July 27th, 2015
OGDI


A counterplan is a competitive policy option
to the affirmative plan
It’s a plan offered by the negative to “counter”
the “plan”

It is a policy that either
◦ Creates a forced choice with the affirmative plan (is
MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE) and/or
◦ Is not desirable to be implemented alongside the
plan (net beneficial)




The status quo is bad
Affirmatives will (or at least should) choose to
defend the best topical option
Taking out the entire case is either often hard
(the aff is right) and/or time intensive
(requires lots of evidence)
Hedge against add-on advantages




Agent: adopts virtually the same policy as the
aff using a different actor
Mechanism: attempts to solve the aff harms
using a different policy approach
Process: alter some way the plan mandates
are implemented (normal means)—consult,
condition, steal the funding/offsets ,etc.
Mutually exclusive: policy options that are
PRECLUDED by the plan that the neg claims
are just better (now rare)




Bad old days: neg only gets the status quo
(but at least they had inherency?)
Reciprocity kicks in: if the aff gets a plan, the
neg should get one too (non-topical, nonPIC, mutually exlusive counterplan)
Game theory: neg gets net beneficial
counterplans (non-topical, non-PIC)
Modern: neg gets any net beneficial option


What would debate look like if counterplans
were not allowed to be topical?
Topical counterplans are OK because:
◦
◦
◦
◦
Predictable
Aff an use own research against
Are real world
Encourage topic clash and research

Two accepted methods
◦ Mutual exclusivity
◦ Net benefits

Other (poor) methods
◦ Philosophical
◦ Normal means
◦ Textual exclusivity

Under what circumstances can the negative
get rid of the counterplan?
◦ UNCONDITIONAL—’til death do you part
◦ DISPOSITIONAL—anytime the neg wants UNLESS the
counterplan is straight-turned
◦ CONDITIONAL—whenever the neg wants

Is it okay for counterplans to contradict other
negative arguments
◦ YES: laboratory/hypothesis testing model
◦ NO: advocacy model

Must a counterplan be read in the 1NC, if at
all?
◦ Yes: Aff fantasy land
◦ No: Neg rational world

How many counterplans?


Is the counterplan durable?
Can counterplans fiat actors outside the
resolution?
◦
◦
◦
◦


Other levels of domestic government
Private individuals and institutions
Governments of other nations
Intergovernmental organizations
Can a counterplan be fiat contingent
(if/then)?
Can a counterplan be initiated in the future?

Permutation
◦ All of the plan plus part or all of the cp
 Severence
 Intrinsic

Solvency Deficit


States/State Courts
Federal Agents
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦

Executive
Legislative
Judicial
Agences (FAA, FBI, NSA, CDC, DOE, DOI)
Federal Circuit Courts
Process CPs
◦ Wyden Committee
◦ Self-Restraint
◦ Offsets