Basics of Counterplans and Competition

What is a Counterplan?

A counterplan can be defined simply as a negative advocacy that attempts to exist in competition to the affirmative advocacy. If the affirmative is saying we should do something, the negative is saying we should do something else.

A counterplan is different from a disadvantage, but they are often run alongside one another. While a disadvantage says that we shouldn’t do the affirmative because it is harmful, a counterplan argues that another plan is better than the affirmative. 

Oftentimes, these can overlap. A debater might argue that we should do the counterplan instead because of a specific disadvantage that the aff invites. 

Example

Aff plan: The United States Federal Government ought to implement national health insurance.

Neg counterplan: The 50 states of the United States ought to implement statewide health insurance policies.

The Theory Behind Counterplans

Counterplans are a part of policy LD. Policy exists in LD based on the resolution. This concept is called trichotomy, the idea that 3 types of resolutions exist: fact, value, and policy. This is defined by the International Public Debate Association, or IPDA. 

Fact resolutions rarely, if ever, happen in LD, so only worry about policy and value resolutions.

A policy resolution encompasses an actor doing something, usually in LD the word “ought” is used as opposed to “should” in policy. An example is the NSDA Nov-Dec topic,  Resolved: The United States ought to rewild substantial tracts of land.

Under this the affirmative advocates for the resolution, whether with a plan text or without one. The affirmative has the ability to ‘fiat’ the world of the aff, which basically means do the plan. Under this model of debate, the judge has 2 options, the aff world, or the status quo. The status quo is advocated for by the negative, by giving disadvantages to the affirmative world in order to contend that the status quo is better. The affirmative gives advantages to the affirmative world/plan in order to contend the aff world is better and therefore they should win.

The negative does have a second option, thats where a counterplan comes in. In order to understand why a counterplan negates we can break the affirmative and negative position down into 2 basic claims

Affirmative: We should do the plan

Negative: We should not do the plan

All (policy) arguments on both the affirmative and negative should be aimed at proving one of these claims true. In a counterplan the negative is saying: we should do X thing (counterplan).

Note how this proposition does NOT support the claim we should not do the plan. But now if the negative says:

1. We should do X thing (counterplan)

2. X thing is better than the plan

3. Doing the plan sacrifices X thing

This advances us to the conclusion: We should not do the plan. 

An example of this is:

Plan: We should get a dog

Counterplan: We should get a cat

This on its own does not negate the statement that we should get a dog. The obvious answer would be: why can we not get both? 

If the negative then says

1. Cats are better than dogs (for some warranted reason)

2. We cannot get both a dog and a cat (for some warranted reason)

Then that advances us to: We should not get a dog.

Burdens of a Counterplan

As seen in the examples above, it's not just saying “we should do something else” that makes a counterplan a reason to negate, you have to explain why the counterplan is better, and why it cannot exist with the affirmative world.

These burdens are known as Net Benefit, and Competition. (Other theoretical burdens are sometimes argued, but for the sake of simplicity we will focus on these 2)

Net Benefit

Net benefit is probably the easiest part of counterplans to understand, its just saying the counterplan is better than the affirmative. Think of it as an advantage to the counterplan relative to the world of the affirmative.

The net benefit of a counterplan can be that it doesn’t link to a disadvantage the affirmative links to, or that it does something good that the affirmative doesn’t.

A key part of net benefit is solvency for the affirmative.

The affirmative’s plan seeks to solve a certain set of harms, a counterplan should ideally also attempt to solve said harms.

For example, the plan: We should go to Chipotle for dinner tries to solve for the harm of hunger or nutrition. 

The counterplan: We should go home (assuming there is no food at home) does not attempt to solve these harms.

This doesn’t immediately mean its a bad counterplan or not net beneficial. 

It does, however, mean it has a solvency deficit, which the affirmative will likely argue. A solvency deficit is effectively a unique advantage to doing the affirmative relative to the counterplan.

However, the counterplan can still be net beneficial. For example, if you have 3 major grade assignments due (like I do) then it is net beneficial to go home then go to Chipotle.

Meeting the burden of net benefit is just that- being net beneficial. If you have a solvency deficit, the advantage to doing the counterplan should outweigh said solvency deficit. As long as you can prove doing the counterplan is better than doing the affirmative you meet this burden.

Competition (Functional Competition)

Competition is the second burden to a counterplan, and also the most confusing one.

Recall the counterplans model above. A counterplan is only negative if it is mutually exclusive, or cannot be done with the affirmative, or it is more desirable to just do the counterplan, as opposed to doing it with the affirmative.

Example of an uncompetitive counterplan:

Aff: We should increase funding for education

Neg: We should illegalize speeding

The negative is uncompetitive, it fundamentally does not give you a reason to not do the affirmative, there is no good reason as to why we cannot increase funding for education AND illegalize speeding.

Competition is an argument of mutual exclusivity, it is saying doing the affirmative sacrifices doing the negative, which is better than the affirmative.

Example of a competitive counterplan

Aff: We should go to McDonalds for dinner

Neg: We should go to Burger King for dinner

This counterplan is competitive due to desirability. While technically we can go to McDonalds AND Burger King for dinner - its probably more desirable to just choose one. 

Another example of a competitive counterplan is:

Aff: We should stay at hotel A for the night

Neg: We should stay at hotel B for the night

This counterplan is competitive due to mutual exclusivity, you physically cannot spend the entire night at hotel A and also spend the entire night at hotel B.

Note on desirability: Technically you could make the argument that because the affirmative is net disadvantageous to the status quo, and the counterplan is less disadvantageous, or not disadvantageous, to the status quo, it (the CP)  is competitive. If the only reason your counterplan is competitive is because the affirmative is disadvantageous, then why run it? 

Sure, you might prove the negative is better, but if the affirmative is net disadvantageous then you could win just advocating the status quo and not giving a counterplan. 

In this case, is it more strategic to just read a disadvantage and go for the advantage/disadvantage debate

As a general suggestion- you should only read a counterplan when the affirmative is probably advantageous to the status quo and you probably can’t win the advantage/disadvantage debate.

Permutations

A permutation, or “perm” is an affirmative argument that is a test of competition.

For example, refer back to the McDonalds and Burger King example. If the affirmative says “there is no reason we cannot go to both McDonalds and Burger King” that is a permutation, specifically a “perm do both”.

Permutation is defined as: the act or process of changing the lineal order of an ordered set of objects. When the affirmative is reading a permutation they are adding elements from the negative “set” to the affirmative “set”

Saying “perm do both” on the affirmative is saying you can do both the plan and counterplan.

A counterplan is only competitive if it is more desirable than all legitimate permutations to it.

A permutation is not an advocacy!!! It is a test of competition!

If a perm “flows through”, it is not the permutation that is “fiated”, it is ONLY the affirmative.

A permutation must include all of the affirmative and ANY part of the negative.

Example:

Affirmative: We should get a dog.

Negative: We should get a cat, mouse, fish, and duck

The valid permutations the affirmative can read are:

Get a dog, cat, mouse, fish and duck

Get a dog and cat

Get a dog, mouse and cat

Get a dog and a duck

And any other permutation that includes getting a dog and getting some of a cat, mouse, fish, or duck

This is known as the burdens of (not committing) intrinsicness and severance.

Severance means a permutation must include all of the affirmative

For example the permutation:

Get a cat and duck 

is engaging in severance because it is doing none of the affirmative.

This permutation doesn’t prove doing the counterplan doesn’t sacrifice doing the affirmative because the permutation itself doesn’t do the affirmative.

Intrinsicness means the permutation must include only elements from the affirmative or negative.

For example the permutation:

Get a dog, cat, and koala

is intrinsic, because a koala was neither in the affirmative or negative.

This permutation doesn’t prove the counterplan doesn’t sacrifice the affirmative because it inherently adds to the affirmative plan, basically it says the counterplan doesn’t sacrifice doing the affirmative + something, which is effectively changing your plan.

The Most Common/Stock Types of Counterplans

1. Actor Counterplan (Actor CP)

• An actor counterplan is a counterplan with an alternative actor to the affirmative. For example if aff is The USFG should increase development of geothermal energy in the arctic, an Actor CP could be The North Atlantic Treaty Organization should increase development of geothermal energy in the arctic.

• An actor counterplan seeks to solve all of the affirmatives harms (meaning no solvency deficit if ran properly), and achieves a net benefit through an advantage to the alternative actor or not triggering a disadvantage to the same actor. Actor counterplans are especially good when paired with politics disads or any other US-specific disads as the net benefit is not triggering a disad. Actor Counterplans are usually permed a lot, but they do garner significant competition due to the fact that it usually is just better for one actor to do the plan, or that both actors doing the plan destroys the net benefit of the counterplan.

2. Process Counterplan (Process CP)

• A process counterplan seeks to solve the harms of the affirmative through a different process also known as mechanism. Example: Plan: The USFG should rewild substantial tracts of land, Counterplan: The USFG should significantly increase development of renewable projects. In this case the process counterplan attempts to solve for some or all of the affirmatives harms via a different mechanism.

• Process Counterplans are usually subject to some sort of solvency deficit, because it is hard to get the same results of the affirmative with a different mechanism. In this case, the counterplan achieves none of the biodiversity benefits of rewilding. This also means process counterplans are often hard to establish competition, because the USFG could probably do both, depending on factors like money and land availability. The net benefit of process counterplans is usually not triggering a disadvantage to the mechanism of the plan while solving for all of the plans' harms.

3. Plan Inclusive Counterplans (PICs)

• PICs are the most theoretically contested, and arguably fun, counterplan to debate. A plan inclusive counterplan is a counterplan that does all of the affirmative but intentionally severs some of it. Example: Plan: We should get eggs, milk, cheese, and bread. Counterplan: We should get eggs, milk, and bread. This is a PIC because it intentionally severs part of the affirmative. PICs garner competition off of a net benefit to not doing a certain part of the affirmative. For example, if we have cheese at home then there is no point/desirability to buying cheese, so even if you could perm and also get cheese there is no point. This makes PICs incredibly hard to answer on the affirmative relative to actor and process counterplans, as they force you to specifically defend one part of the affirmative while conceding the rest is good. 

• Examples of PICs include delay and consult

• Theory is heavily ran on PICs. Make sure you know your opponent and judge when running one or going against one.

• More on PICs in the advanced guides!