Content-Manager, Administrators
203
edits
Difference between revisions of "Topicality"
→Nebel Topicality
CheeseMeese (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
==== Definitions ==== | ==== Definitions ==== | ||
Since topicality arguments attempt to identify the best (i.e. the most fair and educational) interpretation of the resolution, they usually require defining words in the resolution. In the chocolate example from the previous section, a definition of the word "states" that says states is a plural noun that must refer to multiple things would most likely be read in the 1NC. | Since topicality arguments attempt to identify the best (i.e. the most fair and educational) interpretation of the resolution, they usually require defining words in the resolution. In the chocolate example from the previous section, a definition of the word "states" that says states is a plural noun that must refer to multiple things would most likely be read in the 1NC. | ||
Definitions are important because they help prove that a given topicality interpretation is a precise and accurate reading of the resolution. Without definitions, topicality interpretations become arbitrary and place unfair burdens on the affirmative by expecting them to interpret the resolution in a way that is not represented in the topic literature. | Definitions are important because they help prove that a given topicality interpretation is a precise and accurate reading of the resolution. Without definitions, topicality interpretations become arbitrary and place unfair burdens on the affirmative by expecting them to interpret the resolution in a way that is not represented in the topic literature. | ||
==== Semantics vs Pragmatics ==== | ==== Semantics vs Pragmatics ==== | ||
| Line 24: | Line 25: | ||
* 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 === | ||
When it comes to topicality, [[Structure of a Shell#Voters/Paradigm Issues|paradigm issues]] sometimes have more specific topicality-related warrants. Shells will have the same "drop the debater, competing interps, no RVIs, fairness and education matter" but the way these are warranted may slightly change. Some common arguments can be found below: | |||
'''Drop the debater''' – their aff is their entire advocacy, so dropping the aff is the same thing as dropping them. | |||
'''Competing interpretations''' – topicality is a yes/no question (either you are topical, or you are not topical, if the topic is “dogs are cute” and you are advocating for cats, you can’t say that you’re almost topical because cats and dogs are both animals), there is no way to be reasonably topical. | |||
'''No RVIs''' – you don’t get to win for being fair, especially for just proving you’re topical. Otherwise, affs would auto-win every round just for meeting their burden. | |||
Topicality also has some unique paradigm issues, like semantics/precision and an argument for why this theory shell comes before 1AR theory. However, semantics/pragmatics (explained above) is not a very common paradigm issue anymore given that most people run it as a standard, but the warrants for it being a paradigm issue would be the same for it being a standard. | |||
For a shell to come before 1AR theory, that means that even if the aff runs a shell in their first aff rebuttal and wins it, if you win topicality is true, the judge should decide the debate on who won topicality before deciding who won the aff’s shell. For example, let’s say you run topicality and your opponent runs conditionality bad (condo). If you win topicality, but your opponent wins condo, the judge will give you the win because topicality comes at a higher layer. Common arguments for this can be found below: | |||
'''Comes before 1AR theory''' – if we had to be abusive it’s because it was impossible to engage with their aff. | |||
'''Comes before 1AR theory''' – T outweighs on scope (scope is ''how much'' something is affected) because your choice to be non-topical affected every speech after the 1AC. | |||
== Common Topicality Shells == | == Common Topicality Shells == | ||
=== Nebel Topicality === | === Nebel Topicality === | ||
==== Upward Entailment Test ==== | Nebel topicality, or "Nebel-T" is named after Jake Nebel. It makes the claim that grammatically, it is illogical for affirmatives to defend subsets of certain nouns. | ||
==== Adverb Test ==== | |||
==== Bare Plurals ==== | |||
A ''plural'' is more than one. For a plural to be a bare plural, it lacks a determiner. A ''determiner'' is what determines the quantity of something. This can also be known as a ''quantifier''. An example of a determiner would be “one,” “two,” “some,” “all,” etc. Thus, the phrase “seven cats” would not be a bare plural because it has a determiner, while the phrase “cats” would be a bare plural because it has no determiner. | |||
For some topics, whether something has a determiner is unclear. Saying “In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory” could refer to [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/a a singular democracy] or [http://guidetogrammar.org/grammar/determiners/determiners.htm a general category of democracy]. In these debates, you’ll want to provide definitions proving that the word in question (like “a”) is or is not a determiner. | |||
===== Generic vs Existential ===== | |||
In topicality, there are two types of bare plurals: generic and existential. | |||
A ''generic bare plural'' refers to something in plural. Saying that “cats have tails” is a statement referring to how cats are in general. Proving that there are a couple stumpy tail-less cats is not enough to disprove the statement “cats have tails” because that statement is true in general – tail-less cats are not tail-less because they are cats, but because they lost their tails. Generics thus allow for some exceptions. However, what does it mean to be true in general? The very sad answer is that nobody knows. | |||
An ''existential bare plural'' refers to the existence of some of a noun – it can be affirmed even by the smallest of the number; all that needs to be proven true is for it to have more than one. For example, if I say “cats are on my table” it means that there is more than one cat on the table. Two cats, three cats, four cats, or more than one cat would all prove the statement true. Existential bare plurals have lower thresholds for what is true. Unlike generic bare plurals, existential bare plurals refer to specific things. | |||
===== Determining the Difference ===== | |||
What is the difference between a generic bare plural and an existential bare plural? | |||
First, the noun must be plural. | |||
Second, you need to check if there is a determiner. To determine if something is generic, there are two tests: the upward entailment test and the adverb test. | |||
====== '''The Upward Entailment Test''' ====== | |||
Generic bare plurals are '''not''' upward entailing, while existential bare plurals are. If something is upward entailing, the statement will remain true if we replace the subject with a more inclusive term. | |||
For example, with the statement “cats are on my table” if you replace “cats” with “animals,” the statement “animals are on my table” would still be true. Therefore, “cats” would be an existential bare plural and not a generic one. | |||
With the example, “birds are winged,” if you replaced “birds” with “animals,” the statement “animals are winged” is false – “birds” is a generic bare plural because it is not upward entailing. | |||
In debate, take the resolution “Resolved: States ought to eliminate their nuclear arsenals.” If the affirmative defended a plan aff that said “Resolved: The United States ought to eliminate their nuclear arsenals,” replacing “The United States” with “States” would not yield the same truth statement. The aff may prove it true that the U.S. should eliminate their nuclear arsenals, but that is not the same as proving that states ought to eliminate their nuclear arsenals because you could conceive of states that should keep their nukes even if the U.S. gets rid of theirs. Thus, “States” is a generic bare plural and proving a subset of states (i.e., the U.S.) should get rid of their nukes does not prove the resolution and is non-topical. | |||
====== '''The Adverb Test''' ====== | |||
The adverb test tests whether we can insert an adverb of quantification with little to no change of meaning. Generic bare plurals will “pass” this test – when you insert an adverb of quantification, their meanings will not change significantly unlike existential bare plurals. This is typically done by adding the word “usually.” | |||
For example, saying “ravens are black” and then “ravens are usually black” doesn’t change much of the meaning. However, saying “ravens are on the tree” and then “ravens are usually one the tree” creates a larger change in meaning. | |||
In debate, saying “Resolved: States '''usually''' ought to eliminate their nuclear arsenals” does not substantially alter the meaning of the resolution. Perhaps there could be exceptions to this statement, like a specific instance where states should not eliminate their nuclear weapons, but we have proved earlier those exceptions do not disprove that a statement is generic (see ''generic bare plural'' under [[Topicality#Common Topicality Shells#Nebel Topicality#Generic vs Existential|Generic vs Existential]]). | |||
=== Extra Topicality === | === Extra Topicality === | ||
=== Effects Topicality === | === Effects Topicality === | ||