Content-Manager, Administrators
203
edits
Difference between revisions of "Topicality"
m
hyperlink to t-fw
CheeseMeese (talk | contribs) m (minor edit on formatting) |
CheeseMeese (talk | contribs) m (hyperlink to t-fw) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Overview == | == Overview == | ||
Topicality is an argument that contests whether or not the affirmative has met its burden in defending the resolution. While theory interpretations describe norms that would be good for debate, and then prove why a debater has violated those norms, topicality interpretations begin with the foundational assumption that it is good for the affirmative to defend the resolution, and then go on to describe what the best interpretation of the resolution is and why the affirmative has not defended that interpretation. | Topicality is an argument that contests whether or not the affirmative has met its burden in defending the resolution. While theory interpretations describe norms that would be good for debate, and then prove why a debater has violated those norms, topicality interpretations begin with the foundational assumption that it is good for the affirmative to defend the resolution, and then go on to describe what the best interpretation of the resolution is and why the affirmative has not defended that interpretation. | ||
For topicality against performance/non-topical affs, click [[T-Framework|here]]. | |||
=== Interpretations === | === Interpretations === | ||
While all topicality shells technically amount to this argument: | While all topicality shells technically amount to this argument: | ||
| Line 17: | Line 19: | ||
"Pragmatics" and "Debateability" are often used interchangeably to refer to arguments that seek to prove or disprove that a given topicality interpretation will create fair and education debates. Common examples of standards that incorporate these arguments include | "Pragmatics" and "Debateability" are often used interchangeably to refer to arguments that seek to prove or disprove that a given topicality interpretation will create fair and education debates. Common examples of standards that incorporate these arguments include | ||
* Neg Ground (the idea that a topicality interpretation is bad because it restricts the negative's access to prep that can answer affirmatives the interpretation would make topical). | * Neg Ground (the idea that a topicality interpretation is bad because it restricts the negative's access to prep that can answer affirmatives the interpretation would make topical). | ||
* Limits (the idea that a topicality interpretation is bad because it drastically expands the number of possible topical affirmatives, placing and unfair prep burden on the negative) | * Limits (the idea that a topicality interpretation is bad because it drastically expands the number of possible topical affirmatives, placing and unfair prep burden on the negative) | ||
* Topic Literature (the idea that a topicality interpretation is bad because it excludes core parts of scholarly literature written in the context of the topic) | * Topic Literature (the idea that a topicality interpretation is bad because it excludes core parts of scholarly literature written in the context of the topic) | ||
=== Paradigm Issues === | === Paradigm Issues === | ||
== Common Topicality Shells == | == Common Topicality Shells == | ||
== Extra Topicality == | == Extra Topicality == | ||
== Effects Topicality == | == Effects Topicality == | ||