The actual nature of topicality as it is presented in intercollegiate debate rounds has become so split that there are two different types of topicality. The first type (T1) is a "real" argument that is subjective, intentional, absolute, jurisdictional, pragmatic, and focuses on content and product. The second type (T2) is strategic, objective, partial, theoretical, and focuses on form and process. By voting on T2, since it is a mechanical device, a judge often never needs to decide the true T1 issue. Hence, a judge can vote on topicality and satisfy the internal need to limit the topic without ever really dealing with the heart of the issue. Possible remedies to this problem include: (1) externally applied mechanisms to shape topicality arguments, (2) cooperative endeavors, (3) significance as a criterion in the round where topicality is an issue, (4) resolutional justification/conditional counterplans, (5) counterresolutional disadvantages, (6) new standards, (7) dispensing with the resolution, and (8) topicality jihad, or hastening the polarization through hostile and antagonistic practices. (HOD)