Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
yeahiiownyou

Topicality Format

Recommended Posts

A topicality shell would go something like this (I took it off an online source):

 

A. Definition: Authority: “The power to enforce laws.” Dictionary.com 2005.

 

B. Violation: The affirmative does not reduce the Federal Government’s ability to enforce laws. [Here you might want insert more specific infor on more inround context]

 

C. Standards:

1. Bright line: The negative draws a bright line between what is and what is not topical.

2. Ground: The affirmative explodes the ground by not being subject to changing laws but instead having the ability to change anything within the realm of government.

 

D. Voters:

1. Topicality is an a priori issue and must be voted on before any other issue can be determined.

2. Jurisdiction-Just like a judge in a courtroom can not vote on a case not in thier jurisdiction neither can you vote on the affirmative pan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A topicality shell would go something like this (I took it off an online source):
Well, you should put it back, because it really isn't very good... ;)

 

Structurally, there's nothing grotesquely wrong with the position, but...

A. Definition: Authority: “The power to enforce laws.” Dictionary.com 2005.

 

B. Violation: The affirmative does not reduce the Federal Government’s ability to enforce laws.

The problem here is that Neg is attempting to define "authority" outside of the context of the rez, which is illegitimate. Neg's definition makes no sense if you try to apply it to the context of the rez, which is all the reason Aff needs in order to reject it...
C. Standards:
There is one, and only one, standard that really matters: Fairness. If Aff's interpretation unduly compromises Neg's ability to compete for the ballot, it should be rejected. If not, well... ;)
D. Voters:

1. Topicality is an a priori issue and must be voted on before any other issue can be determined.

This is okay (if a bit clumsily worded), but please make sure if you're going to say this in the 1NC that you actually behave as if it were so for the rest of the debate. Makes you look pretty silly if you call T an "a priori issue" right before you kick it.... ;)
2. Jurisdiction-Just like a judge in a courtroom can not vote on a case not in thier jurisdiction neither can you vote on the affirmative pan.
I'm not sure the legal metaphor cuts much ice with judges anymore. You might want to simply argue "rule of the game" instead...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is one, and only one, standard that really matters: Fairness. If Aff's interpretation unduly compromises Neg's ability to compete for the ballot, it should be rejected. If not, well...

 

Thats all correct if you have a games theorist in the back of the room and quite possibly any college judge, but the exception comes when you have an "experienced" ma or pa or sometimes even a coach in the back of the room, in which case ground, b.l., and legal definition are appropriate. But fairness can never hurt as an addendum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never quote Dictionary.com as a source of definitions, simply because Dictionary.com didn't write and never has written a single definition. Think of Dictionary.com as a Dogpile of dictionaries. Each definition has its own sources. The most common if you end up using the first definition on the page is The American Heritage Dictionary.

 

I've considered pointing out things like this on the affirmative, but it would be sort of silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to answer T u use

1 WE meet their interpertation/definiton (make up some reason)

2. Counter- def

We meet our intrepertation

3. Standards

4. T is not a voter issue (i usually read a theory card here)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THE QUESTION FOR THOSE FAIRNESS-LOVERS OUT THERE IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A FAIR GAME PRODUCES A BANKRUPT FORM OF EDUCATION?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
THE QUESTION FOR THOSE FAIRNESS-LOVERS OUT THERE IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A FAIR GAME PRODUCES A BANKRUPT FORM OF EDUCATION?

Who says fairness kills education? I actually find it to be the antipathy of that. If someone is being abused in round, their first reaction is "Damn this is dumb", but if they are having fun, education increases in round because they are paying attention more. Psychology proves this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...