Topicality on the Affirmative

Casey Kelly
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase social services for
persons living in poverty in the United States.
I. vervie! of Aff. T Strategy
a. "hy do !e debate topicality# "hy do terms such as ground and fairness matter#
i. In policy debate$ !e rarely if ever defend the !hole resolution$ thus$ its
important to define the policies that fit !ithin the resolution % it is an
important procedural &uestion that allo!s the affirmative to defend
strategic e'amples of the resolution !ithout undermining the negative(s
ability to predictably prepare and debate the topic.
ii. Topicality is a debate of competing interpretations % strategi)e for the
affirmative is about defining a reasonable rather than limiting
interpretation of the topic
b. Understand that the Aff has more at sta*e than the negative
i. Aff can lose the !hole debate on topicality the neg cannot
ii. Its better to have an arguable topical aff that is moderately strategic than a
blatantly non+topical aff that is the best affirmative ever !ritten
iii. Aff !ill never meet all interpretations of the topic but has the advantage of
pre+round preparation$ plan !riting$ research in the conte't of the
affirmative and the topic
II. Strategi)ing for the Affirmative
a. Should vie! topicality as a disadvantage to create more offensive and
comprehensive ans!ers
i. Topicality is a procedural disadvantage.
,. Interpretation-definition is a uni&ueness claims % the negative
promotes an interpretation of the topic that they assert creates
good$ predictable$ and limiting debates
.. /iolation is the lin* % the affirmative is outside of and undermines
this interpretation of the topic
0. /oting issue is the impact
ii. ffensive paradigm: 1o! does this change your strategy#
,. 2ust put offense of the violation$ !hat does that mean#
a. Counter+interpretation of the topic that includes your
affirmative 3you must meet your CI4
i. Cannot let the negative define the topic$ they !ill
tend to provide the most limiting versions that favor
the negative as opposed to reasonable
interpretations that balance aff and negative
ii. 5ou !ill be beholden the only definition in the
debate
iii. 1o! can I counterinterpret
,. Analytically
a. Reinterpreting the definition !ithin
the grammatical structure of the
resolution
b. Reinterpreting the negative(s
definition$ perhaps their definition
does not support their violation
c. Advantages: resolutional conte't
d. 6isads: 7o evidence support
.. 6ictionary definitions
a. 8egal$ policy$ and common
b. Advantages: precise$ generally
accepted$ intend to define the !ord$
avoid special interests$ have
authority
c. 6isadvantages: deconte'tual$ rigid$
too limiting$ can be outdated
0. 9olicy literature-conte'tual evidence
a. Agents of social services and poverty
administration$ academic and peer+
revie!ed literature and other e'perts
b. Advantages: conte'tual$ &ualified$
c. 6isad: not intended to define
b. 6isadvantage to the negatives interpretation-comparative
advantages of the affirmatives interpretation
i. 2ust provide a reason to prefer your interpretation
and they should al!ays be comparative.
ii. Source &ualification: "hat type of definition should
be preferred# Conte'tual evidence is best for the aff.
iii. verlimits-too fe! cases meet % the Aff should
privilege reasonability over limits: limits are a
negative tric* to artificially reduce the si)e of the
topic 3balanced aff and neg ground4.
iv. 6efend your interpretation against negative
mischaracteri)ations and slippery slope arguments
3i.e. e'plodes the topic4
v. ;ven if you do not meet their interpretation you can
still beat their violation
iii. <"e meet= arguments are <no lin*s=
,. ;'cept in e'treme cases you can find !ays to fit your aff !ithin
their definition or !ays in !hich it reasonably meets the violation
.. Reading conte'tual evidence vs. dictionary definitions advances
this argument
iv. <7o abuse= arguments are <Impact-internal lin* ta*eouts=
,. There are better and !orse <no abuse= arguments
a. >ood arguments attac* the logical fallacies of the negatives
interpretation 3i.e. slippery+slope arguments$ potential
abuses$ ?urisdictional voters$ tradition4 @or e'ample$
e'panding the topic may be good$ balancing aff and neg
good$ overlimiting is a bad because it destroys aff.
Innovation$ etc.
b. Aad arguments include topicality is not a voting issue or is
a reverse voting issue.

III. In+round tactics
a. 9re+round-,ac
i. Should already have .ac frontlines to the predictable-core topicality
&uestions$ though you cannot predict every interpretation.
ii. 9lan should be !ritten in a !ay you can defend as being topical$ or ho!
the ma?ority of people seem to interpret the topic
b. The .ac
i. T must be a top priority but does not necessarily have to be first in the
order.
ii. Read each violation and chec* for hidden voting issues$ effects and 'tra t
violations$ agent spec or other specifications$ <must defend the !hole
resolution= or <must have all !ords of the resolution in plan te't
violations.=
iii. If there are multiple violations$ sometimes they contradict and can be used
to your advantage. 3@or e'ample <substantial is !ithout material
&ualification= and <social services are health$ education$ and !elfare.= To
ans!er one re&uires contradiction. 5ou should counter+interpret in a !ay
that resolves the contradiction 3the one you are more li*ely to meet4 and
argue that no case meets their interpretation thus$ the ?udge should prefer
your more consistent interpretation.
iv. Include offense and defense$ but avoid silly counter+standards that never
!in debates and are distractions 3for e'ample$ <aff has the right to define$=
<must be ,BBC non+topical$= <framers intent$= <reverse voting issue$=4
c. ,AR
i. 7arro! do!n argument selection to the most offensive arguments
ii. Assess the si)e of the threat 3does it loo* li*e the neg is going for t# have
they tipped their hand# Is it there only viable strategy# 1o! s*etchy is
your aff and do you need to deter them for going for t#4
iii. >ive the .ar lee!ay to e'pand upon !hat you say and have e'tended. 5ou
must *eep your counterinterpretation alive your !ill li*ely lose.
d. .ar
i. Its all about reasonability and predictability: balancing aff and neg ground
ii. Spin and strong definitional arguments$ dispelling negative myths and
fallacies
iii. 9ay close attention to detail 3i.e. small line by line arguments matter most
hear because the ?udge !ill have the best flo! of the .nr and .ar$ not so
much on earlier speeches.
I/. Topic specific &uestions 3&uestions and discussion4
a. Key violations on the topic
i. <increase= % ma*e eligible is not an increase
ii. <social service=
iii. <persons living in poverty=
iv. <in the United States= % perhaps for military or immigration affs.
b. 8ess persuasive violations but still need ans!ers to any!ay
i. <federal government= - United States means any confederation 3Ara)il#4
ii. All versions of <substantially$= though tend to be difficult to !in
3remember counterdefine the adverb <substantially= and not the ad?ective
<substantial=4