Counterplans 101 Part 6– Should I Run a Counterplan?
In this last post in our series on counterplans, we want to share our overall advice on counterplans.
Luke’s thoughts:
In conclusion, the life of a counterplan negative is not easy. They must simultaneously argue against the affirmative plan and defend their own. At the same time, the affirmative team unfortunate enough to debate against counterplan must do the same. All-in-all, it is difficult for everyone. I will not take a stance and advise for or against running counterplans (with the exception of advising you never to run non-topical counterplans) because I do believe they have merit. They also have a lot of extra hurdles that make them quite risky in running. There is also a strong dislike of counterplans amongst the parent judge base in most debate leagues. Community judges and debate alumni/coaches may be more open to counterplans, but overall, you can generally bet that the judge is automatically less likely to vote for you because you run a counterplan. That doesn’t mean you can’t win with them. Like any negative argument, if you achieve the burdens I talk about here, your counterplan should have merit.
The most important thing to keep in mind when running counterplans is simplicity. Often, counterplans are dismissed because the negative team fails to keep the round under control. It is easy to get caught up in unimportant theory arguments instead of focusing on what the judge will actually care about. I believe the root cause of most opposition to counterplans is this lack of simplicity. The best piece of advice I can offer is to approach a counterplan on either side like it is the first time anyone in the room has heard of one, including your judge, opponents, and sometimes even your partner. If you take it slowly and explain the plan and what the debate should be about, it can actually work. Perhaps by doing this we can create a debate world where counterplans are not as frowned upon.
Josiah’s thoughts:
I have been in three counterplan rounds, and won all three. One was a counterplan run on me. I also ran a minor repair and a topical counterplan later on. I think the reason I won all three rounds was because I only ran two counterplans in my high school debate career. Counterplans can be a fantastic strategy, but only work in rare situations. Don’t get too excited about counterplans and run them all the time. Also don’t avoid running them at all costs. I really enjoyed both running and writing counterplans (I wrote far more than I ran–ranging from “blacklist Hezbollah MPs” to a 372 word counterplan providing a much more nuanced version of an AFF plan).
If/when you do run a counterplan, here are a few quick things to keep in mind.
First, explain the theory. When I ran a topical counterplan, we spent a significant amount of time in each speech going over why our counterplan was valid. Our judge wrote on the ballot that he is normally opposed to counterplans, but because we presented it well he was persuaded to vote for us. Judges will often vote for a counterplan if you explain why they should.
Second, clearly lay out your plan. Your mandate doesn’t have to be fancy–I wrote my first counterplan mandate during the AFF’s 1AC! But it does need to be just as clear as an AFF plan. Also make clear how it is different from AFF’s plan.
Third, focus the debate on why your plan is better. Usually that means pointing out how your counterplan has advantages that AFF’s plan doesn’t have, and AFF’s plan has disadvantages that your counterplan doesn’t have. Always remember: when you talk about something one plan has, always explain why the other plan doesn’t have that advantage/disadvantage. The same goes for responding to counterplans as the AFF.
We hope you enjoyed our series on counterplans!
Want to learn more about debate from Luke and Josiah? Book coaching with them!
Is there another topic you want the Rhetoric LLC blog to discuss? Let us know in the comments, or email us at Info@RhetoricLLC.com
Looking for the rest of the series?