THE COUNTERPLAN
Sometimes the status quo really is a bad system, and it is difficult for the negative to defend it. To avoid giving the affirmative an advantage in such a situation, the negative may offer their own proposal -- a counterplan.
In some debates the negative chooses not to defend the status quo (the present system) but wants to defend something else. When this is the case, the negative responds to the affirmative's plan with the negative's counterplan.
Definition: A counterplan is (generally thought to be) a non-topical reasonable alternative to the affirmative plan.
The counterplan is almost always presented in the 1NC, and then becomes the policy system defended by the negative. The counterplan has a specific"plan"just like the affirmative, explaining what the negative thinks should be done and how.
After presenting their counterplan proposal, the negative has a number of other obligations to fulfill in order for the advantage of the counterplan to be weighed against the advantage of the affirmative plan.
1. The counterplan has to be non-topical.
Just as the affirmative has to embody the resolution in their proposal, most judges also require the negative NOT to embody the resolution in their proposal (the negative, after all, is supposed to"negate"the resolution, not"affirm"it).
• Non-topical in one word or term only is sufficient.
• Many judges may accept topical counterplans if they are competitive (see below) because that is sufficient to divide argumentative ground in the debate.
2. The counterplan has to be competitive. There are a couple of ways to think of this concept.
• The counterplan must be an"alternative"or"substitute"for the affirmative plan.
• The counterplan is competitive with the affirmative plan if it would be better to adopt just the counterplan instead of BOTH the affirmative plan and the counterplan.
There are some standard types of arguments which are used to show the counterplan is competitive.
• Mutual exclusivity: the counterplan and the affirmative plan"cannot"coexist.
• Net benefits: it would be better to do just the counterplan than to do both the counterplan and the affirmative plan. Often this is shown by having a disadvantage which applies to the affirmative plan which did not apply to the counterplan.
There are other, weaker, competitiveness arguments.
• Philosophical competition: the philosophies behind the two are contradictory. Contradictory thoughts, of course, have never been a problem for some people, especially policy makers, so this standard is of little real use.
• Topical competition: if the counterplan is not topical, so it cannot be adopted by the affirmative. Wrong, the test is"substitution"of one for the other, not topicality.
• Redundancy: there is no need to do both, because doing just one solves the entire problem at hand. Wrong unless the counterplan has 100% solvency, which is difficult to imagine.
The affirmative generally answers competition with the"permutation test."Remember, it is only a test. Here, they try to suggest ways in which we could"do both."If they show that they can and should"do both"then the negative loses the competition of the counterplan, and it becomes irrelevant for the debate. These"perms"suggest ways in which both could be done. Suggesting a permutation of the counterplan does not indicate advocacy of it, just testing it for relevance. Here are the generally accepted types of permutations.
• Logical permutation: do both at the same time.
• Time permutation: do one first, then the other.
• Partial permutation: do the counterplan everywhere except in the area of the affirmative plan.
Other, weaker, types of permutations include:
• Restructuring permutation: change the plan in major ways so that it can be done at the same time as the counterplan. Wrong. This involves an advocacy shift. The affirmative presented their plan and shouldn't be allowed to rework it just because they don't know how to answer the counterplan.
• Non-topical permutation: change the plan into something non-topical and then argue that the two can be done at the same time. Wrong. The affirmative still needs to be topical to win the debate, presumably.
The counterplan may"drop out"of the round if it is not relevant. If it is not competitive, then it is irrelevant to the decision. Negatives may"kick out"of a counterplan by conceding competition.
3. The counterplan must have an advantage. In other words, it has to address a problem and actually solve it. Or, after having been adopted, the counterplan would have to produce an advantage. The counterplan, therefore, needs to have significance and solvency just like the affirmative case. The affirmative may wish to argue that the counterplan has no advantage because it"doesn't work."The advantage of a counterplan may be a disadvantage it avoids that the affirmative plan does not.
4. The counterplan may have disadvantages alleged against it by the affirmative, just as the negative has disadvantages against the affirmative plan.
5. The counterplan is often effectively used along with a disadvantage. If there is a disadvantage to the affirmative plan which does NOT apply to the counterplan, then that makes the counterplan net benefits competitive. This way the counterplan solves for the affirmative advantage, may even have another advantage, and also avoids the disadvantage which applies to the affirmative plan. This sort of integrated strategy can be very effective.
EXAMPLE OF COUNTERPLAN DEBATING: WHAT SHOULD WE DO TONIGHT?
The arguments surrounding a counterplan seem complex and confusing, but like many debate concepts, once you apply them to everyday situations they make a lot more sense.
Answering Counterplans
Counterplans must meet certain burdens in order to beat the Affirmative plan, therefore it is the job of the affirmative to show how the counterplan does not meet these burdens. Affirmative answers should expose the flaws in the counterplan and show why it is a bad idea.
Affirmative answers can be found while looking at different parts of the counterplan.
1. The counterplan is topical.
The affirmative should make sure the counterplan is non-topical. If the counterplan is topical, it should not be accepted, because only the affirmative gets to defend the resolution. The negative has everything else to choose from.
2. The counterplan is not competitive.
Affirmatives should argue that the counterplan is not competitive with the affirmative plan. If we do not have to choose between the plan and the counterplan, then it IS NOT A REASON TO VOTE AGAINST THE AFFIRMATIVE CASE. In order to do this, affirmative teams have three choices.
A. Prove it is not mutually exclusive. We CAN do both at the same time.
B. Prove it is not net beneficial. We SHOULD do both at the same time.
C. Offer permutations: Permutations are an affirmative's special weapon against counterplans. Permutations are arguments that prove the entire plan can be combined with parts of the counterplan in order to gain the advantages of the counterplan without rejecting the plan.
REMEMBER TO USE THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF PERMUTATIONS LISTED ABOVE.
Affirmatives can argue that the counterplan does not solve. The affirmative should look to see if the counterplan solves the affirmative advantage, the advantages of the counterplan, and avoids the disadvantages.
4. Disadvantages
Counterplans, like affirmative plans, can have disadvantages. The affirmative should argue that if the counterplan is done something bad will happen that wouldn't otherwise happen if the affirmative plan is done.