1. Counterplans

2. Counterplan Burdens Competitiveness To be competitive, CP must be: – Mutually exclusive – Net beneficial Topicality – Traditional theory says CPs should not be T. – More recently, folks have argued that Topical CPs are ok: Competition is sufficient to guarantee clash Allowing T CP’s is more real-world Rez exists to limit AFF, not NEG

3. Topicality and the CP (AFF) Topical CPs violate AFF ground. NEG jurisdiction does not include topical policies Topical CP’s prove the Rez is true. – So if the debate is about proving the Rez, AFF wins – (but if it’s a yes/no question of AFF plan, n/a) Topical CPs shift the debate to the trivial – The NEG plan is only slightly different from AFF

4. Conditionality: Conditional CP NEG puts forth CP, but retains right to defend SQ – If things go bad, punt CP – Competiveness/Fairness: AFF can make conditional arguments Permutations are conditional Advantages are conditional Dispositional CP NEG will follow the same conditionality standards as AFF – If AFF makes conditional Args, NEG kicks – Same standards When the NEG commits to debating the CP to the end, that’s an Unconditional CP – Not a bad strategy if you’ve got a strong CP

5. Problems with conditionality Depending on how it is run, a dispositional or conditional CP can be considered abusive – CP + SQ arguments lead to an issue of consistency with the NEG story. – Could be used as a time-suck – Where does one draw the line? Are multiple CPs and/or SQ fair?

6. Case Specific CPs Nullify AFF Adv. – ‘capturing’ advantages for the NEG Can shift debate to familiar ground for the NEG – We solve your goofy non-T Adv. 3 with our CP, now let’s get back to the topic. Uniqueness for DAs – The DA happens in SQ, and post-plan… but not post-CP!

7. Uniqueness CPs (AFF) CP’s open the NEG up to DAs from AFF Competition args potentially eliminate the link to the DA

8. Generic CPs Systemic/Utopian CP – Socialism, anarchy, libertarian Agent Counterplans Exclusion CP- do part of AFF plan

9. Agent CPs for Poverty Topic The States – The states are largely responsible for the SS provided to PLIP in SQ. – There’s all kinds of ev. Saying state/local control is superior. 50 States States + alt. Action – Plan = Housing – CP = states transit Consult States – Permable? – adv has to come from the consultation, not solve. Lopez- Plan is not w/i Fed Jurisdiction

10. Responding to the State CP 2AC – States are ineffective – States don’t cooperate with one another – Fiat abuse – Our Inherency evidence proves only plan can solve 2NC – SPECIFIC state solvency cards

11. Other Agent CPs NGOs – Charities, faith-based – Local control, local scope = solv. – Critical ground- Free Market Courts – Historical precedence for increasing social services “if you cannot afford an attorney…”; Brown V Board – Ed, HC, prisons, min. wage – ‘equal protection of the law’ – AFF: there are limits to what judges can do w/existing legislation, for good reason. Legislation truly solves. Municipalities – County-level. Solvency for rural areas.

12. Now what? Cut at least one CP brief for Friday (can be 50, consult, Lopez, municipalities, Murray (remember?) – lets try to represent them all) -Lots of the work is done for you already. JDI and CDE are great places to start. - You can’t read a 35 page CP in round, so read it (all) now and cut it down to something manageable. Don’t get too excited that all the cards are there. You have a little work to do.