3.  A counterplan is a competitive policy option to the affirmative plan

4.  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)

5.  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

7.  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)

9.  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

11.  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?

13.  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

14.  Two accepted methods ◦ Mutual exclusivity ◦ Net benefits  Other (poor) methods ◦ Philosophical ◦ Normal means ◦ Textual exclusivity

15.  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

16.  Is it okay for counterplans to contradict other negative arguments ◦ YES: laboratory/hypothesis testing model ◦ NO: advocacy model

17.  Must a counterplan be read in the 1NC, if at all? ◦ Yes: Aff fantasy land ◦ No: Neg rational world  How many counterplans?

18.  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?

20.  Federal Agents  Non-Fed Agent  Advantage  Case-Specific