The affirmative side must advocate a plan of action by the United States Federal Government. The plan must increase development assistance to the Greater Horn of Africa. If you merely read poetry, dance, or play music, you will probably lose. The negative side must defend a consistent policy position in the debate. The negative may choose to defend the status quo, or the negative may advocate a counterplan.
Topicality is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue.
Conditionality is prohibited. The resolution is worded as a policy proposition. This means that policy making is the focus of debate. The affirmative side has huge presumption on topicality if they can produce contexual evidence proving that their plan is development assistance. I am easily persuaded that government to government assistance requires that some element of the plan requires action by the USFG toward a nation-state of the Horn of Africa.