A Sample Topicality Press (Complete Script)

Here’s a sample topicality argument, incorporating everything we discussed in the previous posts. 

“First – and I’m sorry, I hate to do this – I have to present a topicality argument. I know that’s basically a bad word around here. And you said before the round you hate technical debates. I loved hearing that, I was excited to talk about the resolution. I want to get to the issues as much as you do. But what the affirmative is talking about is so far removed from the resolution, I’m not doing my job if I don’t say something. So please bear with me, I promise this won’t be boring.

To begin, I REJECT my opponent’s definition of United Nations. The affirmative definition is pretty cool. I’ll admit it! It’s fun that they found a definition that’s so different from what we’ve been debating all year. It must have taken a lot of time to find. But it shouldn’t have been brought into this room. 

Here’s a real definition. From the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition 2020 (source): 

“An international organization composed of most of the countries of the world. It was founded in 1945 to promote peace, security, and economic development.”

Here are two reasons to prefer my definition. 

REASON TO PREFER 1: MAN ON THE STREET.

See those people walking by outside the window? Suppose we go out there and we talk to a hundred of them. It’ll take a little while. We ask them all the same question: “What is the United Nations?” We’ll get a lot of people who give us their version of the American Heritage definition, and maybe 1 or 2 who don’t know what the UN is. Not even one person will give you the definition my opponents gave you. It’s a clear departure from the meaning of the resolution. 

REASON TO PREFER 2: MAINSTREAM DICTIONARY.

My opponent’s definition is from Rap Dictionary. In cross-examination, my opponent admitted that Rap Dictionary is for – and I quote – “looking up hip-hop slang.” The resolution is not hip-hop slang. Rap Dictionary is an inappropriate way to interpret it. My definition is from American Heritage, the dictionary you’ll find in every home and school and library in the country. You can use it with absolute confidence. 

Now moving into my topicality argument; I have 4 sub-points. The first is a 

STANDARD: INTERNATIONAL PEACE ORGANIZATION.

When the resolution talks about the UN, it is not talking about the Canadian mafia. It’s talking about what you were thinking when you walked into this room. 

Here’s how you know if the standard is met. 

TEST: DAY AFTER.

Remember, the resolution says that the UN should be abolished. So, it’s really simple to see if a plan is topical. Just ask: if the plan is passed, the next morning, can we say: “The United Nations has been abolished?” If the answer is yes, the plan is topical. 

Here’s how the affirmative violates the test. 

VIOLATION: UN PERSISTS.

It doesn’t matter what happens in the British Columbian organized crime gang. Even if all crime in Canada ends today, we can’t wake up tomorrow and say: “The United Nations has been abolished.” The affirmative plan has absolutely nothing in common with the resolution. 

If you agree with what I said so far, here’s what I want you to do about it.

IMPACT: BURDEN.

The resolution is written at the top of your ballot. 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.

Now, we have some additional concerns about the plan beyond this topicality point. But this is by far the most important issue in the debate, and we’ll be asking you to rule on it as soon as the round ends. 

Moving on to some less important matters. I have two disadvantages …”

Next time we’ll close this series with a final post.

StrategyJoseph Abelltopicality, debate, nsda, ncfca, stoa, how to, sample, ace, peak, practice, roundComment