4. Things that check abuse. Negatives will try to argue that the plan is abusive; they will say that, if the judge allows that plan to be topical, hundreds of other plans will also become topical.
A) literature checks. The affirmative should argue that their plan is reasonable because it is based on evidence found in the topic literature.
B) other words check. The affirmative often argues that, since the plan has to be an example of all the different words in the resolution, then violating a single word is not a big deal.
Solvency checks. The affirmative has to prove that it's plan solves the problem identified by the case.
5. Counter-standards. The negative assumes that the judge must use certain Standards to decide the issue of topicality. The affirmative should think of its own standards. The most common affirmative counter-standard is reasonability. The bottom line or reasonability is that it urges the judge not to choose between two competing definitions. Instead the judge is urged to decide whether or not the plan unfairly harms the negative in the round.

Common answers to topicality