The Notorious Gamble, Counterplans Part 1, Topicality

PART 1: TOPICALITY

By: Brad Tomasovic and Charlie Said

     Counterplans are one of the most controversial argument categories in Stoa. Due to the unconventional nature of counterplans, judges are often so confused to the point where their vote becomes a gamble. This series of blogs will help advanced debaters understand the why and how to tackle effective counterplans. There are multiple components of theory that are critical to understanding counterplans. We will cover Topicality, Conditionality, Mutual Exclusivity, and finally Net Benefits. To start, this blog will specifically cover the issue of topicality.  

     Both non-topical and topical counterplans can be argued. However, this is where we see the first controversy of counterplans. Many will often argue that the affirmative team has the sole job of affirming the resolution, and by running a topical counterplan, the negative is conceding the idea that the resolution must be affirmed. Since the negative team is acting as “a second Affirmative Team”, the judge should circle affirmative on their ballot.  Teams will often say things such as “Neg has just done our job for us” and “Both sides agree that policy on the resolution should be reformed, we just disagree about which reform is more important.” Nevertheless, there are some problems with this model, which is called rez-centrism. The main problem is that rez-centrism denies the need for parametrics. If you don’t know what that means, don’t worry. Parametrics is the process of narrowing the scope of Aff’s burden from the entire rez to one specific case within the rez. Under Parametrics theory, Aff starts with the rez, but uses it as guardrails for selecting a case. And then, if Affirmative can prove their case is 1.) a good idea, and 2.) topical, then it proves the rez true by being one instance of the rez being true.  Parametrics is rarely discussed, but it’s an assumption that practically every debate team operates under. For example, after losing solvency in a round, the affirmative cannot shift advocacy and argue for another bill that does solve the harms. The affirmative position, or the ground they must defend, gets solidified in the 1AC.

     In this way, Parametrics clashes with rez-centrism. By asserting that a negative team may concede any affirmation of the resolution, the affirmative does not need to theoretically defend any specific case at all. They could run a whole res case, affirming the resolution by pointing out generic problems with the status quo without even passing reform. A res-centrist can argue this because they assume that under the job of the affirmative, they must only need to defend the resolution as its entire form. However, this is not a realistic way to debate, and certainly undermines the skills of specific research debates gained from policy. 

     In practice, these differences are not going to win you rounds. Inside of a hectic round, this theory clash may be too confusing and uncertain for most judges to make a decision about it. A simple way to defend against the topicality critique is to point out that the negative’s counterplan is an argument against the affirmative, and if their affirmation does more harm than potential good, the judge shouldn’t pass it. Congressmen argue all the time within their resolutions, debaters should model the breath of argumentation types used, such as counter motions, in order to pursue the original, educational spirit of policy. This is not to deny the importance of parametrics, but to show the validity of the assumed parametric premise by showing its intuitiveness through allegory. Prefacing the theory with an appeal to congressional standards can help the judge visualize why you are arguing over this. 

     The easiest way to handle the rez-centric topicality issue is to appeal to equality between Aff and Neg teams.  This approach actually works really well with parent judges (because they understand that debate is a game, and they want their kids to be competing in a fair and equal environment.  Parent judges are sensitive to fairness arguments more than any other theory warrant).  First, you should observe that parametrics is how Aff teams choose to run a specific case, and that parametrics makes debate infinitely better (A specific case makes debate more grounded in specifics, which improves education, and it prevents ground-shifting.  And as discussed above, it focuses the debate on proving solutions rather than proving problems).  Then assert that Neg faces the same duty as Aff to parametricize.  By default, Neg’s advocacy is the Status Quo.  However, if Neg wishes to run a Counterplan, that becomes their advocacy.  Negative can’t ground-shift between their Counterplan and the Status Quo any more than Aff can groundshift from one case to another.  By running a counterplan, Neg fundamentally changes their burden to something more akin to “dispute Aff” than “prove the rez false”.  You aren’t endorsing the Affirmative Team with your counterplan (assuming it is mutually exclusive.  We’ll touch on that in a later blog).

     Secondly, observe that running a topical counterplan imposes the same parametrics regime on both teams. That is, both Aff and Neg must run cases that fall within the bounds of the rez. They are fundamentally playing by the same rules. This is more fair to Aff than the alternative. The rez is one limited scope, and there’s presumably many more non-topical competitive alternatives to the Aff plan that would address the same Harm. If Aff mandates had to be topical, but Neg counterplans had access to anything except topical mandates, that would give Neg much more ground than Affirmative, to the point of being completely unfair. For instance, imagine if Neg could mandate reforms of trade policy, immigration policy, interstate commerce, labor regulations, etc. to address the Harm that Aff can only address with healthcare policy. Topical counterplans aren’t just acceptable counterplans, they are generally more fair than non-topical counterplans.

     Hopefully this gives you the tools to defend your topical counterplans.  Granted, executing these arguments takes a lot of practice.  But as high-level debaters can attest, it is possible to win complex theory debates with low-experience judges if you explain the ideas in a straightforward manner.  How to communicate the most simplified yet effective explanation of counterplan theory is going to come down to your own personal style, and that takes years of intentional practice to develop.  Give practice speeches to your parents, relatives, Nile coaches, and younger debaters in your club.  It takes skill, clarity, and finesse, and you’re going up against decades of conventional debate theory that opposes topical counterplans, but the beauty of TP is that it’s possible to win any argument if you have the warrants to do so.  And now, you do.