|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
I am just going to give you the basics about counter plan theory here. A counter plan is a negative position that provides an alternative plan for solving the harms of the affirmative case through some type of non-topical means. The negative team should solve for most if not all of the affirmative harms and show that their is a disadvantage to enacting the affirmative plan. By showing that the counter plan is more advantageous that the plan (i.e. the counter plan avoids the disadvantage), the negative proves that their is a net benefit to the counter plan, and they should win the round.
How do you structure a Counter Plan?
A counter plan has five basic elements:
Subpoint A: Counter Plan Text
Just as when you enact your affirmative plan, you must have plan planks, funding sources, etc for your counter plan. The negative is typically given the same basic fiat power as the affirmative.
Subpoint B: Non-Topicality
The negative must show why the counter plan is non-topical. You typically do this by showing what words of the resolution the counter plan violates.
Subpoint C: Competition
The negative must demonstrate that the counter plan either cannot be done at the same time or should not be done at the same time. You do this in one of three ways.
Mutual Exclusivity - Read evidence that shows the plan and counter plan cannot be enacted simultaneously.
Net Benefit - If the plan suffers from a disadvantage that the counter plan avoids, the counter plan offers a net benefit over the plan, and demonstrates that it should be enacted alone.
Philosophical Competitiveness - This one is fuzzy at best. You will claim that the plan and the counter plan are philosophically incompatible (invading a country and holding peace talks with them at the same time is philosophically incompatible). Therefore, since the plan and counter plan clash philosophically, they should not be enacted at the same time.
Subpoint D: Solvency
The negative must provide evidence that the counter plan will solve case harms.
Subpoint E: Disadvantages
These are typically run as separate position (off case positions), but I put it here so that you remember, you must run a disadvantage to the plan so that the counter plan has a net benefit over the plan. Otherwise, there is no reason to vote for the counter plan!!!
How do you answer a Counter Plan?
Just like the topicality answers, the best way to answer a counter plan is to break it into its component parts and answer each section.
Non-Topicality - You need to show why the counter plan is topical. If the counter plan is topical you can argue that it is illegitimate and should be thrown out.
Competition - If there is no reason why the plan and the counter plan cannot be enacted at the same time, then the counter plan is non-competitive and should be thrown out.
Solvency - You can read evidence that shows that the counter plan will not solve or turn the counter plan by reading evidence that the counter plan will make the problem worse.
Disadvantages - Answer these positions as you would any other disadvantage (see Disads Page). Remember: if you can turn the disadvantages, they become additional advantages to case and a reason to reject the counter plan.
Counter Plans for this topic!!!
Subpoint A: Plan
The negative will have the United Nations enact the affirmative plan exactly as written. The US will participate as a member nation and will vote for any necessary actions in the UN Security Council.
Subpoint B: Non-Topicality
UN not US - The UN is enacting the plan not the United States.
Not the Federal Government - The federal government is excluded from policy making in this activity.
Subpoint C: Competition
Mutually Exclusive - The US when acting under the auspices of the UN cannot enact its own foreign policy.
Net Benefit - The counter plan avoids the disadvantages incurred by the plan.
Subpoint D: Solvency
) United Nations Action Can Decrease Risk of WMD Attack
Haass, 1999
If negotiations were at the center of Cold War diplomacy, consultations must form the core of the post-Cold War foreign policy. The goal is to build or strengthen global institutions that buttress the basic principles of order. Optimally, this would include a revamped U.N. Security Council willing and able to counter aggression, whether by one state against another or by a government against its own people; a more comprehensive WTO better able to promote open trade; smaller nuclear arsenals and a reduced chance of nuclear conflict; supplier clubs that restrict the spread of advanced weapons technology; and a stronger International Atomic Energy Agency to police nuclear proliferation and similar organizations to enforce chemical and biological weapons bans.
[Richard N. Haass - Chair Intl Security Brookings Inst, What To Do With American Primacy, Foreign Affairs, vol 78, no 5, Sept/Oct 1999, p. 43]
Subpoint E: Disadvantages
The disadvantages will be presented as separate off-case positions.
Home | Disads | C-Plans | Critiques | Topicality | Links | News