Topicality -- part 2

Todays post will go over the "standards" within a topicality argument. While it may be confusing, standards can just be thought of as impacts to the T. Just like extinction and war impacts, T standards give the judge a reason to vote on the argument. The most common standards:

Limits --

This is simply the neg team saying that there should be a limited amount of cases that are able to fall under the resolution. The logic here is if the aff team can run any case, there is no way the neg would be able to do the research to actually be a solid neg team. The aff team could always read some arguments that are not really related to the topic. This sort of goes hand and hand with predictability as well.

Ground --

The neg team can argue that both sides in the debate should have the same amount of arguments that can be read. Quality and Quantity should be equal for both teams. So for whatever the interp is for the aff, the neg will argue that how they understand the resolution takes away key arguments that can usually be read.

Education --

This should be read in combination with another standard. This is sort of an added impact onto a standard you already read. For example, the educational environment may be destroyed because the aff team explodes limits, or maybe they give the neg team no ground. Whatever the aff is doing, the debate will lose its educational benefit.

Fairness --

This is similar to education as it should be read with another standard. The idea here is that coming into the debate, both teams should have an equal chance of winning the round. The negs argument is that if the aff violates these standards, it gives them a higher inherent chance of winning without even doing anything.