Answering Counterplans  Acronym is PLOTS  Permutation  Links to their disads  Other disads to the Counterplan  Theory Objections  Doesn’t Solve the case The plot thickens when they run a counterplan

Doesn’t Solve Your Case  Doesn’t solve your case  Why might a counterplan that uses the states not solve your advantages?  Federal Domain (Natives/Military)  Federal Symbol (raises profile of anti-poverty)  Modelling  Plan fills a federal gap (federal law has excluded a group)

Links to their disads  Links to their disads  AFF teams often forget to make this answer  Inflation Disad (states still put money into the economy/causing inflation)  Net Widening Disad (states still increase control over people)  How might other disadvantages/kritiks link to the states counterplan?

Other Disads to A Counterplan  Affirmative can run disads to a counterplan  Usually the affirmative will skip the uniqueness, and read a two card disad  Can we think of disads

Theoretical Objections to Counterplans  There are certain reasons why some counterplans might be unfair  One reason is that “international FIAT” might be bad Not this kind of Fiat

FIAT  FIAT: the power to put your plan into action  We pretend in debate that we are the Congress, or the President, or the Supreme Court  There is an argument that FIAT should be limited to the United States

Status of Counterplans  A good cross-x question is: what is the status of your CP?  An unconditional Counterplan has to be defended  A conditional counterplan allows the negative to “switch back” to the status quo in the debate

Status Part 2  A dispositional counterplan is like “limited conditionality.”  We can revert back if you make certain answers  Most judges think some version of dispositionality or conditionality is fair

Permutations  A counterplan must COMPETE: it must provide an answer to the question, why not do both?  A permutation is an affirmative answer that says: we should do both  A permutation is designed to prove, the counterplan doesn’t compete

Answering Permutations  1) Still links to the disadvantages.  So the answer to “why not do both” is the disadvantage  There may be disadvangtes to the permutation by itself, separate from the aff  Two basic answers:  1) we shouldn’t do both  It links to the disadvantages  It has disadvantages to it (do both worse)  2) we can’t do both

Plan Inclusive Counterplan  Plan is give money to Afghanistan and Lebanon  Counterplan is only give money to Lebanon  Ban giving aid to Afghanistan  Can’t give aid to Afghanistan and ban aid (you would have to ban ALL OTHER AID and then give aid)  Mutually exclusive: can’t do both

Illegitimate Permutations  Permutation has to be the combination of ALL of the PLAN and PART or ALL of the Counterplan  Why must a permutation be all of the plan?  Plan was: give aid to A & L  Counterplan only give aid to L  Disad: Afghan leader bad  Permutation: only give aid to L  You are not allowed to sever or get rid of parts of your plan  Plans aren’t conditional, you have to defend your plan  Sever permutation

Other permutations  and PART or ALL of the Counterplan  Permutation cannot ADD anything into the mix  Intrinsiciness Permutation adds something to the mix  Run a spending disad  A) Cost a lot of money to give aid to afg  B) Destroy the deficit  C) Wreck economy  D) Big boom  Counterplan EU give aid  Permute: do the plan, have the EU give aid, and then cut the budget for boll wievel aid  We can’t run disads, you would always solve for them with your intrinsicness permutation

Why are you allowed to only do part of the counterplan  Do all of the plan  But only part of the counterplan?  Plank 1: Ban your plan  Plank 2: Feed the world  Afghan stability + 10; feed the world +1000