Skip to content
January 3, 2014 / compassioninpolitics

Answering “Lit Checks Abuse” on Topicality (and theory)

I’ve coached for over 5 years at the college level. Based on that…..something related to the following.

1. In terms of topicality–the topic defines the literature base…..not the other way around with the literature base defining the topic. (it gets the priority upside down or reverses it)
I’m sure you can think of an example or analogy for this one. Topicality or the topic defines the literature base not the other way around.

2. You’re going to be the only one defining whats legitimate topic literature in a fair & legitimate way (or whatever your standards are)–or you have the better definition for what the literature is.

The following arguments are less important–as I mostly wanted to answer the question in terms of the topicality answer with what is the REAL answer:
This same principle (perhaps) applies to theory perhaps.
In terms of counterplans you can use solvency advocate as a check for being in the literature (i.e. to actual due the counter plan not just the idea or concept of the C/P) in terms of fairness. In some ways its literature credibility fairness or something along those lines. For instance process counterplans are generally in the topic literature.
Combine your standard with their standard……”it needs to be in the literature base, but it also needs to X–literature base alone is insufficient due to X.”
Or “literature doesn’t check anything…..because……X” (make an argument)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: