Author: Tyler Thur, Michigan State University Editor's note: Tyler Thur was a semi-finalist at the 70th NDT (2016) for Michigan State University. Tyler works for Michigan State University's Office of K-12 Outreach as their Assistant Director of Data and Evaluation. He has coached debate at Michigan State University, Homestead High School (WI), and Glenbrook South High School (IL). This guest post is also a breakout feature: it addresses an advanced topic that is also a national circuit trend. Breakout features like these are designed to make sure that you know how to beat any debater, anywhere. For our breakout features, we especially encourage asking questions about the content in the comments. As a debate competitor, judge, and coach, I went for, voted for, and encouraged students to introduce a litany of process counterplans. Along the way, I was fascinated by the disdain for these arguments. Whenever I told students about a new process strategy, I received looks as if I was openly backing cheating and saying something like “I love the New England Patriots; they would never spy on their opponents and deflate footballs to get a competitive advantage.” Similarly, if I expressed excitement about process debates to others, peers would look at me like I had no appreciation for what debate offered to participants and had just said something like “the Beatles are cool, but have you all ever heard of Nickelback?” I am sympathetic to some of these reactions. That said, I think that too often students adopt this communal disgust for process counterplans without ever delving into the strategy behind them, thinking about why these debates often result in teams going for theoretical objections or permutations, and considering how to insulate their affirmatives on a substantive level. Consequently, they are left unprepared when negative teams inevitably unleash these strategies at year-end tournaments and in the face of topic expansion. I hope that by talking through the strategic utility of process counterplans and how to answer them substantively (i.e. not with permutations and theory arguments), students can better engage and defeat these strategies – even if they are near and dear to my debate heart. It is worth noting that sometimes students will need to go for permutations or theory arguments if the counterplan is just too similar to the affirmative to generate a solvency deficit, if it fiats past some of the approaches proposed in this post, if it or its net-benefit are wildly unpredictable, or if the affirmative has a poorly designed 1AC. As such, this post is not to say that students should never go for permutations or theory arguments against these counterplans. It, instead, is to say that students should learn about how to go for more than those arguments. They should never feel forced into a single 2AR choice because of a lack of preparation and planning.
This post assumes a basic knowledge of counterplans. Students that could use a review can check out a few online sources. Understanding the Idea of Process Counterplans and Their Strategic Utility Effectively responding to these counterplans substantively necessitates first understanding what this label includes and why teams might be drawn to them. Definitionally, process counterplans agree with the desirability of the affirmative’s outcome (e.g. ending arms sales to Saudi Arabia) but propose an alternative way of achieving that desired policy (e.g. asking NATO if they want the United States to end arms sales to Saudi Arabia before ending them). The strategic utility of these counterplans comes from their core mission of doing (or resulting in) as much of the affirmative as possible and using a net-benefit to outweigh whatever offense the affirmative can generate. This net-benefit can either be a reason why the affirmative is bad (e.g. an agenda disadvantage with a process counterplan that delays Congressional action until after that legislative item has passed) or why the counterplan’s process (and that process alone) is good (e.g. a counterplan that has the International Court of Justice make a ruling with an argument that the ICJ unilaterally telling a major power what to do is key to its legitimacy). Based on this definition and core mission, the reason why these counterplans are so strategic is hopefully clear. They solve nearly all of the affirmative by doing or resulting in nearly all of the plan. Consequently, even if the negative can only offer a weak net-benefit, the affirmative has almost nothing to weigh as a solvency deficit. While many counterplans have been labeled process counterplans, I’d propose three not-necessarily-exclusive categories of them. It is worth noting that this framework does not include all counterplans that people often connect to the process category. For instance, it does not touch on offsets counterplans that compete on the resolution versus the plan (and deserve their own rant). Likewise, it excludes plan-inclusive counterplans that fiat all of the affirmative less a small piece that the negative impact turns. The first chunk of process counterplans works by doing the affirmative at a later time. These counterplans compete by arguing that the affirmative must occur immediately (often via definitions of the word “should” in the plan) and that there is some net-benefit to acting at a later date (often the agenda politics disadvantage). A core example of this blueprint is the delay counterplan, which fiats the entirety of the affirmative later. Second, a subset of process counterplans works by doing the entirety of the affirmative if some external event happens. They tie the affirmative to certainty (again using definitions of “should”) and argue that the counterplan is competitive because even if it very likely results in the entirety of the plan, it does not certainly fiat the plan. Examples of these counterplans that compete on certainty include consultation, condition, threaten, and study counterplans. Connecting the example to the category, the consultation counterplan does the affirmative if and only if some external agent finds it desirable. Finally, there is a group of process counterplans that create an environment that makes the enactment of the affirmative overwhelmingly likely. These counterplans might use competition arguments about the immediacy and certainty of the plan. That said, they can also argue that the counterplan in no way fiats, mandates, recommends or proposes the plan. It just results in it. Examples of these counterplans include counterplans that recommend the affirmative or reference its desirability in a non-binding document like a memo or the National Military Strategy (NMS). In my last college debate, we went for one of these counterplans. On a topic that had affirmatives reduce military presence, we proposed subjecting the bases that the affirmative called to immediately close to an environmental review that would render them too costly to keep open. The counterplan never proposed closing the bases. It just changed status quo conditions around the bases so much that the only logical response to the counterplan would be for Congress to do the plan. Frequently, these counterplans make use of “follow-on” solvency arguments, which say that the counterplan spurs the affirmative’s enactment eventually. Negative teams in these cases are not saying the counterplan does the affirmative. They are just arguing that the counterplan so effectively changes the climate around the plan that its enactment becomes inevitable. By understanding these different blueprints, affirmatives can begin designing their 2ACs to the amorphous category of process counterplans. Substantively Answering Process Counterplans – Part 1: The 1AC and Solvency Deficits When designing substantive blocks against process counterplans, there are three types of responses to include in the 2AC and consider extending through the 2AR. They relate to the affirmative’s advantages and solvency deficits that show how the counterplan cannot access them, the net-benefit(s) to the counterplan, and the general desirability of the counterplan’s process. Of these elements, it makes sense to first consider how affirmative teams should craft their solvency deficits. These arguments can be plentiful if 1ACs include five crucial items. First, a good 1AC will have certainty key warrants that to solve one or both advantages, domestic and/or international actors (businesses, the public, other countries, etc.) need to be confident that the plan will occur and remain in effect. For instance, a team reading the Taiwan affirmative might say that to solve US-China relations, China needs to be confident that the plan will definitively occur and bind the United States’ actions. Second, affirmatives need an immediacy key argument or a reason why the plan must happen without delay. Importantly, these arguments must be specific and not just say “sooner is better.” As an example of this argument, a team with a proliferation advantage that unrestrained arms sales cause nations to pursue their own arsenals could say that the affirmative must occur before the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty’s 2020 Review Conference in April 2020 to shape reactions to the treaty. Third, 1ACs should have a defense of every piece of the plan. That is, the Taiwan affirmative should have an offensive reason why it’s good for Congress (if that is the plan’s actor) to end the sale of jets (if that is what sales are ended) to Taiwan. While this advice is most important against plan-inclusive counterplans, it can also be helpful versus process counterplans. Fourth, teams should consider having a defense of the plan’s mechanism (i.e. the way that the plan reduces arms sales) as an advantage. For instance, if a plan ends arms sales to Saudi Arabia by conditioning the sale of arms on preventing human rights abuses and finding that Saudi Arabia would violate such a process, a good affirmative would have a defense of arms sales being bad (e.g. they prolong conflict in the Middle East) and an advantage about why the affirmative’s conditioning of sales on human rights progress is desirable (e.g. it spills over to broader human rights protections). Too often, teams only read advantages about the desirability of no longer selling a particular type of arms to a specific country. To truly be prepared against process counterplans, teams need an offensive justification of how their reduction in arms sales occurs. Finally, 1ACs should have some inherency arguments about why the plan is not happening now that can be leveraged to beat “follow on” arguments. These claims do not need to be so overwhelming as to give the negative easy politics or circumvention links. That said, the affirmative should have some cogent answer to the question of “why has the affirmative not occurred yet?” If 1ACs are designed to include all of these pieces, solvency deficits become much easier. In moving from these general elements of the 1AC to specific solvency deficits, affirmatives should ask themselves “how is the counterplan different from the plan?” Then, they should explain why that difference matters using the offensive pieces of the 1AC described above. For instance, against process counterplans that compete on immediacy, good 2As will point out that there is a delay solvency deficit to the counterplan and explain which advantage’s solvency is based on the immediacy of the affirmative. Against certainty counterplans, effective affirmative teams will point out a deficit to the counterplan about its mere possibility of occurring and explain which advantage is based on certainty. In terms of process CPs that change the environment around the plan to spur it, affirmatives can use their built-in inherency arguments to prove that fiat is vital to the affirmative coming to fruition. It is also worth noting that against any of these counterplans, advantages about the importance of the affirmative’s specific process (e.g. the affirmative’s court precedent spilling over or the affirmative’s Congressional process restricting presidential war powers) can be clear solvency deficits to weigh against contrived and trivial net-benefits. All in all, by thinking about 1AC design and counterplan types, affirmatives can embrace substantive answers. Substantively Answering Process Counterplans – Part 2: The Counterplan’s Net-Benefit An additional substantive approach to answering process counterplans deals with attacking the net-benefit to the counterplan. Specifically, affirmatives can take advantage of general attacks against the disadvantage that makes the counterplan net-beneficial, make arguments that the counterplan links to the net-benefit, and impact turn the net-benefit. Importantly, some of these approaches are stand-alone 2AR options (#3) whereas others require the 2AR to also extend some solvency deficits to win the debate (#1 and #2). First, affirmative teams can win these debates by mitigating the risk of the net-benefit through smart defensive arguments and proving that whatever solvency deficit they win outweighs. This idea merits mention for two reasons even if it is rather obvious. First, net-benefits to process counterplans are often atrocious. Negative teams going for process counterplans that compete on immediacy or process counterplans that change the politics around the plan to spark its adoption frequently have a politics disadvantage as their net-benefit. In case you haven’t been following the news, politics disadvantages have some major flaws with the current administration (who can Trump persuade? Does Trump care about political capital? Do fights stick to Trump or with his Congressional supporters? Is politics about anything more than ideology? Can any legislative priority survive the impeachment climate?). The net-benefits for other process counterplans are in equally perilous waters. These disadvantages are often more about why the counterplan is a good idea than why the plan is a bad idea. Consequently, arguments like the Japan relations disadvantage with the consult counterplan or the human rights credibility disadvantage with the human rights impact statement counterplan struggle against link defense and resiliency arguments made by the affirmative. The second reason it is worth reminding students of the need to engage the process counterplan’s net-benefit is that it is often forgotten when negative teams have one-sheet of paper process counterplans, reading the disadvantage with the counterplan it is connected with. All in all, it seems obvious, but affirmatives can try to beat these counterplans with smart defense to the net-benefit and a small solvency deficit (assuming they designed their 1AC to be able to generate one). Second, process counterplans can sometimes be defeated with the argument that the counterplan links to the net-benefit and causes the disadvantage just the same as the affirmative does. This approach is particularly effective when the net-benefit to the counterplan is not an internal net-benefit but an argument like the politics disadvantage. The negative will try to avoid the net-benefit by reading link evidence about the process of the counterplan avoiding the disadvantage. That said, when their evidence is reviewed with a fine-tooth comb, it is often clear that it also says that the substance of the affirmative would cause the disadvantage. In going for this category of argumentation, affirmative teams need to explain why the counterplan links to the net-benefit and extend a solvency deficit to the counterplan. That solvency deficit is important because the links to the net-benefit argument is still defense. Even if the affirmative is correct that both the counterplan and the plan cause the disadvantage, the small deficit is needed as a tie-breaking reason to vote affirmative. They can win without a solvency deficit, but it gets into a weird presumption debate that no one wants to see, hear, read or think about. Finally, well-prepared affirmatives can substantively respond to process counterplans by impact turning the net-benefit. For instance, if the negative’s net-benefit to the consult the Joint Chiefs of Staff counterplan is an argument about civil-military relations and their importance for hegemony, the affirmative can choose to impact turn the net-benefit with hegemony bad. Now, there are risks to this strategy. Process counterplans can get trivial and unpredictable, which makes it difficult to be ready to impact turn their net-benefit. Additionally, the negative has the block and can read a ton of evidence to deal with the impact turn that the 1AR then has to respond to in a time-pressured speech. That said, this strategic choice comes with some benefits. In addition to putting the ball back in the affirmative’s court, it doesn’t require the affirmative to win a solvency deficit to the counterplan. With that, it takes advantage of a place where generics-oriented negative teams are often ill-prepared or not blocked out sufficiently. Thus, there’s at least a case to consider the approach. Before moving to the final substantive response to these counterplans, it is worth reminding students that they generally cannot link turn the net-benefit to these counterplans as the counterplan likely results in the affirmative in a way that would capture that offense. Substantively Answering Process Counterplans – Part 3: Offense Against the Process A final substantive approach to answering process counterplans involves reading a disadvantage to the counterplan’s process. While this task might not feel manageable at first blush because of the sheer number of process counterplans, it becomes more reasonable when teams think about chunks of process counterplans that they can cut disadvantages against. For instance, teams could think about the argument that unilateral foreign policy is more desirable than an approach that consults our allies against any consult counterplans. Likewise, affirmatives might find a reason why heavily relying on the administrative state for reviewing proposed policies is economically disadvantageous or troubling with regards to the Administrative Procedures Act as a means of dealing with recommendations and study counterplans. Much like impact turning a process counterplan’s net-benefit, the utility of this approach is returning the debate to a place of comfort and preparation for the affirmative. The risk of it relates to the unpredictable nature of many of these counterplans. A unique risk also stems from conditionality. Affirmatives cannot invest too much time reading disadvantages to 1NC counterplans because the negative can always kick them and go for another strategy. Because the argument would have been just a reason why the counterplan was a bad idea and not a reason why the plan is a good idea, the affirmative will not be able to utilize this evidence and all the time it took to introduce. Consequently, the other two approaches to substantively responding to process counterplans might be more desirable. That said, room exists for creative affirmatives to garner offense against the process of the counterplan especially against path-dependent 2Ns. Concluding Thoughts: Summing Up the Possibility of Substantively Engaging Process Counterplans Just because the negative is going for a position that generally does not substantively engage the affirmative does not mean that the affirmative should not try and advance content-oriented objections to the negative’s counterplan. Too often whether it is due to community consensus, preparation, or personal motivations, students feel that the only viable strategy against a process counterplan involves theoretical objections and/or permutations. Surely, there is a place where these approaches are helpful and very possibly preferable. In fact, a helpful blog post could go through how to advance these strategies! That said, affirmatives should not foreclose their opportunity to beat process counterplans on their merits. Understanding what types of process counterplans exist, carefully designing 1ACs and being willing to take some strategic risks are the first steps.
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
MissionWyoming Debate Roundup is dedicated to providing quality debate content to Wyoming and Rocky Mountain area high school debaters. We’re a resource for Wyoming debaters by Wyoming debate coaches. Categories
All
Archives
February 2024
|