Skip to content
December 3, 2010 / compassioninpolitics

Answering the Critique of Topicality

How do you answer the critique of topicality or the critique of T?

Generally that critique of T takes a couple forms:

1) T = silence or destroys free speech
2) T = genocide
3) T = gatekeeper of IR (Bleiker)
4) Jurisdiction is evil

I’m going to group these together, although in a debate round I would attempt to handle them separately.

1) Hopefully they won’t impact their arguments so your voter will still trump.
2) If they run theory (either on the counterplan or critique) it should link to all of their exclusion arguments
3) The foucault card which says “topicality is key to fairness.”
(insert evidence)
4) Social contract key to rights and fairness. Social contract checks rights abuses and key to movement success. Bill of Rights proves. Lack of legal enforcement leads to greater rights abuses under the 14th amendment. Also breaking treaties (via lack of enforcement) results in rights violation and oppression. Ultimately, Predictable Rules are our only check to ensure the aff doesn’t dominate us and exclude us.
5) Checks Neo-Con Oppression. Law key to keeping the neocons in check in terms of human rights and military intervention (on the military presence topic this may be dicier).
6) Common agreement on terms good. Common agreement on terms key to movement success, which accesses all their advocacy, voices, and empowerment arguments.
(insert analysis)
7) Switch side Debate Good. Finally, If you can win T key to switchside & switchside key to debate and democracy you can use this to access their movements and voices arguments.
(insert evidence)
8] Optional: Exclusion inevitable-all interps of the topic are exclusionary (predictability and fair division of ground are key)
9) Optional: If you’re running hegemony good you might be able to spin this argument into exclusion good. At the very least it proves that power can be used cooperatively to check oppression (thats the middle line of the short Khalilzhad evidence.
10) Optional: Our K alt solves for that type of oppression and more. We subsume.

So thats 7 to 8 arguments that would be potentially useful to answer the critique of topicality in a policy debate.

I might suggest embedding one or two of these arguments in your shell if you are debating a critical team either as standards or voters.

Thoughts? Suggestions?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: