Textbooks

Introduction to Policy Debate

Printer Friendly Version

This free online textbook is available to all. No log-in is required to view any of the chapters and sections.

Thanks to generous contributions from Bill Smelko, William Smelko, and Rebecca (Gray) Jordan, we have been able to radically expand the available content.

There are three basic ways to defeat a counterplan. First, you can argue that it is net-beneficial to vote for the plan rather than the counterplan.  Second, you can argue that the counterplan is not a competitive alternative to the affirmative’s plan – that both could and should be done.  Third, you can argue that the type of counterplan that the negative has presented is theoretically illegitimate.  You can do all three of these, but any single approach, if successful, will defeat the counterplan.

Attack the counterplan solvency.  In attacking the solvency of the counterplan, you want to argue that the counterplan will not solve for the affirmative’s case advantage(s).  Often, the counterplan will clearly solve one or more of the advantages, but not other advantages(s).  If the counterplan obviously doesn’t solve one of the advantages, point that out and then make as many arguments as you can as to why it doesn’t solve the others.  Your arguments do not need to be complete – you do not need to win that it will not solve the advantages at all.  If you can reduce the solvency some, you should be able to argue that voting affirmative is net-beneficial because it the remaining amount of affirmative advantage that the counterplan doesn’t solve for outweighs the negative’s disadvantage that doesn’t link to the counterplan.

It is important in the 2AC that you keep in mind what advantage(s) the counterplan doesn’t solve, or at least doesn’t solve very well when allocating your time covering the negative’s case arguments.  You want to focus on extending the advantage(s) the counterplan doesn’t solve very well because it is those that you’ll certainly need to win by the end of the debate.

Present disadvantages to the counterplan. You should try to find arguments that link to the counterplan.  For example, if the counterplan spends money and your plan does not you could run a spending disadvantage to the counterplan. 

You always need to be careful that the disadvantages that you run against the counterplan do not link to your own affirmative plan.  If you run disadvantages to the counterplan that also link to the plan, and you the negative then decides to jettison the counterplan, you may be in trouble because the negative will argue that those disadvantages link to your plan – and now only to your plan.

Test the competitiveness of the counterplan.  You test the competitiveness of the counterplan through what is called a permutation.  You should always make at least two permutations. First, make a permutation that simply says “do both.”  This will protect you at the end of the debate in the event that the negative does not end up winning that the counterplan is net-beneficial.  In this instance, you can easily argue that the judge should simply vote to “do both.”  If you do not, the negative may argue that although their counterplan isn’t net-beneficial, it is still simply better than the affirmative plan and try to win on that since you have no permutation.

Second, you should write a permutation that includes all of the plan and all or part of the counterplan that combines the two in a way that prevents one or more of the disadvantages that the negative has argued from happening.   For example, if the affirmative plan is to have the federal government implement a national service program, and the plan doesn’t specify that the federal government pays for it, and the negative runs a states counterplan with a spending disadvantage, your permutation could be to have the federal government implement the program and to have the states pay for it.

Argue that the counterplan is theoretically illegitimate.  As will be discussed in the last section of this chapter, there are a number of theoretical controversies regarding counterplans.  Affirmatives can make arguments that each of the type of counterplans discussed above are theoretically illegitimate, that the negative couldn’t be able to get rid of the counterplan if they wish, and the counterplan has to either be topical or non-topical.

There is always some theory argument that can be made against counterplans. You should argue make at least some theory arguments in the 2AC because this will force the negative to spend a lot of time on these arguments in the 2NC or the 1NR since they are all or nothing arguments for the negative.  If the affirmative wins one of these arguments then the negative will at least lose the option of extending the counterplan, and may even lose the debate.

Video Lectures