The 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. What Is A Counterplan?

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.

Specificity Sample Counterplan Text: Example 1: The U.S. federal government will terminate all funding for space-based solar power and promote Earth-based renewable energy sources by establishing a system of cap-and-trade carbon dioxide emission credits modeled on the Lieberman-McCain Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act. The program would be administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. All funding raised by the counterplan will be used to fund tax incentives for Earth-based renewable energy sources of wind and solar power. Example 2: The Japanese Space Agency (JAXA) will contract with the Nitto Seimo Company to deploy in space its patented system for sweeping space junk out of orbit.

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.

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 (suboptimal) Possibilities: Resource competition, Philosophical differences,

Mutual Exclusivity It is logically impossible to adopt both the plan and the counterplan. Example: The affirmative calls for substantially increasing NASA’s spending on space-based solar power satellites, while the counterplan bans all such spending. Problems with Mutual Exclusivity: Often the competitiveness based on mutual exclusivity is artificial because the text of the counterplan simply bans the plan. That is the case in the “Example 1” counterplan proposing a system of “cap-and-trade” emission credits. The counterplan has a portion of its text that is the opposite of the plan (“ban spending on space-based solar power”), but this is not a necessary part of the counterplan. One could obviously institute a cap-and-trade emission credits system AND build space-based solar power satellites.

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 “cap-and-trade” emission credits example, the counterplan would uniquely avoid the disadvantages dealing with the federal deficit and depletion of the ozone layer (caused by the thousands of flights necessary to construct the space-based solar power satellite system).

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 an affirmative case proposes to build space-based solar power satellites and the counterplan proposes to institute a system of “cap-and-trade” emission credits. The permutation could avoid the deficit disadvantage by proposing to combine the best elements of the plan and counterplan. The permutation would suggest using the income from the sale of emission credits to fund the space- based solar power satellite system.