Debating the CP

Mike Shackelford
• Factors that make a good counterplan
• Does it solve the aff better?
• Is it competitive
• Does it solve the aff or a portion of the aff AS WELL AS a DA (net
• Original
• Factors that make a good text
• Generic CP
• Adjustable –
• The easiest way is to not have pre-written phrasing.
• Can be worded to adjust to stupid plan texts.
• Write out the action of the plan
• This excludes [insert mandates of the plan]
• Case Specific Counterplan
• Every plank written out
• Adjustable –
• Changes accordingly to 1AC advantages
Factors that make a good competition claim:
None, the best counterplans are clearly competitive by the texts.
However, assuming you are reading a generic CP:
• “Avoids DA to…”
• Small T Violation. Accusing your own counterplan of being untopical for
doing something the aff also does – game over.
• Internal vs. External
• Factors that make a good net benefit
• Unique
• Doesn’t matter how awesome your net benefit is if the squo solves it
• Definite Solvency
• Turns the case
• Principle of Neg Strategy: Resolve the affirmative impacts
• Assuming the affirmative has done their job right, the squo will
not be an easy world to defend
• To combat this, we have counterplans.
• CP solves 100% of the case”
• “CP solves X advantage and the net benefit turns the other”
• 20-30 seconds on why
• 30 seconds on the net-benefit explanation – impact calc
• Each perm needs to be addressed separately
1. Theory
2. Doesn’t solve
3. DA to the perm
• Counterplan’s have a “status”
• 3 status’
• Conditional – can be kicked at any time
• Dispositional – multiple interpretations
• If you read any theory other than dispo bad, we can kick it
• If you straight turn, we’re stuck with it
• Unconditional – have to go for it unless they go for T
• Treat as a DA
• Internal vs. External Net-Benefits
• Impact Calc on Top if not on overview
• Explain why even if the CP doesn’t solve all of the case, the net
benefit outweighs what you don’t solve.
• Must have either an internal net benefit or an external. The
counterplan itself is not a reason to vote negative.
• Sliding Scale Solvency Claims– we may not solve this part of
the case. However, the Net Benefit outweighs.
• Kick the CP?
• 4 Categories
Theory – will be covered in theory lecture tomorrow
Solvency Deficit
DA to the CP
• Judges need ink time
• Common Perms
Perm: Do Both
Perm: Do Plan then CP
Perm: Do CP then Plan
Perm: Do CP
• Great time trade-off – but toe the line carefully
• Factors that make a good perm:
• Does it have a net benefit?
• Specificity
• Tricky CP Texts
• Tread the abuse line very carefully
• Factors that make a solvency deficit effective
• Doesn’t solve the aff
• 1AC card extension
• 2AC cards
• Analytics
• Doesn’t solve the net-benefit
• Cards
• Analytics
• Avoid reading an impact the 1AC already has
• Can be an Add-on, or a DA to their mechanism
• Also can impact turn the NB
• S.P.O.T.
• Step One: Solvency Deficit
• Every flow starts with case extension
• Explain why this outweighs the NB
• Step Two: Perm
• Place at different parts of the flow so they 1) might drop, 2) have to
actively organize, 3) judge ink time
• Almost always no more than two
• Perm do both, perm do cp
• If they bust out the Consult
• 5 perms, Jimmy’s got this one
• Step Three: DA to the CP (Offense)
• Step Four: Theory
• Status
• Consult/Process/Competition

similar documents