Counterplans
A few of my debaters asked me recently about viable counterplans for this topic – honestly, I’m not so sure there are many that would be supported by good quality literature. The NFA-LD rules specify a few conditions for counterplans, three of which I think are critical:
The negative may present one counterproposal specific to the affirmative problem area. By this, we mean that the counterproposal must deal with the problem area defined by the affirmative, and not the form of government, economic system, or need for further study (UNLESS SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED AS A KEY ISSUE IN THE RESOLUTION). Counterproposals should be used to demonstrate that a reasonable alternative plan would be better policy than either the status quo or the affirmative plan. Counterproposals should be logically consistent with all other negative arguments constructed during the debate. If inconsistencies arise and the affirmative points them out, the judge should reject the arguments inconsistent with the counterproposal. Counterproposals must be non-topical and are subject to the same burdens of solvency as are required for affirmative plans.
- Must deal with the problem area defined by the affirmative
- Must be non-topical
- Subject to the same burdens of solvency
This is the tricky requirement for this topic. Because cases can deal with a variety of different harm scenarios, it’s hard to know going into a round on what basis the plan will justify the harms stock issue. For the embargo case alone there could be tons of different reasons why the embargo is bad: Cuban Economy, US Economy, Cuban suffering, etc… If the counterplan does not deal with the problem area I think the affirmative has an easy answer to kicking out the counterplan.
I think the NFA-LD rules are pretty clear here – which again makes counterplans difficult. Basically, your counterplan has to address the same harms scenario and decrease constructive engagement with Cuba.
One counterplan scenario that may be effective is to say that any US trade with Cuba will only help the repressive Cuban government making the lives of the Cuban people worse (if, of course, you can find that evidence!). So by engaging less with Cuba you actually weaken the government and reach solvency faster than engaging with the country. Of course, you have the whole ‘well, that strategy has not worked so far with the Embargo’ response to deal with =)
This is where I think the invade counterplan has some trouble – not sure if the evidence is there to really make it viable. The basic idea here is that you have to have quality evidence to support your counterplan proposal – it can’t be something you just have on the fly.
For examples of what counterplans debaters have run on previous topics here are a couple: Consult China CP, Japan Counterplan, Clean Coal Counterplan
Any ideas on counterplans you’ve run or heard this year?
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.
The problem with most of the stock counterplans that people want to run is that most of the best cases on this topic are intrinsic to US action. Lots of countries can give aid to Cuba, only one can lift the US embargo.
Counterplans do have their time and place on this topic, however. One of the best pieces of advice is to use defensive counterplans against specific affirmatives. For example, the embargo aff from the LCDC file contains a terrorism advantage based around the idea that lifting the embargo will allow OFAC to focus on terrorism and not Cuba. Well, a simple defensive counterplan is simply to increase OFAC’s funding. That gets you the opportunity to make that disad irrelevant, and combined with whatever disads you generally run against embargo, will make the weighing in the 1NR much easier.