Ask Jim about Debate
|
Breaking Down Barriers: Ask Jim about Debate |
You can submit questions too, just email Jim at hansonjb@whitman.edu
Topical Counterplans started appearing, to my knowledge, somewhere in the early 1980s. They have sparked a fair amount of controversy because a significant portion of the debate community holds to the view that the negative, by definition, is opposed to the resolution. Those advocating topical counterplans believe that the negative's sole job is to respond to the affirmative case and the topic is irrelevant.
The main thing is the metaphor a judge has for the topic. If the judge views the resolution as a whole that the aff supports OR if the judge views the resolution as one big hotel, of which, the aff. can choose any room they wish--but the negative can't choose any of these rooms because they are part of the affirmative "hotel," then running a topical counterplan is suspect (or with some judges--rejected entirely). If the judge views the resolution as merely a starting point for the affirmative plan and then the debate is about the affirmative plan--topical counterplans are accepted and illegitimacy arguments are suspect.
Here's my suggestions for responding to topical counterplans:
First, respond to them like any other counterplan. Specifically:
Show the counterplan will not solve (read evidence, explain why it won't solve one of your advantages, point out that their evidence does not show it will solve, etc.)
Show your plan solves better (reread lines in your 1AC solvency evidence that shows your plan is best; read more evidence showing why your plan will solve better, etc.)
Show the counterplan will be disadvantageous (read a two to three card shelled disadvantage with a link and an impact that shows the counterplan will be disadvantageous)
Perm the counterplan-show that your plan and the counterplan can exist at the same time and therefore the counterplan does not clash with the affirmative case. (for example, "perm-we can do our plan, boot camps throughout the nation, and do the counterplan's rehabilitation at the boot camps)
Second, argue that topical counterplans are illegitimate.* Specifically argue that they are illegitimate because:
The negative affirms the topic. The negative's counterplan provides another reason to support the topic-they are telling you to vote affirmative for another reason.
The negative fails to meet their obligation in the debate. The negative, by definition, is supposed to be against the topic. The negative has failed to do this in this debate and should lose.
Topical counterplans permit abusive strategies. The negative could run our plan but ban the use of number 2 pencils and claim these pencils are bad. Only keeping the topic involved stops such negative strategies.
If the negative counterplan is an exception counterplan (in other words it does the affirmative plan except one or two portions), argue that the negative cannot "plagiarize" your plan by taking part of it; they can only run disadvantages against the part of the plan they reject.
*Note-arguing that topical counterplans are illegitimate will not work on many judges who feel that topical counterplans are okay.
Thanks to Craig Koen for asking this question.