Facelift for the Familiar: Topicality
Topicality has been one of the core policy arguments for a long time. Omni makes a few adjustments, but most of them are invisible on the surface.
Topicality: A Presumption argument claiming that the Plan is not an example of the resolution.
In value and fact debate, the entire case works together to prove the resolution. If a specific part of it doesn’t relate to the resolution, you’ll point that out as a direct response, typically with a tag of NO IMPACT. You’ll probably still have to deal with the rest of the case on other merits.
Policy is different. The affirmative is trying to prove one specific instance of the resolution. Benefits and Detriments don’t have to clearly relate to the resolution, they just have to relate to the Plan. So the only common scenario where you’re likely to argue that the case doesn’t pertain to the resolution is the Plan. If the Plan is topical (a resolution instance), we effectively forget about the resolution and focus all our attention on that.
Topicality is best run as a negative case argument with its own structure.
Standard: A quality that a Plan has to have to be topical.
Standards are often supported by a definition. If you reject the affirmative definition, make sure to explain why yours is better: it’s more credible, more specific to the topic, better captures a common-knowledge understanding, etc.
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially change its energy policy.
Plan: Reduce Gas Subsidies. Gasoline subsidies and tax credits will be reduced by an amount that equates to $0.10/gallon.
Standard: Largely not Wholly. Merriam-Webster defines Substantial as: “Being largely but not wholly that which is specified.” So to be topical, the plan needs to change a large part of our overall energy policy. Energy policy needs to be changed so much that it would make sense to clarify: “well, it isn’t wholly changed.”
Test: How to tell if a Plan meets the Standard.
This should be an easy, tangible brightline. Test:Standard as Criterion:Value.
Test: Energy Dept Tomorrow. Think about the 109,000 people who work for the US Department of Energy. If a topical Plan is passed, then many of them will show up to work tomorrow and immediately notice the change. “Have you heard about the Plan?” they’ll say to each other. “We’re going to have to do our jobs differently now.” On the other hand, if most people can show up to work thinking nothing has changed, the plan is not substantial.
The Test isn’t always necessary, but it usually helps - for two reasons.
Time. If you’re running Topicality, you probably want to spend as much time on it as possible (more on this in a future post). Adding a sub-point gives you a way to extend the length of the argument without repeating yourself.
Clarity. Many Standards are ambiguous at face value. The Test gives you a clear way to prove that the Plan isn’t topical and makes aff wiggling much harder.
Violation: Why the Plan fails the Test.
If you built the Test correctly, this should be very easy. The key is to make the Standard and Test impartial. Don’t talk about the problems with the Plan until you get here. The first two points establish blind justice; the Violation puts the Plan on trial and finds it lacking.
Unnoticed to Most. The overwhelming majority of people who carry out US energy policy will show up to work after the Plan is passed with no idea that anything has changed. Even the relatively tiny number that oversee gasoline subsidies and tax credits won’t think: “We’re carrying out a big change in our course of action.” A memo will go around, and everyone will continue working. The Plan won’t be the biggest thing that happened that day.
Impact: What this means for the affirmative case.
In Omni, Topicality removes the impact of the aff case - thereby reapplying presumption. You need to understand that that’s what you’re doing when you run the argument. You usually don’t have to go into that much depth, however. Here’s how you might explain it to a community judge.
Impact: No Advocacy. We walked into this debate ready to hear the affirmative’s proposal for substantially changing America’s energy policy. They didn’t give us one. So we may have an interesting conversation about the tweak they’re suggesting, but when the round ends, you have nothing to affirm. No one in this round has defended the idea that a substantial policy change is a good idea. The bad news: the rest of this debate will be a less interesting than you and I were hoping. The good news: your decision just got very easy.
Note the lack of whining over fairness or educational value. Topicality hits hardest when the logic is all focused on the resolution. If the judge thinks you’re being treated unfairly, they’ll factor that into their evaluation of your press. You don’t need to complain first to make them do that.
The rhetoric here is 90% the same from round to round; it’ll eventually be semi-memorized for you.
Here’s another example.
Resolved: The United States should invade a European country.
Plan: Invade Morocco.
Standard: Wiki 51. To be topical, a plan has to invade one of the 51 entries on Wikipedia’s “List of European countries by population.”
Test: Change in Sovereignty. If a topical plan is passed, the government of one of those 51 countries will be directly attacked by the United States. So just put yourself in the shoes of the head of state for any of those countries. “Am I about to lose my job?” A successful invasion would mean the answer was yes.
Violation: Morocco is in Africa. Morocco is not in the Wiki 51. Assuming the aff Plan goes exactly as intended and Morocco becomes a US Protectorate, there is absolutely no change in sovereignty to any European country.
Impact: No Advocacy.
Like all Presumption arguments, Topicality has some significant weaknesses - especially in the Team Policy format. But that is a topic for another day. Topicality is essential for a functional Policy ecosystem. You must be able to run it effectively and win rounds if the affirmative makes you.
Up next: Specification.