The paradigm above can be seen as one basic presumption. Another is that topicality is a voting issue. A third is that the affirmative has the burden of proof with regard to answering the question that the paradigm poses. If there is not reasonable defmitional support for a plan's topicality, then it is not topical. On the affirmative side of this same coin, just because an affirmative interpretation may not be preferred according to some aesthetic standard does not mean that it is an unacceptable interpretation.
Conditional counterplans are ok.
State counterplans are suspect. The affirmative must have an advantage or must have turned a disad. The advantage must be unique. If the best policy at the end of the round includes the entire aff. These presumptions can be overcome by force of argument.