Extra-Topicality, Topicality Part 5
Extra Topicality is another form of topicality where you are not necessarily disagreeing with the interpretation of a word in the resolution but instead what the affirmative team’s plan does given the resolution. You would claim that the affirmative team is doing ‘extra stuff’ that the resolution does not give them the right to argue.
Many times this extra stuff, you would want to argue, is actually negative ground. Thus, the extra stuff is disproving the resolution rather than affirming the resolution because in order for the affirmative case to be voted on the judge must go BEYOND the resolution.
On the Greater Horn topic, imagine a case where the Affirmative team changed US Foreign policy towards the ENTIRE continent of Africa. This would certainly change foreign policy TOWARDS the Greater Horn but ALSO towards other parts of the continent. This is the ‘extra stuff’ that extra-topicality argues against. The affirmative may even read evidence saying that only a comprehensive change in policy would solve the problem. That is your key that the case is probably extra-topical. The affirmative is trying to win the round by going BEYOND the scope of the resolution.
These are usually one of the easiest topicality violations to prove. The hard part then comes down to what to do next. The easiest strategy for most judges is to argue severance. Severance argues that those parts of the affirmative case that are accessed because of the extra part of the plan should be removed from the debate. Often this would mean a advantage, harms scenario, or certain pieces of solvency evidence are out the window. This usually does not mean that the affirmative debater loses the debate on extra-topicality; instead it’s the deficit that is now in the case that causes the problem.
The more difficult voter to argue, but one that may be easier within the rules of NFA-LD is that the debater should lose for being extra-topical. Here, you would argue that even though part of the affirmative case is topical the fact that the case goes beyond the resolution means they have not met their topicality burden and should lose. If you can argue that topicality is really a binary thing – you either are or are not – then this would be the voter you’d want to go with.
Structuring an extra topicality position follows the same format as the other positions. However, like effects topicality, your interpretation is usually not a word per se but instead the idea that the case can ONLY act as far the resolution affords the affirmative. Since the resolution limits changing US foreign policy towards the Greater Horn, it’s your interpretation that the affirmative is thus limited to only that area in their plan.
The violation is, again, like effects-topicality, where you argue their case is going beyond the limits in the resolution. Standards are the same as in other positions – why is going beyond the resolution creating an unfair debate? Ground/education/brightline/etc.
Finally, the voter is what we discussed earlier – severance or the loss. Structure it how you think is most persuasive.
I hope this five part series helped you understand topicality in debate:
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
Here are some additional links to other places on the web that may be helpful:
Code of the Debater Topicality Section
Topicality – Wikipedia
Topicality in high school debate
Effects Topicality
Topicality Introduction
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.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.