6 Ways to Win with Topicality in the 2020s (Part 2)
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
Homeschoolers Hate Topicality: A Metagame Story (Part 1)
Let’s continue our discussion about how to run topicality for audiences that don’t want to hear it. If you haven’t already, read part one here.
Run a 4-Point Press
The 4-point structure does two things for you: first, it explicitly lays out every logical step in your argument. Topicality is technically an entire negative case; there’s a lot to explain. Full structure makes it easier. Second, it helps you fill the 3+ minutes you’re going to spend on topicality.
The press works like this:
Standard
A quality of a topical plan. For the plan to be topical, it must meet the standard.
“STANDARD: UNITES STATES OF AMERICA. The resolution suggests that the federal government of the country we are currently in should act.”
Test
How we know if a plan meets the standard. The test should be a tangible, easy-to-use brightline.
“TEST: FEDERAL AGENCY. If the plan isn’t carried out exclusively by the US federal government, it’s not topical.”
The go-to test is DAY AFTER. It asks: The morning after the plan is passed, do the agents in the resolution notice? This is devastating against tiny affirmatives. Example:
“TEST: DAY AFTER. Think about the people running federal energy policy. They wake up tomorrow morning after the plan is passed, and they go to work. If the plan is topical, they soon become aware that the plan was passed. You ask them: “Have we substantially reformed our energy policy?” They say: “We sure have, this is a big change.” On the other hand, if most people working in energy policy don’t even notice the plan, then it is not a substantial reform.”
Violation
Why the plan fails the test.
“VIOLATION: INTERNATIONAL BODY. The plan is carried out by NATO, of which the US is merely a member. It requires the cooperation of 28 other governments.”
Impact
Why the judge should rule on topicality. The only impact you will ever need is BURDEN. Briefly invoke resolutionism; remind the judge that the resolution can’t be affirmed if no one supported it. Your version of this rhetoric will become semi-memorized over the course of your debate career.
“IMPACT: BURDEN. If you vote affirmative, you’re saying that you were convinced the resolution is true. But no one in this room is supporting the resolution. The plan is not an example of it. Since the affirmative team failed to uphold their burden, your decision is easy: vote negative.”
Conserve your passion
Passion signals major arguments to the judge. That means, as a rule of thumb, your passion should be higher for offense and lower for defense.
When you run Topicality, you want the judge to think of it not just as the most important argument, but as an argument so important that nothing in the round really matters. That means your passion should spike when you run Topicality. Perhaps you deliver at an 8 out of 10. Then you offer a few disadvantages with a passion level of 6. Then you run an off-case solvency argument at a 5. Then you refute the affirmative case at a 4.
Controlling your passion like this sends a clear message to the judge, independent of the words you’re saying. The topicality argument must be most important, since it’s the only one that made the negative team get loud.
Run Definition RTPs
Before you introduce your topicality argument, explicitly reject your opponent’s definition and run a counter-definition. Then run at least one reason to prefer it.
Ideas on how to win the definition debate are coming in the next few articles.