6 Ways to Win with Topicality in the 2020s (Part 1)
This post is a continuation of our conversation with Danielle. If you haven’t already, read the previous parts here:
Reader Question: Tiny Affirmatives
Why is it so Hard to Run Disadvantages Against Tiny Affirmatives?
How to Run Huge DAs Against Tiny Affirmatives
In a recent article, we talked about why Topicality is unpopular in several competitive environments. Does that mean you shouldn’t run it? Definitely not! It’s as important as ever. But you do need to be smart about how you run it. Here are a few ways to sell a Topicality press, even to an audience that doesn’t want to hear it.
Lampshade Prejudice
Lampshading means you directly acknowledge why the audience is pulling away. If you’re in an environment where topicality is frowned on, say so. Just acknowledging that the judge doesn’t like the argument will make it more palatable.
“I know, I hate topicality as much as you do. But this plan is so far from the topic, I have to say something.”
3 Minutes Minimum
You’re asking the judge to throw out the rest of the arguments in the debate; to not even consider them. That’s what it means to be “a priori.” The biggest obstacle: the judge wants to make a decision that reflects what happened. Throwing out the entire flow over a side argument that got a total of two minutes through the whole debate is too much to ask.
That means you need to spend a minimum of 3 minutes on topicality in the 1NC. It’s acceptable to spend the entire speech on it. Structure it, sub-point it, slow down, incorporate time-consuming persuasive devices.
If topicality isn’t worth at least 3 minutes of your time, it isn’t worth running at all. Cut it and focus on what you really want to talk about.
Reference Topicality Constantly
You should maintain a strict division of labor in the constructives, meaning the 1NC and 2NC cover different arguments. That said, you should remind that judge of the topicality argument throughout every speech. Don’t refute the 2A topicality responses in the 2NC, but do reference it before you dive into your own stuff.
“In this speech, I’ll cover the harms and advantages and then offer a new Solvency argument. But before I do I want to remind you – and you don’t have to write this down – the affirmative plan isn’t topical, so this is just an academic exercise. It’s a bad idea in its own right, but even if it weren’t, there would be no way to vote on it. My partner will go into more detail on that in the next speech. So let’s look at harm 1 …”
Part 2 comes next week.