Topicality will be a major force this year since almost every case I have heard of is non-topical. Hopefully judges won’t be burn out on it so that we can still use it. This is just your basic topicality. I will avoid advance topicality theory partly because you could find it elsewhere and that I try to stick with just the basics since that is all you really need to know.
An example of a bad topicality violation can be seen HERE.Below is the normal topicality violation structure.
A. Interpretation – This is your view based on the definition you have of the resolution. Both sides give there interpretation though as always its up to the judge to decide which is the best. So just read whatever bizarre definition you found that the affirmative’s case does not meet. Make sure you use full citation(ex. 1996 Webster International English Dictionary).
B. Violation - Its how the Affirmative team does not meet the definition.
C. Standards - Why your definition is the best in the round.
D. Voter - Why the judge should vote on topicality. There are a couple common voting issue.
Hopefully at this point your not confused because believe it or not there are more than 1 type of topicality. That was only the first type. The 2nd one is extra-topical. This means that it must not over step the bounds of the resolution. You can not for example use vocational schools if your definition does not include vocational schools as secondary schools. The last type is that the case doesn’t directly increase academic achievement. The plan’s focus must be directed at increasing achievement not some off the wall side effect by lowering the speed limit. Please do not use these as your main weapon. They are extremely helpful but won’t do a whole lot by themselves when against a team who has a little of an idea on what they are doing.