(Counter) Plans

Because they didn’t limit the topic.

What is a cp?

• A counter plan is an action, or plan, alternative to the affirmative.

• Should I go to Alabama or Auburn?

• Should I come to lecture or sleep in?

Limits to CPs?

• Are there limits to a counter plan?

– Should I go go to lab or sleep in?

– Should I buy a car or a boat?

We establish certain rules to create useful conclusions

Why should the negative get a CP?

• 1. Theoretical – we want to have a high bar for change

• 2. Fairness – sometimes the status quo is hard to defend (who doesn’t like poor people?)

• 3. Educational – debaters learn how to deal with competing ideas

How to “run” a counter plan

• You must have a “text” – like a plan:

• Example: The fifty states and all relevant territories will fund and implement a housing first policy.

• You should provide a solvency author

• The counter plan must Compete

Choice

The Net Benefits Test

A counter plan is Net Beneficial compared to the affirmative plan if they SHOULD not be done together.

Generally the negative argues a disadvantage that applies to the plan but not the counter plan.

Three tests

• to be net beneficial, the CP must prove the following:

• 1. CP > Plan

• 2. CP > Plan + CP

• 3. CP > Plan + Part of the CP

Test I – CP> Plan

• To win a CP, it must be preferable to the plan.

• Example: The plan helps 10 people The CP helps 9.

Plan > CP, therefore the judge votes affirmative.

Test II• Question: If the counter plan and the plan are

both equally good – who wins?

• Example: Plan – Movie• Counter Plan: Dinner

• Permutation: Movie + Dinner

• Rejoinder – key term.

Test III

• CP > Plan Plus any part of the CP.

• Example: Plan – Movie• Counter Plan: Dinner

• The Permutation could be : Movie + Dessert

Mutual Exclusivity

• If the counter plan is Mutually Exclusive then it CANNOT be done at the same time.

• For example, it is impossible to both do a housing first policy and remove all funding for housing.

• Usually, is the opposite of the affirmative

Dinner and Movie

Plan: Movie

Counter Plan: Dinner

How would we make these competitive?

Net Benefits?Mutual Exclusivity?

Permutations

• What about...

• CP > Plan + Other issues? (Dessert, Movie, Popcorn)

• CP > Less than the plan? (severance – Just go to dinner)

States

• Thesis: test why the federal government is necessary.

Example: The fifty states and all relevant territories will provide housing assistance to people living in poverty.

The counter plan is uniform and will not be rolled back (state level)

Counter plan

States, II

• Advantages of this CP:

• Lots of evidence

• Probably can “fiat” out of most of deficits

• Good net benefits (politics, federalism, Biz Con?)• Local Solvency

Vouchers CP

• Thesis: test if FEDERAL social services are necessary.

• Example: USFG provides mental health vouchers for people living in poverty.

Vouchers, II

• Advantages:

– Captures the federal justification

– Strong Net Benefits – Politics, Federal SS bad, state innovation, Paternalism (Federal Control)

– Competition Better solvency

Vouchers, III

• What affs to run this against:

• Soft Power Affirmatives

• “Signal” affirmatives (Katrina, Natives)

• Where the states (or other actors) currently have social services

Condition – (People)

• Thesis: Puts a condition on the PEOPLE who receive social services

– Example: build public housing on the condition that the inhabitants have some form of employment.

Benefits to Condition (People) CPs

• Benefits:– Solves almost the entire aff

– Avoids dependency DA

– Can read links that unconditional aid is unpopular

– Creates a NEW MECHANISM to remedy poverty

Other conditions

• signing up for the military

• taking education classes

• Doing community service

• Is this fair??

Exclude People/Places

• Thesis: There is a benefit to excluding some places or people from receiving social services.

• Example: exclude California from the plan

Exclude People/Places, II

• Benefits:

• 1. Solves most of the affirmative (what ev should you have?)

• 2. SMALLER than the plan (probably).

• 3. ALL of your net benefits must come from the EXCLUDED part

Everyone CP

• Thesis: Not only poor people need social services

• sometimes a kritik can be your net benefit (not only DAs)

• Which test might this fail?

• Benefit: “oversolves” the case

Poverty rhetoric PIC

• Thesis: identifying people as “living in poverty” is bad

• Example: rewrite the plan to remove the word “poverty”

• Another example of a Kritik net benefit

• Benefits: Can take away the permutation

Advantage CPs

• There are lots of ways to solve poverty, soft power, etc.

• For examples: Soft power.– 1. Ban the death penalty– 2. Ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty– 3. Withdraw from Iraq– 4. Give billion of poverty assistance to Africa.– 5. Charge George W Bush with war crimes

Advantage CPs

• How do these compete?

• Must have a disadvantage to social services

• Useful against new advantages

• Be careful – often can change your uniqueness

Courts CP

• Thesis: the courts can mandate a constitutional remedy for poverty

• Example: The United States Supreme Court will rule that there is a fundamental right to education.

Courts, II

• Benefits:

• Can beat some “K affs”

• Avoids politics (probably)

• Remedies “signal” type arguments

NGO Counter plan• Thesis – Non-government actors can provide

social services

• Example: The national low income housing coalition will provide more housing for people living in poverty

• Fiat? No different than a K alternative

• Have to beat all “government justifications”

Status of the CP

• Limit on the CP – when it can exit the debate

• If the Negative claims the counter plan is their only option in the debate– it is an UNCONDITIONAL counter plan.

Status, II

• If the negative claims they can run as many counter plans as they want, and abandon them whenever they want, it is called:

• Conditionality

Better way?

Well...Why don’t we say the negative should get one counter plan and the Status quo?

This is called: DISPOSITIONALITY

Dispositionality (Negative)

Plan

Permutation(both)

Status quo(Neither)

Counter Plan

Affirmative Dispositionality

• The AFFIRMATIVE chooses when the counter plan can leave the debate

• Treats a counter plan like a disadvantage

• Two kinds of arguments: Theory and policy