The Topical Counter Plan- Reasserting Negative Ground- Edward m Panetta 1981

8/8/2019 The Topical Counter Plan- Reasserting Negative Ground- Edward m Panetta 1981

1/8

Untitled Document

Throughout the Years debate has been a constantly changing process. Essentially, tim

limits have been the only static element in an activity that has in many ways change

radically. Today, for example, the comparative advantages case and turnarounds

disadvantages are accepted practices in the activity. These changes in the process hav

had the effect of increasing the probability of affirmative victory. The debacommunity has also continuously selected broad topics which tend to concede y

more ground to the affirmative. It is often very difficult for negatives to find

counterplan which is generic or nontopical under a wide topic.

Often the innovations in the debate process result from a perceived imbalance in th

activity. The comparative advantages-case, turnarounds, add-ons and broad topic hav

evolved because there was a need to increase the likelihood of affirmative victor

These changes in the activity have attained their objective.

At the championship level of high school debate it is not uncommon to find th

affirmative winning a decisive percentage of rounds. This imbalance is heightened

rounds judged by college debaters. often the negative debater finds him/herse

dumbfounded by a judge's, decision. Many judges vote affirmative in instances eith

when the affirmative has minimal significance or because of a negative failure to win

disadvantage.

The time has come to rectify this imbalance, and increase the likelihood of negativ

decisions. The negative must attempt to regain the ground lost to the affirmativ

because of changes in debate.

One alternative that merits thought by the disgruntled negative debater and his/h

coach is the "topical counterplan." The concept is quite simple -- the negative

allowed to argue topical counterplans to the affirmative examples. This would allo

the negative to suggest that a different branch of the federal government should be thagent implementing the change, or that an alternative change would be a superi

alternative to that advocated by the affirmative. The standard for comparing th

systems is the competitiveness of the two alternatives in question. At this point,

would like to stress that the negative should not use the topical counterplan, or an

counterplan unless they are competitive with the affirmative policy alternative (se

Steve Mancuso's article for a discussion of competitiveness). Although the strateg


2/8

chosen should be adapted to the specific team and judge in question, the topic

counterplan does serve to markedly increase the choice of options available to th

negative. This essay will outline traditional arguments against the topical counterpla

respond to the arguments, and provide a rationale for the topical counterplan.

An affirmative may object to a topical counterplan by claiming that the function of th

activity is to discuss the merits of adopting the resolution. 1/ With this perspectiv

the affirmative woul7 assert that any acceptance of the resolution dictates a

affirmative ballot. In reality, we have not debated the merits of the resolution f

years. With the advent of policy debate, the debater found him/herself discussing th

values of an affirmative example. The policy systems paradigm expects the affirmativ

to defend an example, not the entire set of examples contained within the topic.

Debate resolutions are so broad that there is very little value in endorsing them

their totality. After a year of debating a resolution a logical conclusion would be th

some of the examples are valid and others are not. Therefore, how could one evalua

the truth of the resolution? Does one count the total number of true and fal

examples, or sum the advantages and disadvantages of all examples of the resolution

This is hardly an exercise with any intellectual value or real world application.

Secondly, since debate resolutions are policy propositions, they are never "true"

"false" (this is a function of a proposition of fact) -- they are desirable or undesirab

based on the system of values adopted. The more specific a policy alternative is, t

more thoroughly its desirability can be evaluated, hence debating specific plans a

preferable to debating general resolutions.

To open the discussion to the value of the entire resolution would subject the deba

community to superficial analysis, such as counter warrants. The problems of th

approach were aptly pointed out by Ulrich and Keeshan in their most recent article. 2

Counter warrants tend to reduce the clash in any given round. The negative mere

has to guess which of the infinite number of resolutional alternatives the affirmativ

has failed to show are desirable. The policy presented in first affirmative becom

secondary to the convoluted disadvantages presented in second negative. This polic

(counter warrants) reduces the clash in the round to the responses delivered in IA

and the answers provided in 2NR.

Another argument in support of the resolution serving as the basis for discussion


3/8

that it divides the ground between the affirmative and the negative. This positio

makes an implicit assumption that there is an intrinsic value or direction to

resolution. As recent topics have pointed out, there does not necessarily have to b

direction in a resolution. Under the energ .y topic, for example, one affirmative cou

increase the use of nuclear power and another affirmative team could embody th

resolution by banning it. The trade topic allowed the affirmative to either increase o

decrease protectionism. This year an affirmative could change the due procerequirements of PL94-142 (Handicapped Education Act) which would increa

parental influence over education. A second affirmative team could reduce parent

influence over schools by protecting school libraries from censorship.

In debate the affirmative alternative and the resolution are no longer synonymou

The assumption that the resolution divides the affirmative and negative springs fro

the belief that the affirmative example and the resolution are one. The lack of directio

in topics renders this assumption meaningless. This non-directionality of resolutionleaves the negative with very little non-topical ground to argue from. The mo

options the resolution encompasses, the less negative choice there is.

Non-directionality renders suspect the idea that the resolution can be affirmed even

a broadly ideological statement. If examples of the resolution diametrically contradi

each other in terms of their effects and underlying values, the logical and analyt

feasibility of endorsing the resolution as a whole seems rather tenuous. Suc

contradictory examples suggest that the resolution is already being used as a problearea to be discussed, rather than as an actual statement meriting consideration in the

own right.

A second objection of the topical counterplan is that affirmative topicality an

negative non-topicality serve as absolute rules of the game. Regardless of the merits

a given resolution, the burdens of topicality and non-topicality remain with th

combatants. The affirmative would claim that without this rule debate could n

commence. This position assumes that the burdens of topicality are analogous to thethical burdens assumed in a falsification question. Falsification is a clearly ethic

question, and an absolute rule which is deserving of its position in debate hierarch

Topicality, however, differs dramatically from falsification. For a discussion

topicality entails argumentative clash, not an absolute rules question. There is nothin

intrinsic to the presentation of an argumentative position that can be considered as

violation of any ethical code. Topicality is the last in a long line of absolute votin


4/8

issues. The practices of plans in second affirmative only and debaters maintaining th

same speaker positions serve as additional proof of how "absolute rules" evolve

little more than amusing historical anecdotes.

A third objection to the topical counterplan is the loss of the inquiry and researc

functions of debate. I believe the opposite would result with the advent of the topic

counterplan. The affirmative debater and his/her coach would have to consider a

alternatives to their example of the resolution. The out-of-round kibbitzing that occu

amongst members of the debate community would be enhanced by the introduction

the topical counterplan. Students would not discuss fully all the possible alternatives

the problem they isolate. Resolutions would no longer shield the ill-prepared debat

from meaningful discussion. The affirmative would be forced to fully discuss an

research the policy they present in a round. However, the team would not b

compelled to research an unlimited area, for the topic itself would serve to limit th

focus of study.

The introduction of topical counterplans into the debate process would not relieve th

negative from its research burden that results from a wide topic. The negative tea

could not offer the same counterplan round after round, for the option presented mu

be competitive with that presented by the affirmative. The negative cannot offer an

federal/national alternative to the example cited by the affirmative. The standards

competitiveness would demand that distinct policies be compared. Constrained by

standard of competitiveness, the negative will be forced to research the problem aremore thoroughly.

A fourth objection to the topical counterplan is that it would allow the negative

make minor alterations in the affirmative plan. By subjecting debate to th

consideration of minor alterations, the real world implications of debate would be los

I do not believe that the topical counterplan would reduce debate to the me

exchange of trivial facts and figures.

If the alternative presented by the negative does not compete with the examp

claimed in first affirmative, there is no reason why the affirmative could n

incorporate the minor alterations into their plan, or why both plans could not b

adopted simultaneously.

In a round where a topical counterplan is introduced, it would be assumed th

presumption would be with the affirmative interpretation. For it is the affirmative th


5/8

defines the problem area by presenting their interpretation of the resolution in the fir

affirmative. The affirmative policy option serves as the basis of discussion, thus

gains presumption. Just as in a traditional debate round it is assumed the status qu

will resolve a problem, in a round in which a topical counterplan is presented th

affirmative plan serves as the best solution to a problem until it can be proven to b

inferior. It is the negative's responsibility to prove that there is a significant differen

between their policy and the affirmative's.

This criticism is analogous to the situation where an affirmative proposes an arguab

insignificant alteration from the present system their example of the resolution. Th

debate community has accepted cases with less and less significance as "reasonabl

interpretations of the re solution. At the 1981 collegiate National Debate Tournamen

for example, a case that attempted to find one supposedly dead man in Russia w

considered worthy of an hour's discussion. It should be apparent that the problem

what is significantly different" is not on that the negative has forced upon debate. any given round the judges could stipulate that to be legitimate a counterplan must b

substantially different from the affirmative alternative. This standard is no softer tha

many others employed in debate and it serves to address the problem of trivi

changes.

If the negative does not envelop itself in a quagmire of trivial argument seriou

discussion of regulatory issues would be enhanced by the topical counterplan. F

example the negative could propose a judicial solution to a problem in a resolutiowhich dictated federal action. The approach taken to solve a problem is often

important as is the-discussion of the effects of a given policy. Raising the issue

administration would also force the affirmative to defend the plan particula

presented in first affirmative.

Perhaps the discussion of significance that would ensue with the acceptance of th

topical counterplan could serve to clarify the "presumption" question. (At what level

change does one accept an alternative solution to the problem area?)

The advantage to debate from the acceptance of a topical counterplan is enhance

clash in rounds. With the ability to choose the best of options negative ground

reasserted. For example, under the energy topic if the affirmative instituted nucle

power the negative could now offer solar power as an alternative to solving the energ

crunch. Presently the negative is often forced to defend inferior non-resolution

alternatives. To preclude the negative from advocating a competitive topic


6/8

alternative may very well beg the real policy questions.

Many a judge has found him/herself listening to a noncompetitive position, includin

the foundation and study counterplan. The judge is forced to serve as head of

national foundation, or the lead researcher for the National Academy of Science

Jurisdictional problems and tedious fiat questions would be removed from debate.

The topical counterplan could serve as the rationale for rejection of the affirmativexample. Even if judges lack the jurisdiction to implement a topical counterplan

somewhat preposterous judgment since s/he is assumed to have the ability

implement a topical plan), the counterplan is still a reason reject the affirmative pla

By this rationale the affirmative plan should be sent back to the committee ( an

personally rejected) until it is given in its optimal form.

The topical counterplan mitigates against the huge advantage that is provide

affirmative by directionless topics. The negatives would now enjoy the sam

educational benefits of a wide topic that the affirmative currently enjoys.

The enhancement of the policy making paradigm in debate is also a justification f

the topical counterplan. Lichtman and Rohrer note: "The process of policy argume

inherently requires a comparison of Policy systems to determine their relative meri

3/ In this Paradigm the affirmative team wins the judge's ballot if their policy Optio

is superior to other options. Action is taken only after it can be proven that the polic

in question is superior to all other alternatives. 4/

In a comparison of policy choices, the topical counterplan allows the negative

engage in meaningful argumentation, as it removes frivolous discourse from th

round. The artificial constraints of the topic often reduce the negative to defendin

inconsistent and often unthinkable alternatives. The topical counterplan in many cas

would make the notion of fifty states acting in union less attractive. The debates wou

resolve around a discussion of two probable alternatives to a problem.

Even if they choose to propose a topical alternative, a smart negative team would n

so readily concede the issue of topicality, regardless of the arguments presented

defense of topical counterplans. The negative should present a standard

reasonableness in determining the non-topicality of a counterplan. The standard f

reasonableness states that all a negative need be is non-topicality of a counterplan. Th

standard of reasonableness states that all a negative need be is topical at some level.


7/8

recent years, the standard of reasonableness has come to be accepted norm

determining the topicality of the affirmative plan. To be fair to the negative team,

similar standard of topicality should apply to both sides of the advocacy question.

Essentially, there exists three justifications for a standard of reasonableness. First, the

is no one correct interpretation of the resolution, therefore, application of one s

standard would vary and be arbitrary -from round to round. The negative, like th

affirmative, need only provide a reasonable definition of the proposition.

A second justification is that a wide topic enhances the]educational function of debat

Although there are problems with this concept, the benefits derived are enormous. Th

student learns about a wide range of subjects, and hopefully not at the expense

argumentative depth. The solution to the problems incurred by a wide topic is n

found in a return to more sterile topics but rather an alteration in today's Sys tem

Should the topical counterplan be unacceptable, a loose standard of reasonableness f

counterplans would seem to be appropriate.

A final. justification as to why the negative can offer a "reasonably" non-topic

counterplan is that the judge grants an advocate presumption in terms of the groun

on which s/he stands. Thus, the counterplan would only have to be Don-topical at on

of several levels that would be presented by the negative in a round. A strict standar

(meaning any hint of topical implications) of topicality would be an unfair standard

impose upon the negative.

A counterplan should be accepted if it is reasonably non-topical or simply topical b

effects. If a problem lies entirely within the jurisdiction of the federal government, an

solution to the Problem would be considered topical. For example, if the topic calle

for alteration in Human Services by the federal government, the negative would b

limited in their position against a Social Security case. Social Security falls only with

the jurisdiction of the federal government and the federal topic could prohibit th

negative from any federal agent. The negative would be reduced to a defense of thpresent system. Any counter action by the negative would effect the feder

jurisdiction over Social Security, thus it would be topical. By the effects standard,

negative team could never win a counterplan unless topical alternatives were allowed

The effects standard also tends to be extremely subjective. The effects standar

requires some level Of solvency before topicality can be determined. The judge mu

determine the level of solvency the counterplan achieves and determine if th


8/8

solvency level is significant, before the question of counterplan topicality is addresse

This standard allows a semi-short counterplan to be topical one round and not th

next, thereby leading excessive subjective argumentation into the debate setting.

As stated earlier, the affirmative team ha, been gaining more of an advantage fro

recent debate theory applications. The topical counterplan could be a useful tool f

the negative in gaining loss ground during the present era of broad topic .

questioning of the theoretical underpinnings of counterplan topicality finds them to b

extremely suspect, as they increasingly assure affirmative success at the expense of th

theory-bound negative team. The topical counterplan would seem to enhan

competition and make for better debate.

Notes

1/ James W. Paulsen and Jack L. Rhodes, "The Counter-Warrant as Negative

Strategy: A Modest Proposal," The Journal of the American Forensic Association,XV. (Spring, 1979), page 205.

2/ Marjorie Keeshan and Walter Ulrich, "A Critique of the Counter-Warrant

as a negative Strategy," Journal of the American Forensic Association, 7 (Winter,

1980), p. 199.

3/ Allan J. Lichtman and Daniel M. Rohrer, "A General Theory of the

counterplan," The Journal of the American Forensic Association , XII: 2 (Fall ,

1975), p. 72.

4/ Ibid.

Documents

The Topical Counter Plan- Reasserting Negative Ground- Edward m Panetta 1981