Difference between revisions of "Topicality"

Topicality (view source)

Revision as of 08:44, 11 January 2023

649 bytes added , 08:44, 11 January 2023

m

small changes to intro

IrisChen

Content-Manager

1

edit

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
   This page is designated as a high priority page that is incomplete. If you are able, please contribute to this page.
 == 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 topicality and theory are both "procedurals" because they generally supersede other "substantive" arguments, there is a distinction. In theory debates, the interpretation describes a norm that would be good for debate, and the violation proves that the other debater violated that norm. In topicality debates, both sides assume that it is a good norm for the affirmative to defend the resolution, and mainly disagree over what the best interpretation of the resolution is and whether the affirmative has differed from that interpretation.
-For topicality against performance/non-topical affs, click [[T-Framework|here.]]
+The notable exception to this is T-Framework. For topicality against performance/non-topical affs, click [[T-Framework|here.]]
+It is often helpful to think about T debates in the same way as policy debates. The interpretation is like a plantext, because it advocates for a deviation from the status quo. Standards explain why the interpretation is a good idea in the same way advantages explain why the plan is a good idea. Counter-interpretations mitigate offense in the same way a counterplan does, and can sometimes generate uniqueness for a net benefit (counter-standards).
 === Interpretations ===
-While all topicality shells technically amount to this argument:
+All topicality shells technically amount to this argument:
 "Interpretation: affirmatives must defend the resolution. Violation: The affirmative did not defend the resolution."
-A topicality argument like this would not be particularly useful because the affirmative likely agrees with you that it should defend the resolution, but disagrees with your claim that it has not defended the resolution. Because of this, it is important that topicality arguments make clear what their criteria for "topical affirmatives" are, and why the affirmative has not met that criteria. An example on the resolution "States ought to increase production of chocolate" might be:
+However, a topicality argument like this would not be particularly useful because the affirmative likely agrees with you that it should defend the resolution, but disagrees with your claim that it has not defended the resolution. Because of this, it is important that topicality arguments make clear what their criteria for "topical affirmatives" are, and why the affirmative has not met that criteria. An example on the resolution "States ought to increase production of chocolate" might be:
 "Interpretation: States is a plural noun. Therefore, the affirmative must defend that multiple states ought to increase production of chocolate. Violation: The affirmative has only defended increasing chocolate production in Germany."