Difference between revisions of "Counterplans"

A common negative strategy is to introduce a counter-proposal into the debate, called a “counterplan” (CP).  Normally, the affirmative reads a plan advocating that a specific policy be passed, and the negative defends that the status quo is net better than the affirmative.  However, when the negative introduces a counterplan, the debate shifts to whether the CP is better or worse than the plan.  This might seem unnecessarily complicated, but can provide great strategic benefit.  Often, the status quo is just bad: government policies are pretty messed up.  Against an AFF that defends a plan saying the United States federal government ought to provide jobs to formerly incarcerated people, the negative’s position is far strengthened when they propose a different way to check back against recidivism and stigmatization than to try to argue that a minor harm to the economy outweighs structural racism.  The CP can be thought of as sopping up AFF offense --- voting NEG doesn’t foreclose the possibility of solving the plan’s impacts because they can be solved in a different way while avoiding the disadvantage to the affirmative (a net benefit to the counterplan).  Importantly, a counterplan by itself is often not enough to vote negative; there must be a “net-benefit,” or reason why the world of the counterplan is better.  This comes in two forms: a [[Disadvantages|disadvantage]] (external net-benefit) or internal net-benefit.  A disadvantage is a reason why the plan is bad that the counterplan avoids.  For example, a negative strategy against a plan to reduce intellectual property protections for medicine as a way to solve disease might include: a disadvantage about reducing intellectual property protections for medicines ceding important technology to China which destroys US hegemony and a counterplan to increase monitoring and tracking of disease outbreaks.  The disease counterplan makes the AFF offense negligible since the world of the counterplan solves the same as the plan, but it avoids the disadvantage that is specific to intellectual property, so the world of the negative is net better.  The other method of garnering offense is through an internal net-benefit.  Very similar to a disadvantage, an internal net-benefit is an independent reason the counterplan is good.  For example, say there’s a plan that uses Congress to pass a policy about a living wage.  The negative could read a counterplan that says a living wage should be passed through an executive order instead of through Congress, with an argument that says this creates precedent for more executive flexibility, and executive flexibility is key to respond to a variety of existential threats.  While this is not exactly a disadvantage to doing the affirmative, it is a reason why the counter-plan is net better, hence, net benefit.

===Common Types===

Process counterplans --- process CPs advocate for implementing the affirmative’s plan through a different mechanism.  An example would be a plan that legalizes marijuana at the federal level, versus a counterplan to legalize marijuana at the state level. The following are common categories of process counterplans, although this list is not all-inclusive:

* Consult counterplans --- consult CPs say that the actor the plan should consult another country, group, or international mechanism.  Common consult counterplans include: consult the EU, consult NATO, and consult the ICJ.

* Agent counterplans --- agent CPs are very similar to process CPs, and say that a different agent should implement the plan.  For example, if there’s a plan about the president passing an executive order to provide a living wage, an agent counterplan would say that the Supreme Court should instead create a precedent to raise the living wage (see [[Customary International Law CP|CIL CP]]).

Uniqueness counterplans --- uniqueness CPs are a little more complicated.  A uniqueness counterplan generates uniqueness for a disadvantage (similar to what the alternative does in a [[Kritiks|kritik]]).  For example, if the affirmative proposes a plan to ban lethal autonomous weapons, the negative might read a disadvantage about lethal autonomous weapons being key to US hegemony.  However, the uniqueness for this disadvantage (that the US currently has a lead in autonomous weapon development) might not be true, so the negative can counterplan to increase funding and investment in lethal autonomous weapon tech.

===Responses ===

Severance --- severance permutations eliminate part of the plan.  For example, if the plan is that the United States federal government should implement a federal jobs guarantee and the NEG reads a CP to provide a state jobs guarantee.  If the affirmative says “permutation do the CP,” that’s severance because it’s jettisoning the “federal” part of jobs guarantee.  Severance permutations are abusive because it prevents a stable advocacy for the negative to contest --- if the affirmative can just change the plan to get out of NEG arguments, it becomes impossible to be negative.

==== Links to the net benefit ====

In the case of an external net benefit, it is possible that the counterplan 'triggers' the same disadvantage that the affirmative does. If this is the case, the counterplan is said to link to the net benefit. For example, the negative reads a politics disadvantage that explains why implementing a carbon tax is too controversial and would prevent passing a certain bill. If the negative also reads a counterplan that proposes a ban on fossil fuel subsidies, the affirmative can claim that this counterplan is equally controversial and therefore equally likely to prevent passing that bill. Making a 'links to the net benefit' argument is often strategic because affs can use the 2NR's response to delink from a disadvantage. In the example used above, the negative may argue that policies like banning fossil fuel subsidies can be bipartisan and encourage members of Congress to work together on future bills. If the plan and counterplan are similar enough, this argument may also be a reason that a carbon tax would encourage collaboration in Congress, therefore mitigating the risk of the disadvantage.

====Offense====

The next part of answering a counter-plan is to generate offense on the CP flow.  Offense is just a reason why the CP is bad.  So, for example, if the plan is for the United States to pass a federal jobs guarantee, the negative could read a disadvantage saying that passing the plan would negatively affect the ability to get some other current bill passed (for example, in 2022 it would be Build Back Better), and a CP to call a constitutional convention to amend the constitution to pass the plan, which avoids the disadvantage but still passes the plan.  The affirmative could then read offense against this counterplan by making an argument that this causes a “runaway convention,” where it establishes precedent to amend the constitution and so people will continue amending it with terrible things.

In addition, there are a littany of common theory arguments pertaining to the function of the counterplan.  For example, people will often argue that PICs, consult CPs, process CPs, and delay CPs are unfair.

=== Giving a Counterplan 2NR ===

The goal of a counterplan 2NR is to 1) mitigate the risk of the affirmative advantages and 2) maximize the risk of a disadvantage to not doing the aff. Usually, it is most strategic to start a 2NR by extending and winning a disadvantage to the aff in the form of an external or internal net benefit to the counterplan. This part of your speech should look similar if not identical to giving a 2NR going for a disadvantage, though you may need to spend less time in order to get to the CP flow.