DEBATE TOPICALITY TOPICALITY The 1 st Stock Issue

DEBATE TOPICALITY

TOPICALITY The 1 st Stock Issue is Topicality means that the Affirmative has an obligation to accomplish everything the Resolution requires, no more & no less. Do everything the resolution says to do Topicality is all about the words in the Resolution. RESOLVED: THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE ITS ECONOMIC ENGAGEMENT TOWARD CUBA, MEXICO, OR VENEZUELA

TOPICALITY 1. 2. 3. 4. This year’s resolution requires that any affirmative plan accomplish 10 things: The affirmative plan must use a government for their action The government they use must be federal The federal government they use must be of the United States The federal government’s action must increase something

TOPICALITY 5. The increase must be in engagement 6. The engagement must be economic 7. The increase in economic engagement must be substantial 8. The US federal government’s economic engagement must be its own 9. The increase in the US federal government’s economic engagement must be toward something

TOPICALITY 10. The increase in the US federal government’s economic engagement must be toward Cuba, Mexico, or Venezuela

TOPICALITY The Affirmative team must write their plan with these issues in mind. As they write their plan, they must make sure that they: Use the federal government of the United States to substantially increase economic engagement toward Cuba, Mexico or Venezuela

TOPICALITY When you write your Affirmative case, you will have to be certain that you cover all of those bases, as well. In the debate round, the Affirmative team will defend their case by arguing that they have fulfilled the topicality requirements of the Resolution. The Negative team will try to argue that the Affirmative has not fulfilled the topicality requirements of the Resolution. If the Affirmative has not fulfilled the topicality requirements of the Resolution, that is called a topicality violation.

TOPICALITY There are 3 different types of Topicality Violations. 1. Non-topicality: If the affirmative does less than the resolution requires, they can be charged with being NON-TOPICAL Example: The Affirmative plan mandates that the state of Washington buy all its coffee from Venezuela. What makes this non-topical? ____________ The penalty for being non-topical is to lose the round.

TOPICALITY 2. Extra – Topicality: If the Affirmative team does MORE than the Resolution requires, they are EXTRA-TOPICAL. Example: The Affirmative plan has the US federal government send economic assistance to Caracas and Buenos Aires. What makes this extra-topical? ______________ The penalty for being extra-topical is that the judge may not consider any plan parts or advantages that are extra-topical.

TOPICALITY 3. Effects-Topicality: If the Affirmative plan INVOLVES ACTIONS, WHICH BY THEMSELVES ARE NOT TOPICAL, but which have the EFFECT of producing TOPICAL RESULTS, they are EFFECTS-TOPICAL. Example: The Affirmative team has the US federal government sign an initiative with the Brazilian government to help them develop sugarcane fields in Cuba. What makes this effects-topical? _____________ The penalty of being effects-topical is to lose the round.

TOPICALITY Another way of looking at effects-topicality is that if the Affirmative plan gets the right result through a wrong [non-topical or notspecified-by-the-resolution] action, they are effects-topical. Let me give you an example: Let’s say you are supposed to substantially reduce juvenile crime in the United States. - If you do this by succeeding the United States to Canada, have you substantially reduced juvenile crime in the United States? Yes. . . now it’s Canadian crime! - If you redefine “juvenile” to only children under the age of five, have you substantially reduced juvenile crime in the United States? Yes…now it’s become an adult crime!

TOPICALITY In both of these examples, you get the RIGHT RESULT [substantially reducing juvenile crime in the United States] by taking a WEIRD, UNEXPECTED, NON-TOPCAL ACTION. [redefining the United States as Canada, or redefining children between ages 6 years and 18 years as adults] If the Affirmative team attempts to redefine a square peg to make it fit a round hole, they may be creating an effects-topical case.

TOPICALITY When you are on the Negative, the best way to argue TOPICALITY is this: The first question you will ask yourself is whether the Affirmative plan does LESS than the Resolution requires. As you listen to the Affirmative case, ask yourself the following questions. This TOPICALITY VIOLATION relates to the wording of the Resolution. If the answer to any of these questions is NO, you will argue that they are NON-TOPICAL [based on the word they have violated].

TOPICALITY 1. Have they used a GOVERNMENT agency? 2. Is it a FEDERAL government? 3. Is it a UNITED STATES federal government? 4. Are they INCREASING something? 5. Are they increasing ENGAGEMENT? 6. Is the engagement ECONOMIC? 7. Is the increase SUBSTANTIAL? 8. Is the US federal government increasing ITS economic engagement? 9. Is the economic engagement TOWARD something? 10. Is the CUBA, MEXICO OR VENEZUELA?

TOPICALITY If the answer to any of these questions is NO, you will argue that they are NON-TOPICAL [based on the word they have violated]. If the answer is YES, move on to the next TOPICALITY argument category. Next, ask yourself if the Affirmative team has done MORE than the Resolution has asked? If the answer is YES, you will argue that they are EXTRA-TOPICAL [based on the action they have taken in their plan that is more than the resolution requested]. This TOPICALITY VIOLATION is based directly on their PLANKS. You will look at their PLAN to see if they are taking any actions that are beyond the scope of what the Resolution asks us to do. You will argue that the portion of their plan that EXCEEDS THE MANDATE OF THE RESOLUTION SHOULD BE DISCARDED. You will ask the judge to disregard the PLANK OR THE ADVANTAGE THAT IS EXTRA-TOPICAL.

TOPICALITY If the answer is no, move on to the next argument Finally, ask yourself if the results the Affirmative claims to achieve are a DIRECT RESULT OF THE ACTIONS THEY HAVE TAKEN IN THEIR PLAN. This TOPICALITY VIOLATION relates directly to the Affirmative PLAN and their ADVANTAGES. You should ask yourself if the results the Affirmative are claiming come as a direct result of the actions they are taking.

TOPICALITY If the answer is YES, you will argue that they are EFFECTS-TOPICAL. You will look at each ADVANTAGE [OR SOLVENCY OF THE HARMS] and evaluate whether the RESULTS stem directly from the PLAN ACTIONS. If the answer is NO, move on to the next STOCK ISSUE [INHERENCY]. PRACTICE WORKSHEET…. .

TOPICALITY Practice worksheet discussion – how did you answer the topicality questions?

TOPICALITY

TOPICALITY Okay, so we currently have 1 possible TOPICALITY VIOLATION so far in the area of NON-TOPICALITY. Let’s see what else we can find. Has the Affirmative team done MORE than the Resolution requested? You could argue that the advantage of DECREASING COST TO U. S. CONSUMERS was not requested in the Resolution, and therefore goes beyond what the Resolution requires. That means that you could conceivably argue EXTRA-TOPICALITY.

TOPICALITY Because EXTRA-TOPICALITY is a STOCK ISSUE, the Affirmative will have to spend time answering your argument. This sucks time away from them in their 2 nd Affirmative Constructive. Finally, let’s consider whether the Affirmative case is EFFECTS-TOPICAL. The question you should ask is whether the results the Affirmative is claiming result directly from the actions they mandate in their plan? To make that decision, let’s look at the PLANKS and the RESULTS they claim:

TOPICALITY The Affirmative claims the harms of loss of perishables and higher costs for consumers stem directly from making Mexican truckers unload their merchandise and having to reload it into American trucks for delivery. Their plan is to have the Department of Transportation change their regulations, lifting the prohibition of Mexican drivers entering the U. S. This has nothing whatsoever to do with a direct increase in economic engagement with Mexico. Therefore, you can argue that the case is EFFECTS-TOPICAL.

TOPICALITY Let’s look at the Affirmative case another way. If you diagram the Affirmative ACTION STEPS and their RESULTS, it would look like this: Harms Plan Advantages

TOPICALITY Looking at the diagram, you will notice several things: There may be a direct connection (link) between UNLOADING & RELOADING CARGO AT U. S. PORTS OF ENTRY and LOSS OF PERISHABLES. [solid line] There is probably a direct connection (link) between UNLOADING & RELOADING CARGO AT U. S. PORTS OF ENTRY and HIGHER COSTS TO CONSUMERS IN THE U. S. [solid line]

TOPICALITY There is a direct connection between UNLOADING AND RELOADING CARGO AT U. S. PORTS OF ENTRY and DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION POLICIES [solid line]. There is NO DIRECT CONNECTION between CHANGE IN DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION POLICIES and GETTING PERISHABLES TO CONSUMERS FASTER. There is NO DIRECT CONNECTION between CHANGE IN DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION POLICIES and MEXICAN TRUCKERS MAKING MORE

TOPICALITY The Affirmative action is a CHANGE IN DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION POLICY but they cannot guarantee that will mean perishables will get to consumers faster [they infer this] or that companies in Mexico will choose to have their truckers take the goods all the way to their final destination. The results the Affirmative claim depend on the EFFECT OF MEXICAN COMPANIES CHOOSING TO HAVE THEIR TRUCKERS TAKE THE GOODS TO THE FINAL DESTINATION, which is not a topical step. You can conclude, therefore that the Affirmative case is EFFECTS-TOPICAL.

1. 2. 3. 4. TOPICALITY So, let’s review. You have now identified 4 POSSIBLE TOPICALITY VIOLATIONS of this Affirmative case. The Affirmative is NON-TOPICAL on the basis of SUBSTANTIALITY. The Affirmative is NON-TOPICAL on the basis of ITS. The Affirmative is EXTRA-TOPICAL because DECREASING THE COST TO U. S. CONSUMERS is not requested by the Resolution. The Affirmative is EFFECTS-TOPICAL because their ADVANTAGE of HIGHER WAGES FOR MEXICAN TRUCKERS does not stem directly from a topical step. It depends on the willingness of Mexican companies to pay their truckers more.

TOPICALITY The issue of TOPICALITY is called an OFFCASE ARGUMENT. This means that the argument does not connect directly to the casestructure of the Affirmative case. It is, instead, an argument that relates to the nature of the Affirmative case before the round starts [hypothetically]. In theory, it is necessary for the Affirmative case to be TOPICAL before any other arguments take place. TOPICALITY arguments are usually run at the beginning of the 1 st Negative Constructive, although they can be run during either constructive speech

TOPICALITY Remember that when we discussed the OBLIGATION of the Affirmative team, we talked about the fact that the LEAST we should expect them to do is EXACTLY WHAT THE RESOLUTION ASKS THEM TO DO, NO MORE & NO LESS [Topicality]. If you can prove they haven’t met this obligation, they should lose the round.