Topicality (policy Debate) - Affirmative Answers To Topicality

Affirmative Answers To Topicality

Affirmatives can deploy a variety of answers to topicality violations in the 2AC. They can be generally categorized as follows:

• We Meet - The affirmative can argue that their case meets the negative's interpretation of the resolution
• Counter-interpretation - The affirmative can offer a different interpretation of the word or words that the negative defined. The affirmative will usually argue that their interpretation is superior using the same standards outlined above, they can either use the standards that the negative used or present counterstandards.
• Non-voter - The affirmative can argue that the judge shouldn't vote negative even if they don't meet the negative's interpretation. This argument may be phrased as "reasonability", that the judge should accept the affirmative's case if it meets a reasonable interpretation of the resolution.
• Kritik - The affirmative can make kritical arguments as to why topicality is an unnecessary and oppressive burden placed upon the affirmative.
• Reverse Voting Issue (RVI) - The affirmative can claim that the topicality argument offered by the negative is abusive in its own right and justifies an affirmative ballot. Few judges find this argument persuasive.
• Reasonability - The affirmative will argue that their plan does a "good enough" job of meeting the resolution and that it is unwarranted to reject them outright. They will argue that the negative has to prove that it has become impossible to prepare and argue against the affirmative's case. This is used to answer competing interpretations.