The Counterplan

1. The Counterplan by Rich Edwards Baylor University

2. What Is A Counterplan? A counterplan is a policy defended by the negative team which competes with the affirmative plan and is, on balance, more beneficial than the affirmative plan.

3. Responsibilities of the Counterplan Specificity:The counterplan text must be explicit Nontopicality:Some theorists say the counterplan must represent the NON-resolution Competitiveness:The counterplan must give the judge a reason to choose between the plan and counterplan.

4. Specificity Sample Counterplan Text:By all necessary means, the counterplan will adopt the affirmative plan with the following exclusion: Health insurance coverage for mental health care will be limited to those treatments with are voluntarily selected by the patient through informed consent and are non-coercive.

5. Nontopicality Though some judges will continue to think this is important, MOST contemporary debate theorists say it is NOT, for the following reasons: 1. The affirmative team is asking for adoption of the PLAN not the resolution. 2. Competitiveness provides adequate protection against abuse. 3. Ground is preserved, since the affirmative team had free opportunity to choose its position first from anywhere within the resolution.

6. Standards for Competitiveness Mutual Exclusivity:It is logically impossible to do both the plan and counterplan. Net Benefits:The plan alone is more beneficial than the plan plus the counterplan Other Possibilities:Resource competition, Philosophical differences

7. Mutual Exclusivity It is logically impossible to adopt both the plan and the counterplan. Example:Affirmative team proposes to expand federal child protective services programs while the counterplan bans all federal involvement with child protective services. Problems with Mutual Exclusivity:Often the competitiveness is artificial because the text of the counterplan simply bans the plan: Some of this counterplan is competitive, but certainly not all of it.

8. Net Benefits Shows why it would be undesirable to combine the plan and counterplan; as a practical matter, there is some disadvantage to the plan which the counterplan does not link to. In the “coercive care” example, the counterplan would uniquely avoid the psychiatric abuse disadvantage.

9. Permutations A permutation is an argument offered by the affirmative to demonstrate the non-competitiveness of a counterplan; it suggests a specific way that the plan and counterplan can be desirably combined. Example: Suppose the negative team offers a state counterplan. The affirmative suggests a permutation to have the federal government provide the funding and have all implementation by the states.