Difference between revisions of "Counterplans"

Counterplans (view source)

Revision as of 02:46, 1 September 2023

2,988 bytes added , 02:46, 1 September 2023

added parts of a cp

LzzeS

Content-Manager

13

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ==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.
+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).
-===Common Types===
+=== Parts of a Counterplan ===
+===== Text =====
+The text of a counterplan, similar to a plan text, outlines exactly what the counterplan does. In some instances, a counterplan text can have multiple 'planks,' each presenting a different action that can solve some part of the affirmative. For example, against a plan that states "We ought to go to McDonald's" to save money and satisfy our hunger, a counterplan text could say "We ought to go shopping at Trader Joe's." A counterplan with multiple planks may say "We ought to go to Trader Joe's and find a part-time job."
+===== Solvency =====
+Most of the time, the counterplan serves to address the same problems the plan attempts to fix. In this way, the counterplan makes it more difficult for the aff to explain why the plan is a good idea because we could be taking another action with a similar effect. In the example above, going to Trader Joe's would solve the issue of being hungry, because we can buy food at Trader Joe's. However, the aff can argue that the plan is better than the counterplan because the counterplan does not save as much money. Thus, it is important for counterplans to solve as much of the aff as possible (although uniqueness counterplans (see below) can serve as an exception to this rule).
+==== Net Benefit ====
+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.
+==== Competition ====
+All counterplans function as an opportunity cost to the affirmative. The phrase 'opportunity cost' refers to the idea that doing the plan creates a tradeoff that forces us to forgo another opportunity, which in this case is the counterplan. The explanation of how a counterplan creates an opportunity cost to the plan is referred to as competition. Counterplans can compete through mutual exclusivity and net benefits. If a counterplan is mutually exclusive with the affirmative, it is impossible to do both the plan and the counterplan. For example, if we only have $5 to spend, the argument can be made that we can't go to both McDonald's and Trader Joe's, because a trip to either store would cost $5. However, if we had $10 to spend, it would be possible to go to both locations, proving that going to Trader Joe's is not an opportunity cost to going to McDonald's. Counterplans that compete through net benefits prove that even if we could hypothetically do the plan and the counterplan, doing the counterplan alone is net beneficial. External net benefits can establish competition because they explain why doing the plan (in any capacity) would be a bad idea, whereas doing the counterplan would not present the same disadvantage.
+In addition, the counterplan needs to be distinct from the plan, since a counterplan that advocates for the same action of the affirmative doesn't create a legitimate opportunity cost. To determine whether not a counterplan is distinct from the affirmative, metrics such as textual and functional competition are used. To learn more about counterplan competition, see the article linked [[Counterplan Competition|here]].
+=== Common Types ===
 There a few common types of counter-plans in debate.
 Plan-inclusive counterplans (PICs) --- these types of counter-plans advocate for the majority the plan except for a small modification.  For example, a PIC against a plan that says the United States federal government ought to recognize the unconditional right of workers to strike would say: CP --- the United States federal government ought to recognize the unconditional right of workers to strike except for police.  The PIC would have an internal net-benefit saying that police use strikes to enact racist policies.  This type of counter-plan is very strategic because it makes it very hard for the aff to leverage offense because CP is advocating for the entirety of the 1AC except for one little part.