A counterplan is a component of debate theory commonly expounded in the activity of parliamentary and policy debate. While some schools of debate theory require the negative position in a debate to defend the status quo against an affirmative position or plan, a counterplan allows the negative to advance a separate plan or an advocacy. It also allows the affirmative to run disadvantages against the negative.
141-424: Most forms of debate begin from some resolution or statement of advocacy. As the affirmative plan affirms the resolution in theory or at least within the sphere of its distinct existence, it is reasonable to assume that the negative team must advocate the negation of the resolution, usually either through the defense of the status quo or a counterplan distinct from the resolution advocacy. However, in many circles,
282-417: A drop refers to an argument which was not answered by the opposing team. Normally, a "dropped" or conceded argument is considered unrefuted for the purposes of evaluating a debate. "Silence is compliance." (Sometimes, "Silence is consent" or "Silence is consensus".) Debaters tend to use this as a general rule while evaluating a debate round. If a team says nothing against an argument, then because 'silence
423-517: A "moving target". Simply put, the affirmative cannot know what the negative will choose to argue at the end of the round, and therefore some of the arguments they answer probably will not continue to the end of the round. These argument falls under a "fairness" claim. Most arguments will actually be under "education" claims. Affirmatives will claim conditionality is noneducational because it allows negative teams to make bad or inconsistent arguments and then ignore them later. More importantly, it can put
564-408: A 3-minute cross-examination period. In high school, constructive speeches are 8 minutes long; in college, they are 9 minutes. In general, constructive arguments are the only time that a team can make new arguments. The last four speeches of the debate are reserved for refutations of arguments already made. In current policy debate, the " first affirmative constructive " (1AC) is used to present
705-526: A boost to the Significance stock issue. An example of this is to argue that solving dirty nukes made of plutonium is more advantageous than exploiting further mutually assured destruction deterrence theory. A Negative strategy that does not give direct clash to the Affirmative plan argues against the resolution's hidden harms without arguing against the plan, the unmasking harms strategy that helps
846-405: A boost to the Significance stock issue. An example of this is to argue that solving dirty nukes made of plutonium is more advantageous than exploiting further mutually assured destruction deterrence theory. A Negative strategy that does not give direct clash to the Affirmative plan argues against the resolution's hidden harms without arguing against the plan, the unmasking harms strategy that helps
987-498: A commitment by the negative to advocate the counterplan at the end of the round. Negatives often run unconditional counterplans when they want to emphasize their confidence in their arguments or want to avoid debating theory arguments (especially on otherwise particularly abusive counterplans). There is some dispute about whether the negative can ultimately advocate the alternative vision of a kritik if it has already run an unconditional counterplan. Also if negative chooses to argue that
1128-410: A comparable advantage of positional competition. As the negative gains a substantial power by having the ability to run counterplans, the affirmative naturally insists on some limitations to their use. Should the negative be able to run multiple counterplans that they can jettison at any time? Should there be any limitations on the ability of the negative to shift from advocating a counter-plan back to
1269-419: A critique of the state declaring that the purported increase in state power that the plan creates is bad because it unduly exercises power and forces citizens into doing things that they would not choose to do otherwise might be impact turned by first mitigating the harm the state does and then saying that other things the state does — such as safeguarding domestic tranquility — are good. Inherency
1410-419: A critique of the state declaring that the purported increase in state power that the plan creates is bad because it unduly exercises power and forces citizens into doing things that they would not choose to do otherwise might be impact turned by first mitigating the harm the state does and then saying that other things the state does — such as safeguarding domestic tranquility — are good. Inherency
1551-401: A different agent (group or team, other governments, NGOs , etc.) overview, and possibly make revisions to the Affirmative plan. If the liaison or consultant or advisor approves the plan, it is passed by the original team. If it is rejected, the liaison does not pass the plan. Consult counterplans generally have a net benefit of improved relations with the consulted group. An example would be for
SECTION 10
#17327982310511692-477: A matter of policy. The whole matter initiated by non-U.S. personnel (nongovernmental groups) would be sedition, destroying debate resolution actually, due to diminution of Grounds "glad tidings", if not for Grounds "safe harbor" for high school and college students and their coaching staff. An analog to the U.S. Judiciary is lifting of the gag rule. The theory on Grounds was recodified into doctrine for exactly that real world scenario, which occurred intermittently in
1833-449: A negative team might read a disadvantage saying that the plan will collapse the economy, and that economic collapse causes nuclear war. An affirmative would double turn the disadvantage by saying that actually, the plan would prevent the economy from collapsing, and that economic collapse is crucial to prevent nuclear war. Therefore, the affirmative is now arguing that the plan will cause nuclear war. While either of these arguments alone turns
1974-431: A net benefit the plan does not have, giving the judge a reason to vote for the team reading it rather than the team with the original proposal. Like most mainstream argument forms in policy debate, they are presumed to be legitimate, though it is possible for the affirmative to defeat them on the grounds that they are illegitimate by arguing that they are unfair, uneducational, or illogical. Because they make it possible for
2115-407: A non issue. There are some judges who will not vote on it, and negative teams do not run it often because it may contradict uniqueness arguments on disadvantages. However, inherency arguments are more likely to be run with a "Stocks Issues" judge who could hold that the absence of an inherent barrier is enough to merit an affirmative loss. In doctrinal disputes, Inherency is only a nonissue when there
2256-407: A non issue. There are some judges who will not vote on it, and negative teams do not run it often because it may contradict uniqueness arguments on disadvantages. However, inherency arguments are more likely to be run with a "Stocks Issues" judge who could hold that the absence of an inherent barrier is enough to merit an affirmative loss. In doctrinal disputes, Inherency is only a nonissue when there
2397-399: A permit, license, or approval for a highway or public transportation project, and for other purposes." from the 117th Congress. However, if the date the round is taking place happens during the 118th Congress, Senate Bill 361, "Pistol Brace Protection Act" will be passed instead due to the fact that the mandate doesn't specify which Congress the Affirmative team is referring to. This causes
2538-579: A policy issue. It is an advanced, teacher-only tactic among NDT schools. For example, School Triple Crown students on the Aff argue modus tollens (the conclusion justifies the proposition) performative embodiment earns fiat. School Kritik DaySayDay teachers on the Neg run a topical counterplan over there near Germany to Aff's topical plan of "increase student debate" within the resolution "promote political education in college" somewhere there not France. The counterplan
2679-567: A reason to reject the affirmative. Although competition is a difficult and controversial theory support argument, it is understood as, the counterplan must be superior (and not equal) to both the plan and any possible combination of the plan and counterplan. A plan and counterplan that are mutually exclusive are competitive, meaning that the two plans vie are and could not coexist. Tests of "debatability" in terms of potential combinations of plan and counterplan are called permutations , or perm s in debate slang. The most common form of permutation and
2820-409: A reference to real life to understand the sophisticated arguments in a policy debate round. Fiat ( Latin for 'let it be done') is a theoretical, "throwaway assumption" and convention that "represents a willing suspension of disbelief which allows us to pretend that the plan advocated by the affirmative team is already in action." Derived from the word should in the resolution , it means that
2961-409: A reference to real life to understand the sophisticated arguments in a policy debate round. Fiat ( Latin for 'let it be done') is a theoretical, "throwaway assumption" and convention that "represents a willing suspension of disbelief which allows us to pretend that the plan advocated by the affirmative team is already in action." Derived from the word should in the resolution , it means that
SECTION 20
#17327982310513102-425: A vote and a role is not about pretending how to save lives in third world countries, which academic debate purports to do, but not as if one is in a hero role, but arguing why to save lives in third world countries because that is normatively feasible and desirable, straightforwardly. The ballot is also where judges can comment that certain speakers excelled at rhetoric or oratory or argumentation or teamwork or knows
3243-417: Is functionally but not textually severance because the plan does not happen in the world of the permutation even though the permutation includes both the plan and the counterplan text. Permutations which are textually but not functionally severance are rare, but possible. For example, one type of counterplan is the plan-inclusive counterplan on the word 'The', which advocates doing the affirmative plan before
3384-539: Is "proving grounds" Justification run by the Negative: Fiat is irrelevant, the Affirmative cedes the plan and resolution to the Negative for safe handling in order for the Negative to stop the status quo's harms outlined in-round and win all other stakes, if and only if the Affirmative can "morally reason" Justification, which the Negative will do anyway were the Affirmative to refuse. The formalized Socratic Flow
3525-401: Is a counterplan that proposes to do affirmative's plan (or part of it) with another agent. For example, if the affirmative plan were: "The USFG should send troops to Liberia" an agent counterplan would be "France should send troops to Liberia." This would solve the original proposal with a net benefit the plan does not have, giving the judge a reason to vote for the team reading it rather than
3666-585: Is a glossary of policy debate terms . In policy debate (also called cross-examination debate in some circuits, namely the University Interscholastic League of Texas), the Affirmative is the team that affirms the resolution and seeks to uphold it by developing, proposing, and advocating for a policy plan that satisfies the resolution. By affirming the resolution, the Affirmative (often abbreviated "AFF" or "Aff") incurs
3807-405: Is a stock issue in policy debate that refers to a barrier that keeps a harm from being solved in the status quo . There are four main types of inherency: Despite the classification of these four as the "main types" of inherency, the existence of other types are subject to theory (much like a substantial part of the lexicon for the event). In higher level policy debate inherency has become
3948-405: Is a stock issue in policy debate that refers to a barrier that keeps a harm from being solved in the status quo . There are four main types of inherency: Despite the classification of these four as the "main types" of inherency, the existence of other types are subject to theory (much like a substantial part of the lexicon for the event). In higher level policy debate inherency has become
4089-443: Is a process argument, are rarely distinguishable from counter-resolutions and nontopicality and are therefore frowned upon by judges: Harms are a stock issue in policy debate which refer to problems inherent in the status quo . These problems are cited as actual (occurring presently outside the activity of the debate round in the status quo). Harms are different from threats, which are potential harms (not currently occurring in
4230-443: Is a process argument, are rarely distinguishable from counter-resolutions and nontopicality and are therefore frowned upon by judges: Harms are a stock issue in policy debate which refer to problems inherent in the status quo . These problems are cited as actual (occurring presently outside the activity of the debate round in the status quo). Harms are different from threats, which are potential harms (not currently occurring in
4371-426: Is also where judges can comment that certain speakers excelled at rhetoric or oratory or argumentation or teamwork or knows the material with great depth and breadth. Those debaters in formal, organized debate, get speaker awards based on judges' opinions of the speakers' performances. In policy debate , constructive speeches are the first four speeches of a debate round. Constructive speeches are each followed by
Counterplan - Misplaced Pages Continue
4512-405: Is best for the Negative not to qualify their position as a "conditionality" test. The same above, a kritik against capitalism and economy disads, can simply be run against plan Solvency (counterplan) and Justification (kritik). For the Affirmative to lose either one means the Affirmative loses Inherency. On fair Grounds, if the Negative loses either one, then the Negative concedes only Inherency to
4653-440: Is blue, vote affirmative" is an argument that most judges would believe does not need to be answered. Debaters sometimes use the "dropped egg" argument to refer to arguments dropped by the opposing team, stating that "A dropped argument is like a dropped egg. Once an egg is dropped, it cannot be fixed (or whole) again. Therefore, you should disregard their argument..." etc. This argument is optimal for lay, or parent, judges who need
4794-440: Is blue, vote affirmative" is an argument that most judges would believe does not need to be answered. Debaters sometimes use the "dropped egg" argument to refer to arguments dropped by the opposing team, stating that "A dropped argument is like a dropped egg. Once an egg is dropped, it cannot be fixed (or whole) again. Therefore, you should disregard their argument..." etc. This argument is optimal for lay, or parent, judges who need
4935-415: Is compliance', they must agree to whatever the argument was. An argument is normally considered dropped if it is not answered in the speech in which the opposing team has the first opportunity to answer it. Generally, in the first affirmative rebuttal , the speaker is required to answer all arguments made so far by the negative team. This is because if the affirmative chooses to respond to the arguments in
5076-409: Is consent" or "Silence is consensus".) Debaters tend to use this as a general rule while evaluating a debate round. If a team says nothing against an argument, then because 'silence is compliance', they must agree to whatever the argument was. An argument is normally considered dropped if it is not answered in the speech in which the opposing team has the first opportunity to answer it. Generally, in
5217-700: Is considered feasible. In many policy debates, debaters argue about the reversibility "fiated" actions. For example, in a debate about whether the United States Federal Government should implement new regulations to reduce climate change, a Negative team might argue that regulations would be repealed if the Republican Party gained control of the Presidency or Congress. Various interpretations of fiats have been constructed in order to promote more realistic political punditry that
5358-486: Is considered feasible. In many policy debates, debaters argue about the reversibility "fiated" actions. For example, in a debate about whether the United States Federal Government should implement new regulations to reduce climate change, a Negative team might argue that regulations would be repealed if the Republican Party gained control of the Presidency or Congress. Various interpretations of fiats have been constructed in order to promote more realistic political punditry that
5499-400: Is derived from functional competition in so far as this approach considers neither the plan text nor assumptions of the plan in a vacuum. A counterplan competes positionally if the affirmative takes a position (through tags, cross-examination, solvency advocates, etc.) regarding a mechanic relating to how the plan is implemented and the negative can read a disadvantage to that mechanic who's link
5640-418: Is different from policy debate. "Intrinsic means" – are the same means as the status quo without having to justify discovery or extraordinary support of those means. For example, if the plan's agency is C.I.A. , there is no need to go into a lengthy discussion about classification methods and clearances. Significance can be argued that capturing the status quo's intrinsic means gives a Solvency boost without
5781-418: Is different from policy debate. "Intrinsic means" – are the same means as the status quo without having to justify discovery or extraordinary support of those means. For example, if the plan's agency is C.I.A. , there is no need to go into a lengthy discussion about classification methods and clearances. Significance can be argued that capturing the status quo's intrinsic means gives a Solvency boost without
Counterplan - Misplaced Pages Continue
5922-417: Is different than the counterplan--or functional competition in so far as the counterplan's mechanism deviates from the normal means process of the affirmative's implementation which offers a certainty and/or immediacy warrant. A counterplan spike is run by the Negative against any topical Affirmative by going against the resolution generically. For example, if the Affirmative runs a squirrelly case of shifting
6063-413: Is in power and their party affiliation, it matters that whosoever is in power already can benefit from the plan, if that is the argument. Usually, Affirmative plans are not about re-electing officials but are honed toward nonelected groups and other countries who are beneficiaries of the plan. In policy debate, fiating the plan is almost always granted without argument, to help debaters and judges evaluate
6204-413: Is in power and their party affiliation, it matters that whosoever is in power already can benefit from the plan, if that is the argument. Usually, Affirmative plans are not about re-electing officials but are honed toward nonelected groups and other countries who are beneficiaries of the plan. In policy debate, fiating the plan is almost always granted without argument, to help debaters and judges evaluate
6345-404: Is irrelevant and the debate rewards the best arguments, not the simulations". The difference between a vote and a role is not about pretending how to save lives in third world countries, which academic debate purports to do, but not as if one is in a hero role, but arguing why to save lives in third world countries because that is normatively feasible and desirable, straightforwardly. The ballot
6486-405: Is logically but not textually included in the counterplan. Additionally, there are also permutations which are functionally but not textually intrinsic . For example, textually permuting an agent counterplan may functionally include an element of cooperation functionally in neither the plan nor the counterplan without being textually intrinsic. Likewise, permuting the "ban the plan" counterplan
6627-412: Is often called Plan-Optimization and argues that the affirmative should have the burden to prove that its policy is the best example of the resolution. The negative can link better to the policy scope mentioned by the resolution than as stated by the Affirmative, setting the Negative super-topical (a form of nontopicality) in the policy debate to push an optimal political solution beyond the narrowness of
6768-472: Is one of the top-level Typicality theory debates for coaches, trainers, resolution drafters, and plan drafters, to avoid wasting time by using intuition. A real world example is the House impeachment and Senate trying of Donald J. Trump , a large Socratic Flow that stretched over months from impeachment (conditionality, subtopical) inquiry to acquittal (typicality). An unconditional counterplan status represents
6909-475: Is organizational consensus. Policy debate ensues, of the academic and nonacademic varieties, in re-evaluating or "rescuing" Inherency. For example, the Status Quo Inherency is used in academic debate to scope resolutions, affirmative plans, and the types of evidence in a formal academic debate. In Lincoln-Douglas debate, as opposed to policy debate, there is no need to "rescue Inherency", because
7050-403: Is organizational consensus. Policy debate ensues, of the academic and nonacademic varieties, in re-evaluating or "rescuing" Inherency. For example, the Status Quo Inherency is used in academic debate to scope resolutions, affirmative plans, and the types of evidence in a formal academic debate. In Lincoln-Douglas debate, as opposed to policy debate, there is no need to "rescue Inherency", because
7191-470: Is real world, because policy makers often decide between more than two options. They may also argue that all the negative has to do is prove the affirmative's plan is a bad idea, and it does not matter how they do this. Finally, negative will often argue that even if the affirmative is correct about conditionality being bad, it is not a reason for them to lose the entire round, it is only a reason that their conditional arguments should not be voted for. One of
SECTION 50
#17327982310517332-406: Is shielded by a counterplan written to leverage a different plan mandate than the affirmative. Positional competition is different from functional competition only because it places the onus of interpretation on the affirmative to determine the means of the plan’s process while functional competition lets the negative determine normal means (of the plans function/mechanism) which could be seen as
7473-424: Is the team that negates the affirmation. More specifically, the Negative (abbreviated "NEG" or "Neg") refutes the policy plan that is presented by the Affirmative. The Affirmative team has the advantage of speaking both first and last, but it lacks the benefit of back-to-back speeches afforded to the Negative team in the 13-minute block of time known as the "Negative block". In policy debate , an agent counterplan
7614-485: Is to confiscate students' electronic devices, turn off all flat screens, and reduce their electric appliance usage down to the Xerox machine, while banning the use of the plugin coffeemaker, the plugin juice grinder, and the battery-operated flyswatter, but they may have traditional office supplies and 3M Scotch tape, and a red Swingline stapler. A counterplan must "compete" with the affirmative plan in order to be considered
7755-470: Is well known in speculative science -- because policy is not merely exploratory somehow but contends for population and natural resources, which is what makes policy debate different from speculative science. It is unwise to have to condition, for example, that the Affirmative has to pass a multilateral, unilateral, bilateral rigorous test in-round on a foreign affairs topic of about five different foreign countries, although relaxed "testing" can occur throughout
7896-690: The 1AC offense ), they are a key component in many negative strategies. Most affirmatives try to avoid domestic USFG agent counterplans (e.g., if the plan involves Congressional legislation, the negative might counterplan to have the president issue an executive order) by not specifying their agent beyond the United States federal government in their plan text . On international topics, international agent counterplans cannot be similarly avoided, although many consider them object fiat or otherwise theoretically suspect. Some debate theorists (e.g., Lichtman and Rohrer; Korcok; Strait and Wallace) have argued
8037-714: The European Union to review the plan, make revisions, and have the U.S. diplomats follow the EU's suggestions rather than following the U.S. Congress's modifications. An exclusionary counterplan only enacts certain parts of the Affirmative plan. The Net Benefits are based on the parts excluded. There is some dispute as to the legitimacy of Exclusion PICs - supporters say the affirmative should be prepared to defend their advocacy, while opponents say negative teams can find something wrong with any plan and that exclusion PICs are abusive. A plan exclusive counterplan (PEC) does not use
8178-668: The Supreme Court , the President (usually through the use of an Executive Order ), and Congress . Sometimes, the policy groups get smaller in numbers and devolve into Executive agencies . For example, on a previous high school debate topic – the use of renewable energy – the plan could use the Department of Energy . Agent counterplan This is a glossary of policy debate terms . In policy debate (also called cross-examination debate in some circuits, namely
8319-458: The United States federal government in their plan text . On international topics, international agent counterplans cannot be similarly avoided, although many consider them object fiat or otherwise theoretically suspect. Some debate theorists (e.g., Lichtman and Rohrer; Korcok; Strait and Wallace) have argued the kind of fiat involved with these counterplans is inconsistent with the logic of decision making. In debate, judges consider or score
8460-443: The University Interscholastic League of Texas), the Affirmative is the team that affirms the resolution and seeks to uphold it by developing, proposing, and advocating for a policy plan that satisfies the resolution. By affirming the resolution, the Affirmative (often abbreviated "AFF" or "Aff") incurs the burden of proof , which must be met if the Affirmative's policy plan is to be successful. The Negative side , in contrast,
8601-433: The burden of proof , which must be met if the Affirmative's policy plan is to be successful. The Negative side , in contrast, is the team that negates the affirmation. More specifically, the Negative (abbreviated "NEG" or "Neg") refutes the policy plan that is presented by the Affirmative. The Affirmative team has the advantage of speaking both first and last, but it lacks the benefit of back-to-back speeches afforded to
SECTION 60
#17327982310518742-672: The first affirmative rebuttal , the speaker is required to answer all arguments made so far by the negative team. This is because if the affirmative chooses to respond to the arguments in the second affirmative rebuttal , it reaffirms affirmative ground and strength because the affirmative gets the last speech, leaving the negative with no way to refute any argument made. Many debaters refer to dropped arguments as "conceded," "unanswered," or "unrefuted" or "stands in good stead". Some judges will not evaluate some arguments, even when they are dropped, such as arguments labeled "voting issues" but which are unsupported by warrants. For example, "the sky
8883-424: The function of the plan and counterplan rather than their text . For example, perming the "ban the plan" counterplan would constitute functional severance even though it does not constitute textual severance. Functional and textual competition govern how severance and intrinsicness are determined. For example, a logical permutation is textually but not functionally intrinsic because it includes something which
9024-482: The second affirmative rebuttal , it reaffirms affirmative ground and strength because the affirmative gets the last speech, leaving the negative with no way to refute any argument made. Many debaters refer to dropped arguments as "conceded," "unanswered," or "unrefuted" or "stands in good stead". Some judges will not evaluate some arguments, even when they are dropped, such as arguments labeled "voting issues" but which are unsupported by warrants. For example, "the sky
9165-472: The status-quo or to another counter-plan or advocacy stance such as a kritik? The counter-plan status is a set of conditions, albeit often vaguely defined in practice, that the negative grants will define its ability to advocate one or more counterplans. The affirmative will usually inquire about the counter-plan during the Cross-Examination after the 1NC or after whatever speech the counter-plan
9306-422: The " plan ". Whether all new " off-case arguments " must be presented in the " first negative constructive " is a point of contention. In policy debate, a critical flaw refers to when the Affirmative team's plan text includes the wrong bill or a bill from a previous legislature. For example, a team may want to pass Senate Bill 361, "A bill to establish a 90-day limit to file a petition for judicial review of
9447-563: The "ban the plan" Negative is not prima facie competitive is one of the main arguments against textual competition, although its proponents claim that such counterplans could be rephrased to be textually competitive. In that example, the Aff is not only extra-Topical with the perm, but a huge illogical contradiction Turns plan Justification of the resolution, which is not desirable. Rather than "testing", argumentation should avoid illogical leaps and leakage, aka unfair wild permutations analogous to nefarious viruses. Functional competition evaluates
9588-425: The 118th Congress, Senate Bill 361, "Pistol Brace Protection Act" will be passed instead due to the fact that the mandate doesn't specify which Congress the Affirmative team is referring to. This causes the Affirmative team to more than likely become untopical and have a plan nowhere remotely related to the intention. It is a classic debate mistake for an affirmative to read both link and impact turns. For example,
9729-451: The Affirmative plan. Counterplans that are 100% plan-inclusive have only shaky competition claims, typically resting on dense theory. Process counterplans change the method in which the plan is implemented by conditioning its success or rerouting its path of implementation to garner a net benefit. Process counterplans can either compete off of positional competition--such that the affirmatives implied or assumed mechanism of implementation
9870-429: The Affirmative team to more than likely become untopical and have a plan nowhere remotely related to the intention. It is a classic debate mistake for an affirmative to read both link and impact turns. For example, a negative team might read a disadvantage saying that the plan will collapse the economy, and that economic collapse causes nuclear war. An affirmative would double turn the disadvantage by saying that actually,
10011-422: The Affirmative team's plan text includes the wrong bill or a bill from a previous legislature. For example, a team may want to pass Senate Bill 361, "A bill to establish a 90-day limit to file a petition for judicial review of a permit, license, or approval for a highway or public transportation project, and for other purposes." from the 117th Congress. However, if the date the round is taking place happens during
10152-416: The Affirmative with merit, for example, for merely attempting to run a plan on the resolution, which prima facie fulfills the resolution in a particular case, the plan. There are Affirmative positions that support the resolution without running a plan, and they tend to do so on Inherency only, a powerful strategy. Negative Inherency tends to strategize how one ought to vote about the resolution, accepting that
10293-416: The Affirmative with merit, for example, for merely attempting to run a plan on the resolution, which prima facie fulfills the resolution in a particular case, the plan. There are Affirmative positions that support the resolution without running a plan, and they tend to do so on Inherency only, a powerful strategy. Negative Inherency tends to strategize how one ought to vote about the resolution, accepting that
10434-537: The Affirmative. The remainder weighing has to be debated by the Affirmative as to the weighing of how the Negative's losing both will go against their counterplan or their kritik, and it is better for the Negative to lose the kritik than lose the Push Debate, leaving both plan Disadvantages and counterplan Advantages to be considered. There are other ways for the Negative to make their last speech appeal on how they ought to win, which issues are voters, and why. From
10575-418: The Negative team in the 13-minute block of time known as the "Negative block". In policy debate , an agent counterplan is a counterplan that proposes to do affirmative's plan (or part of it) with another agent. For example, if the affirmative plan were: "The USFG should send troops to Liberia" an agent counterplan would be "France should send troops to Liberia." This would solve the original proposal with
10716-493: The Socratic Flow and Stasis Theory, Typicality is not conditionality, and Typicality preserves debate in good stead more than bothering with competitiveness for good standing; they are in stasis when well proven. Typicality can be separated from Topicality to argue the matter, especially against kritiks and dead resolutions. Conditionality falls outside of Typicality and would exacerbate both Inherency (unknown dangers in
10857-405: The affirmative ability to select their specific plan gives the negative justification to select another topical plan, so long it is 'competitive' with the plan. Advocates of this view, which has become increasingly popular in national circuit high school debate, believe that once the affirmative selects its specific plan so long as it is topical, it abandons any further tie to the resolution and cedes
10998-455: The affirmative has advantage in preparing for the debate round by composing the first speech before the round, while the negative does not know what affirmative will be defending until the round. Negatives also make the claim that fairness arguments cannot be evaluated because there will always be some amount of unfairness in debate, which is untrue and a shallow argument. To answer education arguments, negative teams will claim that conditionality
11139-416: The affirmative in a position where certain arguments they make can be turned against them. For instance if the negative runs an economy disadvantage and a kritik of capitalism. The affirmative cannot say they actually help the economy because this would link them to the kritik of capitalism. They also cannot say they decrease capitalism because they would then link to the economy disadvantage. However, it
11280-426: The affirmative is not topical in the final speech, it is rarely considered a violation of its commitment to defend the counterplan. Originally offered as a milder form of conditionality that ruled out multiple counterplans and locked the affirmative and negative into two policy options each: the counterplan and/or the status quo for the negative; the plan and/or the permutation for the affirmative. This formulation has
11421-447: The affirmative plan be enacted by a different agent group (other governments, NGOs , the fifty states , etc.), or through cooperation with other groups (such as the European Union , or India ). Net benefits are usually solvency boosts, which can include better execution, increased effectiveness, shorter timeframe, less corruption, and in the case of cooperation counterplans, increased relations with participants. An example would be for
11562-462: The affirmative plan, but still is competitive to the plan. If the affirmative plan uses the United States as an agency, an example of a PEC would be to disband the U.S. Government. This type of counterplan provides very clear competition with the affirmative plan simply because the two are mutually exclusive. The judge must choose either plan or counterplan. This kind of counterplan is favored by debaters who combine counterplans with kritiks such that
11703-443: The affirmative straight turns the counterplan. In practice, there is a great deal of vagueness about dispositionality (for example, what exactly constitutes a permutation?), and therefore it is important for the affirmative to clarify this as best they can. If the negative refuses to clarify, the affirmative can simply use this to indict the negative claim that it has run the counterplan fairly, perhaps on some other theory argument in
11844-462: The agency, such as Congress, are sincere and diligent civil servants who do not quibble over the plan as any part of their regular duties, the presumption of "perfect obedience for the plan's enactment". However, in "pure" policy debate without an Affirmative plan, fiat is also ignored yet does not assume but has to account for the moral agency of the resolution. There are different theories regarding presumption of fiat: "Normal means" – going through
11985-462: The agency, such as Congress, are sincere and diligent civil servants who do not quibble over the plan as any part of their regular duties, the presumption of "perfect obedience for the plan's enactment". However, in "pure" policy debate without an Affirmative plan, fiat is also ignored yet does not assume but has to account for the moral agency of the resolution. There are different theories regarding presumption of fiat: "Normal means" – going through
12126-562: The alternative of the criticism is a counterplan (e.g., countering an affirmative that increases the number of members of the United States Armed Forces with a kritik of militarism and a counterplan to disband the United States Armed Forces). The implication of disbanding the U.S. Government is that the U.S. Government would only go into exile, which is a plan Justification Turn inclusively -- as
12267-405: The benefit of avoiding the irrational decisionmaker problem of unconditionality , which would require the judge to vote for a plan that is a bad idea to avoid a counterplan that is a worse idea. More recently, "dispositionality" has become an umbrella term for an express contract between the teams, generally clarified in 1NC cross-examination. The agreement usually entails a negative commitment to
12408-399: The counterplan may not textually be plan plus; put another way: a legitimate permutation may combine the texts of the plan and the counterplan. For example if the plan text was " Pass the farm bill " and the counterplan text was " Don't pass the farm bill " the affirmative would be mistaken were they to say: "permutation: do the counterplan" on the grounds that it was textually plan plus. That
12549-407: The counterplan provided that the affirmative is willing to compare it to the affirmative without making any conditional statements. The negative can be conditional if the affirmative begins it (i.e. making a permutation, thus making it conditional in that the affirmative can defend either the plan or permutation). A new form of dispositionality has also been that the negative can kick the counterplan if
12690-474: The crux of the resolution is debated, rather than the political feasibility of enactment of a given plan , thus allowing an affirmative team to proceed with proposing a plan. An example: a student at a high school debate argues that increases in United States support of United Nations peacekeeping may help to render the United States more multilateral . Such an increase is very unlikely to occur from
12831-411: The crux of the resolution is debated, rather than the political feasibility of enactment of a given plan , thus allowing an affirmative team to proceed with proposing a plan. An example: a student at a high school debate argues that increases in United States support of United Nations peacekeeping may help to render the United States more multilateral . Such an increase is very unlikely to occur from
12972-402: The debate judge voting for the Affirmative, but fiat allows the student to side-step this practicality, and argue on the substance of the idea at the level of an ideal, as if it could be immediately enacted. Because of the presumption of fiat, enactment is considered the same as enforcement, which is quite different from merely ratification or adoption of the resolution. Presumption grants that
13113-402: The debate judge voting for the Affirmative, but fiat allows the student to side-step this practicality, and argue on the substance of the idea at the level of an ideal, as if it could be immediately enacted. Because of the presumption of fiat, enactment is considered the same as enforcement, which is quite different from merely ratification or adoption of the resolution. Presumption grants that
13254-639: The debate or on the counterplan. An advantage counterplan seeks to resolve the offense of the affirmative's plan through a variety of mechanisms that will not link to the net benefit. For example, if the affirmative reads an advantage that claims to solve climate change, and the negative forwards a disadvantage predicated on the possibility of the plan being patrician and costing political capital necessary for another bill in congress, they could read an advantage counterplan that targets investments in carbon capture and storage, international agreements, etc., both politically appealing processes. An agent counterplan has
13395-478: The debate round. If something has already been done, the outcome is known, regardless whether the phenomenon of the results still exist in the status quo or has somehow returned. Likewise, arguments by the Negative that ignore historical precedence that tend to be the same as or worse than the status quo's current harms, does not give any automatic advantage to the Affirmative either. For example, in-round, if in Year A
13536-427: The debate round. If something has already been done, the outcome is known, regardless whether the phenomenon of the results still exist in the status quo or has somehow returned. Likewise, arguments by the Negative that ignore historical precedence that tend to be the same as or worse than the status quo's current harms, does not give any automatic advantage to the Affirmative either. For example, in-round, if in Year A
13677-430: The debate, and ultimately vote for the winner of the debate round on a ballot. The purpose of the ballot is what the judge 's vote stands for or is intended to affirm. For example, a team might say "the role of the ballot is to vote for whoever saves more lives in third world countries". The opposing team might say "role is irrelevant and the debate rewards the best arguments, not the simulations". The difference between
13818-416: The destabilization that would result in other harms or the same status quo harms. Intrinsic means grants justification of status quo capabilities but none of its inherency vis-a-vis the resolution. Fiat is not taken for granted but is granted to end political discourse, palace intrigue, vote-getting in election politicking, identity politicking, and promote academic debate on policy matters while disregarding
13959-416: The destabilization that would result in other harms or the same status quo harms. Intrinsic means grants justification of status quo capabilities but none of its inherency vis-a-vis the resolution. Fiat is not taken for granted but is granted to end political discourse, palace intrigue, vote-getting in election politicking, identity politicking, and promote academic debate on policy matters while disregarding
14100-433: The disadvantage, the two arguments together double-turn. The negative can grant these two arguments, and the affirmative is stuck arguing that the plan would cause nuclear war. In policy debate , a drop refers to an argument which was not answered by the opposing team. Normally, a "dropped" or conceded argument is considered unrefuted for the purposes of evaluating a debate. "Silence is compliance." (Sometimes, "Silence
14241-399: The exact partisan composition needed to implement a plan. For example, both Affirmative and Negative teams can cite political double-whammies or backlash as disadvantages : if United States troops are sent to a foreign country, the majority political party that was pro-deployment will not be re-elected and cannot sustain their military objectives, the quagmire argument. It does not matter who
14382-399: The exact partisan composition needed to implement a plan. For example, both Affirmative and Negative teams can cite political double-whammies or backlash as disadvantages : if United States troops are sent to a foreign country, the majority political party that was pro-deployment will not be re-elected and cannot sustain their military objectives, the quagmire argument. It does not matter who
14523-467: The fifty states to enact the plan, with the benefit being a rebalancing of federalism . Some (beginning with the 1975 Lichtman and Rohrer "A general theory of the counterplan" through Michael Korcok and Paul Strait with Brett Wallance most recently) have argued the kind of fiat involved with those counterplans is inconsistent with the logic of decisionmaking. The illogic is usurpation: see Intrinsicness, Justification, and Grounds. A consult counterplan has
14664-479: The future). Does Oppenheimer's nuke face deserve a bullet to it or should debate end and his friend turn down the Manhattan Project? An impact turn requires impact calculus , that is: the reasons nuclear war is good must outweigh the reasons why nuclear war is bad. Very often, kritiks are subject to impact turns on account of their Grounds missed opportunities, sometimes also their nebulous impacts;
14805-411: The future). Does Oppenheimer's nuke face deserve a bullet to it or should debate end and his friend turn down the Manhattan Project? An impact turn requires impact calculus , that is: the reasons nuclear war is good must outweigh the reasons why nuclear war is bad. Very often, kritiks are subject to impact turns on account of their Grounds missed opportunities, sometimes also their nebulous impacts;
14946-473: The immediate test of competition is the "do both" permutation, testing the total combination of the plan and counterplan in comparison to the counterplan alone. There are two types of permutation that are especially controversial: However, there are two different theories to evaluate what constitutes severance and intrinsicness—textual competition and functional competition, also sometimes called mechanical competition. Textual competition theory states that
15087-469: The kind of fiat involved with these counterplans is inconsistent with the logic of decision making. In debate, judges consider or score the debate, and ultimately vote for the winner of the debate round on a ballot. The purpose of the ballot is what the judge 's vote stands for or is intended to affirm. For example, a team might say "the role of the ballot is to vote for whoever saves more lives in third world countries". The opposing team might say "role
15228-438: The legitimacy of conditional counterplans or kritiks. Conditionality is now commonly accepted as legitimate in the policy debate community, but in the 1970s it was not. Although considered legitimate, for the Negative to drop one's team counterplan concedes that hypothesis testing is not particularly bona fide, wasting time and argumentation. Debate beyond the high school level prefers proposition over conditionality, at least for
15369-473: The material with great depth and breadth. Those debaters in formal, organized debate, get speaker awards based on judges' opinions of the speakers' performances. In policy debate , constructive speeches are the first four speeches of a debate round. Constructive speeches are each followed by a 3-minute cross-examination period. In high school, constructive speeches are 8 minutes long; in college, they are 9 minutes. In general, constructive arguments are
15510-509: The merits of a plan as though the plan happens. From there, debate ensues, and it is valid to argue that the Affirmative plan is more expensive in dollars than the Negative counterplan, for example, where fiat is granted to both sides. Fiat almost always does not have to be debated in policy debate but should be taught by coaches and understood by debaters for what they are doing in the activity of academic policy debate. Note that these types of arguments about fiat, that incorrectly assumes fiat
15651-509: The merits of a plan as though the plan happens. From there, debate ensues, and it is valid to argue that the Affirmative plan is more expensive in dollars than the Negative counterplan, for example, where fiat is granted to both sides. Fiat almost always does not have to be debated in policy debate but should be taught by coaches and understood by debaters for what they are doing in the activity of academic policy debate. Note that these types of arguments about fiat, that incorrectly assumes fiat
15792-402: The national deficit (domestic budget) into I.O.U.s onto the U.S. debt that the U.S. owes other countries, which are two different accounting columns altogether, the Negative can ban all such plans and then cite nefarious woes of war brink and economic collapse from U.S. lying to China. Or the Negative does not have to cite such linked Harms but simply proceed to solve the policy interest matter of
15933-409: The negative to win without refuting most of the claims of the affirmative case (mooting much of the 1AC offense ), they are a key component in many negative strategies. Most affirmatives try to avoid domestic USFG agent counterplans (e.g., if the plan involves Congressional legislation, the negative might counterplan to have the president issue an executive order) by not specifying their agent beyond
16074-623: The only conditionality is the acceded Socratic Flow on "morally reasoned" that does not introduce new plan components nor a counterplan. It is an advanced pure debate theory before the policy takes effect -- in theory and, sometimes, in practice. It is not premised on but does entail "morally conditioned" as a voter, subsuming Fiat, and "morally reasoned" is inclusive of the premise-entails in many contexts: condition or situation with respect to activity, education on debate, speech debate, speech communication, policy, policy plan, resolution for debate, and other considerations. The lowest-level Socratic Flow
16215-428: The only time that a team can make new arguments. The last four speeches of the debate are reserved for refutations of arguments already made. In current policy debate, the " first affirmative constructive " (1AC) is used to present the " plan ". Whether all new " off-case arguments " must be presented in the " first negative constructive " is a point of contention. In policy debate, a critical flaw refers to when
16356-420: The phrase 'United States Federal Government.' Such a plan is textually but not functionally competitive; if the Affirmative team wins that counterplans must be both textually and functionally competitive, then they can permute this counterplan. Such a permutation would be textual but not functional severance. Another type of competition, external to textual and functional competition, is positional competition. It
16497-437: The plan would prevent the economy from collapsing, and that economic collapse is crucial to prevent nuclear war. Therefore, the affirmative is now arguing that the plan will cause nuclear war. While either of these arguments alone turns the disadvantage, the two arguments together double-turn. The negative can grant these two arguments, and the affirmative is stuck arguing that the plan would cause nuclear war. In policy debate ,
16638-546: The proposition's educational value and seriousness of purpose. Just as real-world civics does not have unlimited resources to have a citizenry have conditional propositions, petitions, and referendums, neither do debaters in policy debate. A plan or counterplan is proposed like a matter for "advice and consent", for weighing merits of argumentation and, through the Push Debate or the debate on Vying through Stock Issues, for weighing advantages and disadvantages of Solvency advocacy. Conditionality permutes into hypothesis testing, which
16779-444: The reasons why supporting revolutions is a winning advantage is still difficult to thwart in one's advocacy that does not include revolution. An interlocutor is, generically, to whom one speaks. In debate an interlocutor is one of the teams on the debate circuit, as well the judges and coaches. The subjects of the debate topic, typically a government agency, is not the interlocutor; the debate rounds are not addressed to them. Within
16920-444: The reasons why supporting revolutions is a winning advantage is still difficult to thwart in one's advocacy that does not include revolution. An interlocutor is, generically, to whom one speaks. In debate an interlocutor is one of the teams on the debate circuit, as well the judges and coaches. The subjects of the debate topic, typically a government agency, is not the interlocutor; the debate rounds are not addressed to them. Within
17061-503: The remaining ground of advocacy to the negative. Moreover, they argue that if topical ground is exclusively affirmative, then the negative could be allowed to attack other potential examples of the resolution that might not be as advantageous as the affirmative plan. This conception is related to the debate paradigm and argumentation theory concept of hypothesis testing . There is also a small subset of debate theory that asserts that only topical counterplans should be allowed. This theory
17202-471: The resolution says "substantially change" and many teams have already debated that, and in Year B the resolution says "substantially increase", on the same topic, the winning debates in Year A already have many winning arguments that can be presented in Year B. Another example, on-topic, if in Year A many winning teams have supported revolution (revolutions are less bloody than nuclear war), but in Year B there are teams running counterarguments against revolution,
17343-471: The resolution says "substantially change" and many teams have already debated that, and in Year B the resolution says "substantially increase", on the same topic, the winning debates in Year A already have many winning arguments that can be presented in Year B. Another example, on-topic, if in Year A many winning teams have supported revolution (revolutions are less bloody than nuclear war), but in Year B there are teams running counterarguments against revolution,
17484-424: The resolution without voodoo economics to gain countervailing Advantage that is unique to the Negative. A "spike" against the resolution gives adequate Inherency to the Negative. A spike is "technically" a counter-resolution but not in policy principle, so Negative might lose for being Topical at the level of policy, or doctrine or ideology but not language, in the debate round. Resolution (debate) This
17625-403: The same political process comparable with normal legislative processes. There is no overarching, accepted definition of the legislative pathways which constitute "normal means," but clarification about what an affirmative team regards as "normal means" can be obtained as part of cross-examination by the negative team. "Infinite" or "durable fiat" – the degree to which an ideal, or "fiated", action
17766-403: The same political process comparable with normal legislative processes. There is no overarching, accepted definition of the legislative pathways which constitute "normal means," but clarification about what an affirmative team regards as "normal means" can be obtained as part of cross-examination by the negative team. "Infinite" or "durable fiat" – the degree to which an ideal, or "fiated", action
17907-488: The status quo is not required for the debate. The classical form of Inherency belongs to the Negative as Status Quo Inherency, which succinctly states that "there is unknown danger in change". Argumentation Inherency, a stock issue, does not refer so much to plans and counterplans in policy debate or the resolution but to fairness in competitive debate. Affirmative Inherency does not have to explicitly overcome apathy or even be mentioned, because Argumentation Inherency endows
18048-488: The status quo is not required for the debate. The classical form of Inherency belongs to the Negative as Status Quo Inherency, which succinctly states that "there is unknown danger in change". Argumentation Inherency, a stock issue, does not refer so much to plans and counterplans in policy debate or the resolution but to fairness in competitive debate. Affirmative Inherency does not have to explicitly overcome apathy or even be mentioned, because Argumentation Inherency endows
18189-464: The status quo) and Harms (known dangers the resolution purports to resolve). Most successful Typicality arguments get rid of counterplans, but they can also be difficult for the Affirmative to defend Uniqueness of Solvency. Conditionality good can be argued by the negative team. If the negative wins conditionality is legitimate it usually means that they are allowed to advocate their conditional counterplans and/or kritiks. Common arguments will say that
18330-444: The status quo, a warped form of Washington gridlock that abused military servicemembers. Deterrence against sedition was reinforced, emphasizing "the benevolent debate" for educational value, although United States Army War College did not openly concede -- as a matter of resolution. Can Utah make them "surrender" without provoking presumptions of militarism by debaters? Plan inclusive counterplans (PICs) enact some or all parts of
18471-493: The status quo, but with the possibility of occurring in the future). In the case of potential harms, the policy offered by the affirmative functions as a preventive measure or "sure deterrence". As is so often the case in academic debate, the bigger the harms, the bigger the impacts. For example, many teams enjoy running the nuclear outfall Harms plank, drawing mushroom clouds on their debate round flowsheets. It has also been argued that "small things can have big impacts", giving
18612-493: The status quo, but with the possibility of occurring in the future). In the case of potential harms, the policy offered by the affirmative functions as a preventive measure or "sure deterrence". As is so often the case in academic debate, the bigger the harms, the bigger the impacts. For example, many teams enjoy running the nuclear outfall Harms plank, drawing mushroom clouds on their debate round flowsheets. It has also been argued that "small things can have big impacts", giving
18753-420: The team with the original proposal. Like most mainstream argument forms in policy debate, they are presumed to be legitimate, though it is possible for the affirmative to defeat them on the grounds that they are illegitimate by arguing that they are unfair, uneducational, or illogical. Because they make it possible for the negative to win without refuting most of the claims of the affirmative case (mooting much of
18894-420: The terms of the debate is fair but that the resolution ought to be defeated. Just as stock issue debate does not require the Affirmative to run a plan, stock issue debate does not require the Negative to completely defeat the Affirmative but merely negate the resolution on lack of justifiability, or Negative Justification. In policy debate, failing Historical Inherency is a sure way for the Affirmative to not win
19035-420: The terms of the debate is fair but that the resolution ought to be defeated. Just as stock issue debate does not require the Affirmative to run a plan, stock issue debate does not require the Negative to completely defeat the Affirmative but merely negate the resolution on lack of justifiability, or Negative Justification. In policy debate, failing Historical Inherency is a sure way for the Affirmative to not win
19176-469: The topic of the debate, a group that enacts a certain policy action is the policy group; if by an individual, the individual is the policy leader, such as a head of state. If a plan were to have the U.S. send humanitarian aid to Sudan, then the policy group, the folks who are expected to implement the plan, would be the United States federal government. Many times, institutional groups are subdivided into more specific "agents". The most common agents include
19317-469: The topic of the debate, a group that enacts a certain policy action is the policy group; if by an individual, the individual is the policy leader, such as a head of state. If a plan were to have the U.S. send humanitarian aid to Sudan, then the policy group, the folks who are expected to implement the plan, would be the United States federal government. Many times, institutional groups are subdivided into more specific "agents". The most common agents include
19458-516: The tournament season if one were looking for the ideal "best plan" that implements the resolution. Conditionality bad can be argued by the affirmative team. If the affirmative wins conditionality is illegitimate it will usually win these issues on the plan: Topicality, Grounds, case-resolution Justification which, altogether, should be sufficient for pulling forth Solvency. Common arguments include claim that being able to choose which arguments to ignore and which to continue wastes their time and creates
19599-420: The underprepared Negative team who do not have much experience with the Affirmative plan's details. This strategy is useful in the early rounds of a debate tournament. Example : If the negative argued the plan would cause nuclear war, which is bad so the affirmative could impact turn by arguing that nuclear war is an on-face positive event (perhaps in preventing the development of even more deadly weapons in
19740-420: The underprepared Negative team who do not have much experience with the Affirmative plan's details. This strategy is useful in the early rounds of a debate tournament. Example : If the negative argued the plan would cause nuclear war, which is bad so the affirmative could impact turn by arguing that nuclear war is an on-face positive event (perhaps in preventing the development of even more deadly weapons in
19881-447: Was run. A conditional counterplan status means that negative accepts little or no limitation on its ability to advocate counterplans. Although this usually does not mean that the negative can change the text of a counterplan, it does mean that the negative believes it has the theoretical justification to abandon the advocacy of a counterplan at any point during the debate round. Many debates are won and lost on "theory" arguments, about
#50949