The 2008-2009 policy debate topic for college is:
Resolved: that the United States Federal Government should substantially reduce its agricultural support, at least eliminating nearly all of the domestic subsidies, for biofuels, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, corn, cotton, dairy, fisheries, rice, soybeans, sugar and/or wheat.
Every year the universities hold debate camps to create their affirmative case based upon this resolution. At the same time they also try to pick apart the resolution. Ran on the negative is a procedural argument called Topicality. For instance, this resolution has one possible syntax area of discussion. One could read the resolution under a microscope and find that for an affirmative to be topical they have to get rid of nearly all subsidies with a possible choice between sugar and wheat. If this is true the affirmative, to be topical, must have their plan text that does in fact remove nearly all subsidies for that list except with a choice between sugar and wheat. Otherwise, they aren't topical.
Topicality is an important issue because of resolutional integrity, education, as well as hundreds of standards that can all be grouped under fairness. Procedural arguments are always evaluated first by the judge after a round is completed before the rest of the debate. This way a negative could lose the debate every where else and still win on a procedural because they are A-priority.
As I prepare for the debate season I am asking for some English experts to msg me concerning this syntax question. Once we've established that my question is in fact answered with a yes - I will finish the node and write out a full topicality shell.