Talk:Topicality (policy debate)

Jargon

Is this meant to be understood by the layman or someone already steeped in policy debate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.4.165.147 (talk) 11:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

I shortened the section on grammar because most of it was uncited and seemed to be fairly arbitrary. I also thought it was particularly objectionable to claim the argument had fallen out of use because debaters know less about it "than they think they do". Obviously, the section is a little short and awkward now, and could use some expansion. Galapagos29 20:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extra-Topicality

This section isn't exactly correct. One can claim advantages based on a topical plan that are unrelated to the actual resolution (for instance, on the Alternative Energy topic one could read a plan that mandates the military fuel all vehicles via alternative energy by say 2020 and claim advantages based on US military effectiveness/US Hegemony (leadership)). Extra topicality is when the aff reads a plan that proposes some sort of resolutionally based action AND something unrelated to the topic (using Alternative Energy once again, an extra-topical plan would be to do the plan i previously mentioned AND ratify CTBT. -- False Prophet (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aff Answers: RVI

Isn't this (Reverse Voting Issue) the outcome of a critical response to a negative topicality argument? How is this a separate type of response? Any RVI is going to require critical argumentation to ever be considered seriously, or possibly at all. --69.209.70.4 (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RVI

Most judges don't like it? I would say just showing why 5 judges doesn't prove it. There are some judges who like that argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.7.211.35 (talk) 03:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]