CPs
GENERAL:
1. The purpose of the CP is to provide an alternate policy to resolve the affirmative harms while
avoiding disadvantages to the affirmative policy.
a. CPs are DEFENSIVE in nature – in most cases, they are only designed to solve the aff
harms.
b. To be competitive, a CP must avoid something bad (a disad) that the plan causes.
i. MOST CPs compete by net benefits
ii. SOME CPs compete because they CAN’T be done at the same time
2. The aff wins if the best option includes the plan.
3. The neg wins if the CP alone is the best option.
4. Most crucial info for both teams: What are the differences between the plan and the CP?
ON THE NEG:
Why CPs?
CPs are often your most important negative argument – they defang the affirmative. Your goal
is to use the CP to solve as close to 100% of the aff advantages as possible.
What’s in the box? (1NC Shell)
Plan Text - CPs should be written specifically for each round – you should tailor your CP text to
the aff plan in your debate by mirroring the language of the aff plan text on any parts that you
are not going to disagree with.
Solvency evidence – Your BEST card or two
Net Benefit evidence – Either great comparative cards on the link debate or an internal net
benefit
Any arguments that are net benefits to the CP should only have specific links to the plan.
Extending the CP
CP Solves
Don’t lose sight of the purpose of the CP
Assess the risks of solvency deficit against the size of the disadvantage
Find AFF cards that support the solvency of the CP (do this during 1AC)
Answering the Permutation (in rank order):
It still links to the DA/Net Benefit
New DA to the permutation
Theory (the only legit permutations are those that take ALL OF THE PLAN and ALL OR
PART OF THE CP)
Answering addons
Usually the internal links are shady or bad
Usually the aff doesn’t read uniqueness for the advantage
Read DA impacts that access the impact
ON THE AFF:
CX of the 1N
Determine the STATUS of the CP
Determine the DIFFERENCES between the CP and the Plan
Determine the NET BENEFITS to the CP
2AC against the CP (rank ordered)
CP doesn’t solve
Each % of the solvency deficit is a % of your advantage you get to weigh against the DA
Figure out the difference between the plan and the CP
Find every piece of solvency evidence you read in the 1AC that speaks to this difference
Make sure that you try to create solvency deficits for EVERY advantage that you read
CP links to the DAs/Net Benefits
Almost always true of politics disads
You should especially look for reasons the CP links to the neg’s stated net benefits
Permutation
These are NOT about whether or not you CAN do both. (Mutual Exclusivity)
The permutation tests whether or not it is DESIRABLE to do both. (Net Benefits)
In the 1AR be
Add-ons
These are shorter advantages that take 2-3 cards to read that only the plan solves
DAs to the CP (requires you to know the difference between the plan and the CP)
Theory
1AC defenses against CPs
ONLY the plan mechanism solves
USFG (or whatever agent you pick) is the best agent to implement the plan
We must act now / immediately to solve
TYPES OF CPs:
Actor CPs: These operate by changing only the agent that implements the aff. Often, these CPs are
designed to avoid the Politics DA. Examples: Executive Order, Congress, and Supreme Court CPs.
Consultation CPs: These CPs will only implement the aff plan after offering certain actors a chance to
veto it. Examples: Consult NATO, Consult Japan.
Condition CPs: These CPs will only implement the aff plan if a certain actor meets a required condition.
Example: democratization, corruption reforms, no militarization of space.
Mechanism CPs: These CPs will attempt to solve the aff harms through an alternate mechanism.
Examples: replace SBSS, explore with gov vehicles not private.
THEORY ARGUMENTS:
Consultation is bad
Agent CPs are bad
International Fiat is bad
Multi-Actor fiat is bad
Dispositionality is bad
Conditionality is bad