Team Policy - How to Beat Topicality by a Wider Margin
Isn't it annoying when a Negative team tosses you a half-hearted topicality press? Isn't it even more annoying when they beat you with it?
Sometimes your well-thought-out topicality responses just fail to stick. How come? Most often, it is because the judge fails to understand the weight of voting for the Negative based on topicality. How do we fix this? We fix this by reminding the judge of the serious nature of the topicality press. The goal is to make topicality seem like such a taboo accusation from the negative that the judge will feel uncomfortable voting for it unless your case so clearly violates the resolution that you really do deserve to lose. Ideally, you will make the topicality press seem so serious that the judge will want to punish your opponents for treating topicality with the light-hearted flippancy that we have all seen it presented with, rather than punishing you.
This post will assume that you already have "technically correct" responses to topicality. Instead of focusing on helping you come up with responses to topicality, this post will simply focus on helping you supercharge the responses you already have.
So how do we do practically charge ahead of the competition when it comes to topicality?
I recommend—before you start giving actual responses to topicality—simply starting with an observation point tagged something along the lines of "Topicality is a Killshot." This may seem counterintuitive at first—after all, why would you want to draw attention to the fact that this single shot might kill you—but allow me to explain….
Most often, the reason judges vote for poorly-argued topicality presses is because they fail to recognize the full weight of what the Negative is saying. Judges view topicality as just another argument in the round—albeit, a very important argument—but they do not see it for what it is—an obtuse accusation from the Negative. Think of it like this: If the Negative were to stand up and say that the Affirmative should lose the round because they gave a 10-minute 1AR and broke the rules (assume for a second that the Affirmative did indeed commit such an offense), the judge's ears would perk up instantly and the judge would probably think something along the lines of, "Wow, I can't believe I am about to have to give this team a loss because they broke the rules. This is a big deal!" However, when the Negative stands up and says that the Affirmative should lose the round because they broke the rules by not arguing the resolution they were supposed to argue—something the Negative says all the time—the judge hardly skips a beat. Instead, the judge thinks, "Okay, here we go with topicality again," meanwhile readying her pen. However, there is a solution to this—one which exponentially decreases the likelihood of the judge evaluating topicality with the same light-hearted flippancy that your opponents often present it with. The solution is for the Affirmative to expose the true seriousness of the topicality press because, when you are on the Affirmative, flippancy is not your friend.
If the Affirmative exposes the true seriousness of the topicality press, then the judge will approach his or her decision with that same level of seriousness.
What does "exposing the seriousness of topicality" look like in practice though? It would probably sound something like this:
"Judge, before I explain why our case is topical, I would like to make one observation about topicality. You can tag this as Observation 1: Topicality is a Killshot. Topicality is a serious accusation. By saying we are untopical, the Negative is saying three things. First, the Negative is accusing us of breaking the rules. To claim that we have failed to argue the established resolution is to accuse us of flaunting the authority of the Stoa board in establishing that resolution. Second, the Negative is accusing us of acting unethically. By saying that we have maliciously submarined the educational value of debate and that our case sets a bad precedent for the league is to say that my partner and I are a cancer within the Stoa community. Third, the Negative is saying that we have so grossly violated their rights in this round that we, as the Affirmative, deserve to lose on this basis alone, no questions asked. Judge, these are some serious accusations indeed."
Now impact it:
"Judge, the reason I make this observation is to establish the weight of the Negative's words. Because of the severity of their accusations, I have one request, which you can tag as my impact: Must be Certain to Vote for. To vote for this topicality press would be to agree with the Negative that my partner and I have intentionally broken the rules, maligned the Stoa community, and violated the Negative. To vote for this topicality press would be to be to say that my partner and I have acted so unethically that we deserve to lose this entire debate round for this reason alone. I would simply ask you not to punish us for running this case unless you are absolutely certain that we have committed an offense warranting such severe punishment. If there is any doubt in your mind regarding this topicality press, you should disregard it because you should not vote for killshot arguments unless you are fully persuaded."
Mic drop.
The Negative's job just became a few lightyears harder. Instead of having to convince the judge beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are topical, all you have to do now is cast some doubt on your opponent's topicality argument—a complete script-flip from what the burdens usually are. Painting topicality in this light makes it almost impossible for the judge to vote for a poorly-thought-out half-hearted topicality press. Best of all, this introduction to your normal topicality responses will supercharge their persuasiveness.
If you are a team that consistently struggles with beating half-hearted topicality presses (or any type of topicality press for that matter), try this strategy. Repeatedly remind the judge of what topicality means. Use this as your very own topicality killshot. However, if you are already consistently beating topicality, then congratulations; this tactic will help you beat your opponents by an even wider margin—something that is always useful.
Two Final Words of Advice
Second, we have talked much about topicality from the perspective of the Affirmative, but how should this post influence the way we think about topicality when we are on Negative? Primarily, this post should teach you caution. If you are going to run topicality, treat it with the seriousness it deserves and be sure to make it airtight. Be prepared to accuse the Affirmative of violating the rules, of acting unethically, and of maligning the integrity of debate and the rights of your side. Do not be afraid to run topicality, but if you are going to do it, commit. Put enough effort into your topicality presses that your judges will feel "certain" when they vote for it.
If you are looking to hone your skills even further, we would encourage you to speak with one of our coaches regarding how to get further involved in the Kairos community. Please do not hesitate to reach out to us if you have any questions, comments, or thoughts that you would like to discuss.
We appreciate your attention and we hope you found these insights valuable. Thank you for reading!
-Coach Benjamin