A counterplan is a competitive policy option to the affirmative plan
It is a policy that either ◦ Creates a forced choice with the affirmative plan (is MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE) and/or ◦ Is not desirable to be implemented alongside the plan (net beneficial)
The status quo is bad Affirmatives will (or at least should) choose to defend the best topical option Taking out the entire case is either often hard (the aff is right) and/or time intensive (requires lots of evidence) Hedge against add-on advantages
Agent: adopts virtually the same policy as the aff using a different actor Mechanism: attempts to solve the aff harms using a different policy approach Process: alter some way the plan mandates are implemented (normal means)—consult, condition, steal the funding/offsets,etc. Mutually exclusive: policy options that are PRECLUDED by the plan that the neg claims are just better (now rare)
Bad old days: neg only gets the status quo (but at least they had inherency?) Reciprocity kicks in: if the aff gets a plan, the neg should get one too (non-topical, non- PIC, mutually exlusive counterplan) Game theory: neg gets net beneficial counterplans (non-topical, non-PIC) Modern: neg gets any net beneficial option
Can a counterplan be TOPICAL? What makes a counterplan COMPETITIVE? Can a counterplan be plan-INCLUSIVE? What is the counterplan’s STATUS? Can a counterplan CONTRADICT other arguments? Must a counterplan be offered in the 1NC? Can a negative advance MULTIPLE counterplans? Must a counterplan use the SAME ACTOR?
What would debate look like if counterplans were not allowed to be topical? Topical counterplans are OK because: ◦ Predictable ◦ Aff an use own research against ◦ Are real world ◦ Encourage topic clash and research
Two accepted methods ◦ Mutual exclusivity ◦ Net benefits Other (poor) methods ◦ Philosophical ◦ Normal means ◦ Textual exclusivity
Under what circumstances can the negative get rid of the counterplan? ◦ UNCONDITIONAL—’til death do you part ◦ DISPOSITIONAL—anytime the neg wants UNLESS the counterplan is straight-turned ◦ CONDITIONAL—whenever the neg wants ◦ FUN-DITIONAL
Is it okay for counterplans to contradict other negative arguments ◦ YES: laboratory/hypothesis testing model ◦ NO: advocacy model
Must a counterplan be read in the 1NC, if at all? ◦ Yes: Aff fantasy land ◦ No: Neg rational world How many counterplans?
Is the counterplan durable? Can counterplans fiat actors outside the resolution? ◦ Other levels of domestic government ◦ Private individuals and institutions ◦ Governments of other nations ◦ Intergovernmental organizations Can a counterplan be fiat contingent (if/then)? Can a counterplan be initiated in the future?