Commonly Used Topicality Standards (Note: If you’re running aff, be sure to make the language fit aff instead of neg!)

1. Fair Limits: Definition is better because it fairly limits both teams to an acceptable amount of ground.

2. Bright Line: Definition is better because it draws a clear distinction between what is topical and what is not whereas aff definition is vague.

3. Framer’s Intent: Definition is better because it more accurately represents what the framers of the resolution had intended.

4. Education: Definition is better because it allows both sides to gain a greater education of the issues at hand.

5. Ground: The negative team’s interpretation of the resolution restricts the number of cases that fall within the topic; therefore, the affirmative team cannot come here and run any case they choose. By doing this you, as the judge, increase the educational value of this debate round.

6. Fairness: Aff definition makes it too hard for one side to argue.

7. Tradition: Definition is better because it is a more traditional, time-honored definition.

8. Grammatical Context: Definition is better because it fits into the resolution and still works.

9. Each Word: Each word of the resolution must have a unique meaning. The affirmative cannot make a term moot through its definitions.

10. Phrase: Neg interpretation defines a phrase in the topic whereas aff interpretation defines one word, thereby ignoring the meaning of the word in relation to the words next to it.

11. Best Definition: Neg definition is from an expert source (legal dictionary, political books, etc.) The aff source is not, and the best definition in the round should prevail.

12. Predictability: Affirmative interpretation forces the negative to debate trivial issues that it is impossible to prepare for. We preserve fairness by allowing cases that are feasible to prepare for.

13. Field Context: This definition comes from _____________ (insert name of source) that specifically deals with _________________ (insert topic area).

14. Scientific Superiority: Definition is better because the debate round is about science, so we should use scientific definitions.

15. Anthropocentrism: Definition is better because the topic deals with mankind and impacts of plan on humanity, and the definition also focuses on mankind.

16. Legal Superiority: Definition is better because we are dealing with legal matters and should use a legal definition.

17. Common Man: Neg interpretation uses a more common, widely accepted definition. Aff definition is obscure and rarely used.

18. Context: Definition is better because it uses the word in the way that experts in the field use it.

19. Infinite prep time: The affirmative has had an unlimited amount of prep time to come up with a topical case.

20. Breadth v. Depth: We preserve educational value by having an in-depth debate on core topic issues. It is more educational to read one book than the titles of seven.

21. Empirical Examples: Definition is better because it uses examples to show what is topical and what is not.

22. Terra: Definition is better because it focuses on planet Earth, and we all live here.

23. Enlightenment: Definition is better because it stems from the enlightenment philosophies that the United States, along with all other subsequent democracies, were built.

24. “We meet” invalid: Neg definition excludes the aff’s interpretation because it says (fill in why aff cannot possibly meet neg interpretation)

Affirmative-Specific Topicality Standards

1. We meet: Aff meets the neg definition because (explain why) and is therefore topical.

2. Lit checks abuse: The negative came prepared with case-specific arguments in anticipation that we would run this case. They would have no reason to research a case that isn’t topical.

3. Clash checks abuse: We are able to debate this with evidence supporting both sides; the fact that we are able to support these arguments under the resolution proves that we fall under it and are therefore topical.

4. Education: Having a wider range of cases provides better education for students involved because we learn more about more ideas.

Topicality Voters

1. Stock issues: Topicality is a stock issue of debate; if a case is not topical, you must vote against it.

2. Fairness: You cannot promote unfair treatment of the neg by the aff by granting them your ballot.

3. Clash: We could not present effective clash not because of our own lack of skill or preparation but because they presented a case that we had no way of preparing for.

4. Jurisdiction: It is not within your jurisdiction as judge to vote for a nontopical case.

5. Education: Debate is supposed to be about education, and we can learn only by being able to debate cases that we can prepare for and argue effectively. You, as the judge, should not vote for a case that impedes education rather than promotes it.

6. Debatability: We can prepare for only those cases that fall under the resolution and should not be voted against because we could not debate a nontopical case.

7. Predictability: Affirmative interpretation forces the negative to debate trivial issues that it is impossible to prepare for. Your ballot should support only those cases that the neg can predict and prepare for.

8. Tradition: Topicality has traditionally been a voting issue.