Author: Matt Liu, University of Wyoming director of debate In this section, we’ll discuss a few common types of counterplans. I’ll be bringing back the legitimacy meter to give you a general idea of how most judges feel about these arguments (and how I feel about them). Remember, the legitimacy meter is just about the theoretical legitimacy of an argument. You can refer back to the “status of counterplans” article if you need the key for the legitimacy meter. In addition to the legitimacy of each type of counterplan, we’ll explore how CP competition and perms work with each example, and I’ll discuss a general picture of what aff strategy should look like against common counterplans. A general strategy will only get you so far, having a specific 2AC strategy against each counterplan that makes sense against your aff is critical, but the following general discussion will help you start thinking through counterplan strategy. PICs
A PIC is a plan-inclusive counterplan. It does part, but not all, of the plan. Let’s use the arms sales topic as an example. If your aff ends arms sales to both Saudi Arabia and the UAE, the negative can PIC out of the UAE and read a counterplan that only ends arms sales to Saudi Arabia. They can couple this with a DA to ending arms sales to the UAE, which makes the counterplan preferable to the PIC. Plan: The United States federal government should substantially reduce Foreign Military Sales and Direct Commercial Sales of arms to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Counterplan: The United States federal government should substantially reduce Foreign Military Sales and Direct Commercial Sales of arms to Saudi Arabia. Is this counterplan competitive? Let’s check. Perm do both would end arms sales to Saudi Arabia (all the counterplan) and end arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE (all the plan). This perm would link to the net benefit, because it would still end arms sales to the UAE, and the neg has a DA that says arms sales to the UAE are good. This perm loses in 1.5 seconds to the single sentence “perm do both still ends arms sales to the UAE, links to our UAE DA.” Perm do the counterplan severs ending arms sales to the UAE, which loses in 1.5 seconds to the single sentence “perm do the counterplan severs ending arms sales to the UAE- severance is illegit because it makes the aff a moving target.” Check: this PIC (like most PICs) is competitive. Now, a separate question: is this counterplan legit? Let’s turn to the legitimacy meter. PICs: Generally: 😎; Me: 😎. Yep, PICs are pretty legitimate. You might think, “how can it be fair that they steal part of the aff?” Well, here’s the thing: you put that part of the aff in the plan text. Your plan is only 25 words (in this example, often it’s even less). You should be able to defend every part of your plan, and you should choose every part of the plan carefully. If something is in the plan, it’s ridiculously predictable that the negative will PIC out of it. The plan text is so small, it limits the negative’s PIC options severely. Thus, you should be ready for the few that apply. The real game against PICs is solvency deficits. If you put the UAE in your plan, you better have a darn good reason. You need an argument why ending arms sales to the UAE is key to solve your advantages. All things equal, you should be going for solvency deficits against PICs, and you should be putting a lot of thought into what you put in your plan. Don’t put a single thing in there you can’t defend. Agent Counterplans An agent CP is a particular subset of PICs, I suppose: it does almost all of the aff, except it changes the agent. Common agent counterplans make the agent of the counterplan the Executive (perhaps through an Executive Order), the Federal Courts or the Supreme Court, Congress, or a particular agency of the federal government. Are agent counterplans legit? You betcha: Generally: 😎, Me: 😎. See the PICs theory discussion above. But are they competitive? That depends, on two things: 1) Did you specify the agent in the plan? If the plan text says “The Congress of the United States should” than a counterplan to have the Federal Courts or Executive do the plan is almost certainly competitive, on-face. Let’s think about the example of a Courts counterplan vs an Executive aff, with the politics DA as a net benefit. The neg says having the executive do the plan spurs controversy which collapses the President’s congressional agenda. Perm do both would have the Courts and the Executive act, which means the President would still be taking a controversial action. Perm do both likely links to the net benefit. Perm do the counterplan would have only the Courts act, which would sever the Executive part of the plan. Basically an auto-loss (of this arg) on theory. 2) But what if you didn’t specify the agent in the plan? Well now perm do the counterplan is a viable argument. If the plan text says “the United States federal government should” and the counterplan says “the Supreme Court of the United States should”, than the counterplan is just an example of the plan. The Supreme Court is part of the federal government, so this counterplan just specifies a particular example of the implementation of the plan. Perm do the counterplan (pdcp) says that’s not competitive. However. There may be other words in the plan the negative can garner competition based off of. For example, there’s pretty good evidence that the Courts cannot establish law. So if the word establish is in the resolution, and in particular if it’s in your plan, the neg may make arguments that perm do the counterplan severs the word “establish” in the plan. That’s just one example of how the negative might use other words in the plan (not just the agent) to create competition for an agent counterplan. So what’s the right aff strategy against agent counterplans? It depends a little. If you specified your agent, then we’re basically in a PIC debate. You put something in your plan, you should be prepared to defend it, you almost certainly need to go for a solvency deficit. If the agent wasn’t in your plan, you’re much more likely to be going for perm do the counterplan. The more the counterplan is like the plan, the more likely you are to be going for a perm or theory. The more the counterplan is actually different than the plan, the more likely you need to go for a solvency deficit. However, in an agent counterplan debate, you can actually get some juice out of perm do both, depending on the net benefit. Let’s return to our Executive vs Courts example above, with a politics DA as a net benefit. The aff can go fo the argument that the perm shields the link. In other words, if both the Courts and the President take the same action, the President can explain that their hand was forced by the Courts: they had to do the plan, because the Courts ruled it was constitutionally required. Therefore, they can’t be blamed for it. So, if you do just the plan, yes it drains the President’s political capital. And it is true that the counterplan alone does not hurt the President’s political standing- the Courts would get the blame. However, if both act together (perm do both) than the President can blame the Courts and preserve their political capital: the perm shields the link. Therefore, the best approach against agent counterplans varies based off the locus of competition (the agent of the plan, other words in the plan), but includes a mix of solvency deficits and perm arguments. The States CP The states CP is a particularly common agent counterplan, especially on domestic topics. Your basic run of the mill states counterplan fiats that all 50 states (uniformly) enact the plan. I loathe the states counterplan. As much as I love conditionality, I detest the states counterplan. Don’t get me wrong, I’ll still coach my debaters to read it. And the reason is that not everyone agrees with me. Is the states counterplan legit? It depends on who you ask. Generally: 🙂/ 😐 Me: 😠 Here’s my brief beef with the states counterplan: 1. It’s utopian. The 50 states virtually never act entirely in unison to address a controversial problem. It’s also illogical, because there’s no actor positioned to choose between the states and the federal government (so the counterplan isn’t a true opportunity cost disad). See more on this argument in the section on international actor counterplans. 2. It distorts the literature to game solvency deficits. The federalism literature that advocates of the counterplan point to to prove states vs federal government action is a legitimate controversy assumes different implementation by different states. This is the labs of democracy argument for federalism good- California and Texas are going to approach the same problem in two very different ways. But by fiating uniform implementation, the counterplan voids these differences to create a solution virtually identical to the plan. 3. It shapes topics and affs in anti-educational ways. If we have to beat the states counterplan, we tend to avoid domestic topics, and when we do pick them, most affs that get read are read because they have some unique angle against the states counterplan. They disproportionally involve the military because of the federal key warrants for those affs. Those aren’t intrinsically bad affs, but it means we’re ignoring a whole bunch of other important topics. Ask me more about why I hate states in the comments, I’m happy to expand. That said, not everyone agrees with me, so it’s extremely unwise to go all-in on theory against the states counterplan. You should have a diverse 2AC with solvency deficits (federal key warrants), theory, perms, even disads to state action. Is the states counterplan competitive? This basically breaks down the same as other agent counterplans above. PDCP definitely severs the “federal” government in the plan, PDB links to the net benefit because it still involves federal action. However, there’s still potentially good perm shields the link arguments against certain net benefits. If the net benefit to states is the politics DA, ask yourself why the President would look bad doing an action if all 50 states had already endorsed it. There are variations of the states counterplan that are more theoretically legitimate, but those are far less common. Sometimes, people will attempt to write a counterplan that better reflects the literature, so they’ll fiat all the states do the plan but allow implementation to vary. This version of the states counterplan is less common because it’s far more susceptible to solvency deficits. Advantage Counterplans So far we’ve focused on counterplans that do part or almost all of the aff. Advantage counterplans generally do none of the aff, but try to solve the aff advantage(s) through a completely different take. We’ve already talked about one advantage counterplan in the perm article in this series. Let’s go back to that example. The aff expands commercial nuclear power (March PF resolution) to solve warming. The neg counterplans to geo-engineer our way to a warming solution, perhaps seeding the oceans with iron or injecting sulfate aerosols into the upper stratosphere to increase the Earth’s albedo (reflection of sunlight) and cool the planet. Alternatively, the neg could take a different approach like implementing a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system to solve climate change. There are a lot of different ways to solve almost any problem. The aff needs not just to say that nuclear power solves warming, to beat the advantage counterplan, they need to win that nuclear power is the best or only way to solve warming. Are advantage counterplans legitimate? As long as they use the same actor as the resolution/aff, definitely. There’s no counterplan more legit than the counterplan that tries to solve the same problem but a different way. Jumping back to the intro post, this is your classic Chipotle CP vs the McDonald’s aff. Generally: 😎, Me: 😎. Are they competitive? Pretty much, yeah. Perm do the counterplan makes no sense because the counterplan has nothing to do with the aff. Perm do both (pbd) almost certainly links to the net benefit. When it comes to advantage counterplans, because they do essentially none of the aff, almost every DA the neg reads will be a net benefit. Think about the nuclear power example- if the neg counterplans to do geoengineering, they don’t expand nuclear power, so every nuclear power bad disad is a net benefit to the counterplan (accidents, waste, natural gas tradeoff, renewables tradeoff, etc). Perm do both would link to all of those disads, so it would be a loser. So what’s the aff to do? Have a defense of your mechanism! You need to win that your mechanism is the only or best way to solve the problem you’ve identified (that’s your generic solvency deficit). You should also preemptively research alternative strategies and cut evidence that those strategies will fail (those are your specific solvency deficits). Carbon tax, cap-and-trade, geo-engineering- those are all predictable alternative strategies to solve climate change, but there’s also a ton of literature that says they’re bad ideas and that they will fail. One variation on advantage counterplans is multi-plank advantage counterplans. Sometimes teams will combine multiple ideas to solve one advantage or aff impact, having the USFG take 3 different actions just to solve climate change. Other times teams will combine advantage counterplans. Let’s say the aff has a warming impact and a heg impact, the neg could read a counterplan with two planks (that does two separate things), one to solve warming and one to solve heg. The more impacts the aff has or the more ideas the neg has the quicker these planks can add up. Three, four, five, even ten plank counterplans are not uncommon. Are multi-plank counterplans legitimate? Yeah people are pretty on board with multi-plank counterplans. There’re just detailed and often creative alternative ways to problem solve. I’m on board with boosting our problem-solving skills. Generally: 🙂 Me: 😎 Before we move on I want to introduce two important arguments, one theory, and one substantive. The first is solvency advocate theory. This is the argument that if the negative cannot produce a piece of evidence from someone advocating for the counterplan, than the counterplan is unpredictable and illegitimate. I’m rarely persuaded by this argument. I would like to see debaters make the following arguments to respond to solvency advocate theory: first, it punishes creativity. It forces us to think inside the box of ideas that have already been established, instead of creatively problem-solving by generating new ideas and combining pre-existing ideas in ingenious and effective ways. Second, it doesn’t disadvantage the aff. If a high school (or even college) debater can come up with an idea that beats your aff, it means your aff was bad. The second is the argument that the counterplan links to the net benefit. The essential reason to vote neg for a counterplan is that it solves all or most of the aff and avoids a bad thing the aff does. The argument that the counterplan links to the net benefit is the argument that the counterplan also does the bad thing the aff does. Think about our climate change advantage counterplans: specifically, the carbon tax. A carbon tax works by placing a fee on the burning of fossil fuels, incentivizing a shift to alternative fuels. But what if the fuel that’s incentivized by that fee is nuclear? Then a carbon tax also solves because it bolsters nuclear power, so it would link to every nuclear power bad DA the neg read (of course, the neg could creatively solve this problem by adding a plank banning nuclear power). Now think about multi-plank counterplans and the politics disad. If the neg says the net benefit to an advantage counterplan is the politics DA, they’re probably wrong. If they say it’s a net benefit to an advantage counterplan with 7 planks, they’re certainly wrong. The link to the politics DA is that the plan is controversial. Here’s the thing though: almost everything is controversial. Carbon tax? Ridiculously controversial. Cap-and-trade? Same. Geoengineering? Sounds like the plot of a villain in a movie. If you’ve got 7 planks in your counterplan, at least one of them is almost certainly at least as controversial as the plan, and then your advantage counterplan links to your net benefit- if your net benefit is politics. Process CPs Process counterplans generally do virtually all of the affirmative, differ because they are not certain or immediate. Counterplans in the umbrella of process counterplans include the consult counterplan, recommend counterplan, the condition counterplan, and delay counterplan. The consult counterplan does the aff, but only if someone else agrees it’s a good idea. On the college ‘cooperate with a adversaries in space’ topic, a lot of people read a Consult Japan counterplan against space cooperation with China. The counterplan did the aff (coop with China) but only if Japan was okay with it. The net benefit was a Japan relations / proliferation DA. If we do the aff without consulting, Japan freaks out and militarizes. If we consult them, they’re less likely to do so. The consult counterplan can catch you in a nasty doublebind, because if you make a solvency deficit (Japan says no), you’re basically proving the link to the DA (Japan hates the plan). The recommend counterplan fiats that some (likely politically powerful) group recommends the plan. On military topics, people often fiat the Joint Chiefs or Quadrennial Defense Review recommends the plan. They don’t fiat that the plan is implemented, instead they make solvency arguments that the recommendation by X group will lead to the adoption of the plan. The condition counterplan is a lot like the consult counterplan: it does the aff, but only if someone else agrees to do something in exchange. Quid pro quo, Clarice. The delay counterplan is as simple as it sounds. For example, a delay counterplan could do the plan after the 2020 election and claim the elections DA as a net benefit (Trump is losing now, plan causes him to win, Trump is bad, doing the plan after the election solves and avoids handing Trump a win). Process counterplans will often have internal net benefits. These are impacts that are advantages to the counterplan, as opposed to disadvantages to the aff. Make sure you comprehensively answer the net benefits to these counterplans, not just the counterplan itself. What these and other counterplans that change the process of the plan have in common is they compete on timeframe and certainty. That is, their answer to the perm (specifically, perm do the counterplan) will be that the aff has to be immediate and absolute, and the counterplan is neither of those things, so it’s different than the aff. Remember, perm do the counterplan is the argument that the counterplan is an example of how the plan could be done. So in this case, the aff will be arguing that consult, delay, etc, are all just different examples of how someone could implement the aff. Perm do the counterplan debates against process counterplans generally have two parts: definitions and impacts (just like a T debate). The neg will read definitions of the words in the resolution or the plan and argue that words like “resolved” and “should” mean the aff has to be immediate and certain, the aff will need to respond with different definitions of those words. I often call this the definitional arms race- if the neg defines a word and the aff doesn’t, it’s a gotcha/game-over moment. Like a topicality debate, definitions aren’t enough though. You need impacts that explain why your definitions are better. In this way, the PDCP debate spills into a theory debate about process counterplans. So are process counterplans legit? This depends a lot on the judge. Some judges think yes, some think no, others have a sliding scale. What I mean by that is that several judges are more persuaded a process counterplan is legitimate if the neg can show there is evidence that the process counterplan is germane to the aff. In other words, there’s literature about the aff in the context of the counterplan. This will often look like the negative making a counter-interpretation on theory: that process counterplans with a solvency advocate are legit, while others are not. So, to the legitimacy meter! Process counterplans in general: generally: 😐; me: 😑/ 😣 Process counterplans with a solvency advocate: generally: 🙂; me: 😐/ 😑 So what’s the right aff strategy against process counterplans? Again, it’s a mix of solvency deficits, perms, and theory. For a thorough explanation of on how to beat process counterplans on substance, make sure to read Tyler Thur’s guest post. International Actor CPs International actor counterplans fiat a country other than the United States. Pretty simple, on face. These counterplans are usually pretty competitive. Perm do both will usually link to the net benefit, because any disad to US action will be a net benefit to the counterplan. PDCP would sever the “United States” from the plan. If you’re reading an international actor counterplan, you’ll need a high-tech theory block. Many judges are persuaded by the argument that international actor counterplans are illogical because no two actor can pick between the two. There’s no higher geopolitical power thinking, “hmmm, maybe I shouldn’t have the United States do this, because then I couldn’t have China do it to avoid this bad repercussion from US action.” Thus, the counterplan isn’t a true opportunity cost to the plan. On the democracy assistance topic, I coached teams to read an EU counterplan, and one argument we would make to trip teams up on the theory debate is we would read cosmopolitanism good / borders bad evidence to create a kritik of their theory interpretation. Is that a round winning argument by itself? Definitely not. But it did cause quite a few teams to stumble on the theory debate and divert them to a substantive strategy. TL;DR: Generally: 😐, Me: 😑 How do you beat international actor counterplans? I hope you’re beginning to see the pattern! Your 2AC should have a healthy, diverse mix of solvency deficits, perms, and theory arguments. Why perms, if I’ve already said they won’t get you super far against international actor counterplans? You always perm the counterplan: always perm do both, anyway. If you don’t perm the counterplan, the 2NC could read advantages to China (or the EU, etc) doing the plan. They could say Chinese action on the counterplan boosts Chinese soft power, and that solves important things. The best answer to this add-on to the counterplan is the perm, but if you haven’t read one, you’ll lose to new add-ons. Uniqueness CPs Uniqueness counterplans do one of two things: 1) Fix a (predictive) uniqueness problem on a DA, or, 2) Create uniqueness for a DA. Let’s talk about both examples in the context of a politics DA. You read your politics DA: Trump will get X passed now, the plan pushes X off the agenda, X is good. The 2AC reads a thumper (predictive link non-unique) that says Trump is about to do Y, and that will destroy his agenda- triggers the DA in the status quo. You can read a counterplan to have Trump not do Y. Then the DA is not triggered in the status quo. That’s an example of a uniqueness counterplan to fix a predictive uniqueness problem for a DA. It has to be a predictive, or future, problem, because if the problem is something that already happened, the damage is already done. Fiat is cool, but time travel is not allowed. The second example of a uniqueness counterplan is one that creates uniqueness for a DA. Let me give an example of a DA that I cut for my squad: a politics DA about gun control. I cut phenomenal evidence that Trump’s PC with his base would enable him to get gun control passed. That because of his conservative credentials, if Trump wanted to, he could easily use his bully pulpit to get something like universal background checks through Congress. The evidence called it a “Nixon in China moment,” referencing how Nixon was able to open relations with the PRC because of his hard-on-China conservative credentials. If that finite PC with the base was spent elsewhere, if Trump blew his conservative credentials by pushing the plan, then he wouldn’t have any left for gun control. Great DA, right? The only problem is Trump was never seriously pushing gun control. Problem, meet fiat. The counterplan to have Trump push universal background checks created a DA: Trump is pushing background checks (as per the CP), plan spends PC with the base that’s key to get it passed, background checks good. Now, we had to win the counterplan was fiating the Executive branch, and not Trump as a private actor (see below), but otherwise, this is a typical uniqueness counterplan. Are they legit? Generally: 🙂 Me: 😎 Are they competitive? Well, with the second example, that depends on the strength of the link. Think about perm do both vs the gun control counterplan. The perm does the aff but also puts gun control on the agenda. But the link to the DA says that Trump pushing gun control is necessary, but not sufficient: he also needs his conservative credentials intact. If the link to the DA is right, the plan burns those conservative credentials. So the perm does not shield the link, in this case. But it’s definitely an angle worth trying! With the first example, the perm is irrelevant, because the counterplan is just fixing a uniqueness issue. You’d have better luck pushing the counterplan links to the net benefit. Maybe it’s true that Trump doing Y would be controversial, but I bet it would be also be controversial if he changed his mind and didn’t do Y, not the least because it would be a flip-flop. It might anger different people, but it could still produce a controversy. How do you beat a uniqueness counterplan? Well, first remember: uniqueness counterplans aren’t trying to solve the aff. They’re usually bolstering a DA. You should explore to see if you can get a W on perm shields the link or the counterplan links to the net benefit, but mostly you should just beat the DA. 2NC CPs 2NC counterplans are just that: counterplans read in the 2NC. Uniqueness counterplans are often read in the 2AC, because they’re responding to a new 2AC argument against the disad. 2NC counterplans are also often read to deal with add-ons (new affirmative advantages). Maybe you read a multi-plank advantage counterplan, and you’re going to add a new plank to solve the add-on. How legit a 2NC counterplan is often depends on it’s function. 2NC UQ CP: generally: 🙂; me: 😎 A new PIC, agent, or process CP in the 2NC: generally: 😠; me 😠 Advantage CP to solve an add-on: generally: 🙂; me: 😎 There are two specific functions worth isolating and talking about. The first is adding a new plank to an existing CP to fix / fiat past a solvency deficit. I don’t think this counterplan is bad because it’s in the 2NC, but I bet that it makes the original counterplan a lot more theoretically suspect. The second is counterplanning out of a straight turn. Remember the USMCA politics DA? Let’s say the neg read a USCMCA good DA: it will pass now, the plan de-rails it, USCMA solves energy security. Then the aff straight impact-turns and says USMCA is bad for 6 different reasons. The 2NC doesn’t want to deal with the impact turn debate, so they counterplan to not pass USMCA. The counterplan obviates the impact turns, it fiats in a non-unique for neg to kick the DA on. Like with the previous counterplan, my problem isn’t that this counterplan is in the 2NC (though reading the “escape hatch” counterplan pre-emptively in the 1NC can increase its legitimacy in the eyes of some judges, by making it more predictable). My problem is that it obviates straight-turns. If this counterplan is legit, the aff can never straight turn, and I rather enjoy the strategic dynamic of straight turns. Escape hatch counterplan: generally: 😑; me 😣 Object Fiat CPs Object fiat is when you fiat the object of the resolution (object in the grammatical sense, ie, not the subject). So if the resolution were: Resolved: The United States should offer security guarantee to Iran, counterplans that fiated that Iran (like Counterplan: Iran should end its nuclear weapons program) are object fiat. Object fiat is super cheating: generally: 😠; me 😠 The one thing I want to say here is that object fiat is about the resolution, not your advantage. If someone is fiatting something to solve the object of your advantage, it’s possible they just have a legit advantage counterplan. Word PICs Word PICs, or discourse PICs, PIC out of a word or phrase in the plan, but because the word itself is rhetorically problematic or violent, not because it changes the substance of the aff. The neg will usually substitute a word that is supposed to mean the exact same thing. A few years ago when Afghanistan was in the resolution, people would counterplan to label Afghanistan “Khorasan”, with a critique that Afghanistan was a name imposed by colonizers. You can often generate solvency deficits to even the small differences. For example, Khorasan might have once described an area similar to Afghanistan, but not exactly the area currently known as Afghanistan, and that label certainly isn’t recognized by the Afghani government, which might disrupt negotiations. Even small solvency deficits are usually enough to beat word PICs, because the PIC doesn’t solve the net benefit. Okay, so the USFG doesn’t call Khorasan “Afghanistan” one time, in the plan text, but that plan is a drop in the bucket of the millions of times US officials will say Afghanistan, before, during, and after negating the plan. The PIC doesn’t fiat we never call Khorasan Afghanistan, it just does it one less time (if it did fiat that, it would lose to a clever perm). So I think you can beat word PICs on substance, but theory is also an okay option. Very few judges actively like word PICs. Generally: 😣 Me: 😑 Private Actor Fiat Private actor fiat involves non-government entities. Like a company, or a person. It’s a no go. Generally: 😣 Me: 😣 Concluding Thoughts There’s a couple of things I haven’t covered yet. It seems to be more common on local circuits to argue counterplans have to be topical (I did address why this argument isn’t true of perms in the perm section). It’s also not true of counterplans. Counterplans can be topical, or not. The neg isn’t constrained by the resolution, their goal is to offer a better policy than the aff. Whether or not the counterplan is topical is immaterial to whether the counterplan is better than the aff. I also skipped over that some folks will argue no neg fiat- that the neg just doesn’t get counterplans (“there’s no neg resolution”). This argument rarely gets any traction unless it’s dropped (and usually not unless it’s dropped twice). But, that’s 10,000+ words on counterplans, and I’m gonna call it a day. We want to hear from you! Disagree with something we said? Have a question? Feel free to jump in in the comments, we'll be sure to respond! Do you have a topic you’d like us to address in a future post? Email us at [email protected] Go Pokes!
2 Comments
Anton Petushkov
3/27/2020 12:02:55 am
Hey Matt, awesome essay!
Reply
Matt Liu
3/27/2020 02:23:47 pm
Anton, thanks for the questions!
Reply
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
|