. The policy’s creators are calling it the first natural disaster insurance coverage for an international aid agency .
The policy, which costs $930,000, was devised to create a new way of financing natural disaster aid. Instead of waiting for drought to hit and for people to suffer and then pursuing money from donors to respond, the World Food Program has crunched the numbers from past droughts and taken out insurance on the income losses that Ethiopian farmers would face should the rains fail.
If the rainfall measured at 26 weather stations around Ethiopia falls below a certain level between March and October, AXA Re, a large French insurer, will pay up to $7.1 million.
This is the second part of a five part series of posts discussing topicality:
1. Introduction to Topicality
2. Structuring Topicality Part 1/2 (interp and violation)
3. Structuring Topicality Part 2/2 (standards & voters)
4. Effects Topicality
5. Extra Topicality
Part 3 The next post will talk about standards and voters.
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.
Danny,
The card you posted is a violation card and not a interpretation card. An interpretation would be an actual definition of increase from a dictionary of some sort.
//WC