Untitled Document

Throughout the Years debate has been a constantly changing process. Essentially, time
limits have been the only static element in an activity that has in many ways changed
radically. Today, for example, the comparative advantages case and turnarounds to
disadvantages are accepted practices in the activity. These changes in the process have
had the effect of increasing the probability of affirmative victory. The debate
community has also continuously selected broad topics which tend to concede yet
more ground to the affirmative. It is often very difficult for negatives to find a
counterplan which is generic or nontopical under a wide topic.

Often the innovations in the debate process result from a perceived imbalance in the
activity. The comparative advantages-case, turnarounds, add-ons and broad topic have
evolved because there was a need to increase the likelihood of affirmative victory.
These changes in the activity have attained their objective.

At the championship level of high school debate it is not uncommon to find the
affirmative winning a decisive percentage of rounds. This imbalance is heightened in
rounds judged by college debaters. often the negative debater finds him/herself
dumbfounded by a judge's, decision. Many judges vote affirmative in instances either
when the affirmative has minimal significance or because of a negative failure to win a
disadvantage.

The time has come to rectify this imbalance, and increase the likelihood of negative
decisions. The negative must attempt to regain the ground lost to the affirmative
because of changes in debate.

One alternative that merits thought by the disgruntled negative debater and his/her
coach is the "topical counterplan." The concept is quite simple -- the negative is
allowed to argue topical counterplans to the affirmative examples. This would allow
the negative to suggest that a different branch of the federal government should be the
agent implementing the change, or that an alternative change would be a superior
alternative to that advocated by the affirmative. The standard for comparing the
systems is the competitiveness of the two alternatives in question. At this point, I
would like to stress that the negative should not use the topical counterplan, or any
counterplan unless they are competitive with the affirmative policy alternative (see
Steve Mancuso's article for a discussion of competitiveness). Although the strategy
chosen should be adapted to the specific team and judge in question, the topical
counterplan does serve to markedly increase the choice of options available to the
negative. This essay will outline traditional arguments against the topical counterplan,
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 the
activity is to discuss the merits of adopting the resolution. 1/ With this perspective,
the affirmative woul7 assert that any acceptance of the resolution dictates an
affirmative ballot. In reality, we have not debated the merits of the resolution for
years. With the advent of policy debate, the debater found him/herself discussing the
values of an affirmative example. The policy systems paradigm expects the affirmative
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 in
their totality. After a year of debating a resolution a logical conclusion would be that
some of the examples are valid and others are not. Therefore, how could one evaluate
the truth of the resolution? Does one count the total number of true and false
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" or
"false" (this is a function of a proposition of fact) -- they are desirable or undesirable
based on the system of values adopted. The more specific a policy alternative is, the
more thoroughly its desirability can be evaluated, hence debating specific plans are
preferable to debating general resolutions.

To open the discussion to the value of the entire resolution would subject the debate
community to superficial analysis, such as counter warrants. The problems of this
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 merely
has to guess which of the infinite number of resolutional alternatives the affirmative
has failed to show are desirable. The policy presented in first affirmative becomes
secondary to the convoluted disadvantages presented in second negative. This policy
(counter warrants) reduces the clash in the round to the responses delivered in IAR
and the answers provided in 2NR.

Another argument in support of the resolution serving as the basis for discussion is
that it divides the ground between the affirmative and the negative. This position
makes an implicit assumption that there is an intrinsic value or direction to a
resolution. As recent topics have pointed out, there does not necessarily have to be
direction in a resolution. Under the energ .y topic, for example, one affirmative could
increase the use of nuclear power and another affirmative team could embody the
resolution by banning it. The trade topic allowed the affirmative to either increase or
decrease protectionism. This year an affirmative could change the due process
requirements of PL94-142 (Handicapped Education Act) which would increase
parental influence over education. A second affirmative team could reduce parental
influence over schools by protecting school libraries from censorship.

In debate the affirmative alternative and the resolution are no longer synonymous.
The assumption that the resolution divides the affirmative and negative springs from
the belief that the affirmative example and the resolution are one. The lack of direction
in topics renders this assumption meaningless. This non-directionality of resolutions
leaves the negative with very little non-topical ground to argue from. The more
options the resolution encompasses, the less negative choice there is.

Non-directionality renders suspect the idea that the resolution can be affirmed even as
a broadly ideological statement. If examples of the resolution diametrically contradict
each other in terms of their effects and underlying values, the logical and analytic
feasibility of endorsing the resolution as a whole seems rather tenuous. Such
contradictory examples suggest that the resolution is already being used as a problem
area to be discussed, rather than as an actual statement meriting consideration in their
own right.

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

negative non-topicality serve as absolute rules of the game. Regardless of the merits of
a given resolution, the burdens of topicality and non-topicality remain with the
combatants. The affirmative would claim that without this rule debate could not
commence. This position assumes that the burdens of topicality are analogous to the
ethical burdens assumed in a falsification question. Falsification is a clearly ethical
question, and an absolute rule which is deserving of its position in debate hierarchy.
Topicality, however, differs dramatically from falsification. For a discussion of
topicality entails argumentative clash, not an absolute rules question. There is nothing
intrinsic to the presentation of an argumentative position that can be considered as a
violation of any ethical code. Topicality is the last in a long line of absolute voting
issues. The practices of plans in second affirmative only and debaters maintaining the
same speaker positions serve as additional proof of how "absolute rules" evolve to
little more than amusing historical anecdotes.

A third objection to the topical counterplan is the loss of the inquiry and research
functions of debate. I believe the opposite would result with the advent of the topical
counterplan. The affirmative debater and his/her coach would have to consider all
alternatives to their example of the resolution. The out-of-round kibbitzing that occurs
amongst members of the debate community would be enhanced by the introduction of
the topical counterplan. Students would not discuss fully all the possible alternatives to
the problem they isolate. Resolutions would no longer shield the ill-prepared debater
from meaningful discussion. The affirmative would be forced to fully discuss and
research the policy they present in a round. However, the team would not be
compelled to research an unlimited area, for the topic itself would serve to limit the
focus of study.

The introduction of topical counterplans into the debate process would not relieve the
negative from its research burden that results from a wide topic. The negative team
could not offer the same counterplan round after round, for the option presented must
be competitive with that presented by the affirmative. The negative cannot offer any
federal/national alternative to the example cited by the affirmative. The standards of
competitiveness would demand that distinct policies be compared. Constrained by a
standard of competitiveness, the negative will be forced to research the problem area
more thoroughly.

A fourth objection to the topical counterplan is that it would allow the negative to
make minor alterations in the affirmative plan. By subjecting debate to the
consideration of minor alterations, the real world implications of debate would be lost.
I do not believe that the topical counterplan would reduce debate to the mere
exchange of trivial facts and figures.

If the alternative presented by the negative does not compete with the example
claimed in first affirmative, there is no reason why the affirmative could not
incorporate the minor alterations into their plan, or why both plans could not be
adopted simultaneously.

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

presumption would be with the affirmative interpretation. For it is the affirmative that
defines the problem area by presenting their interpretation of the resolution in the first
affirmative. The affirmative policy option serves as the basis of discussion, thus it
gains presumption. Just as in a traditional debate round it is assumed the status quo
will resolve a problem, in a round in which a topical counterplan is presented the
affirmative plan serves as the best solution to a problem until it can be proven to be
inferior. It is the negative's responsibility to prove that there is a significant difference
between their policy and the affirmative's.

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

insignificant alteration from the present system their example of the resolution. The
debate community has accepted cases with less and less significance as "reasonable"
interpretations of the re solution. At the 1981 collegiate National Debate Tournament,
for example, a case that attempted to find one supposedly dead man in Russia was
considered worthy of an hour's discussion. It should be apparent that the problem of
what is significantly different" is not on that the negative has forced upon debate. In
any given round the judges could stipulate that to be legitimate a counterplan must be
substantially different from the affirmative alternative. This standard is no softer than
many others employed in debate and it serves to address the problem of trivial
changes.

If the negative does not envelop itself in a quagmire of trivial argument serious
discussion of regulatory issues would be enhanced by the topical counterplan. For
example the negative could propose a judicial solution to a problem in a resolution
which dictated federal action. The approach taken to solve a problem is often as
important as is the-discussion of the effects of a given policy. Raising the issue of
administration would also force the affirmative to defend the plan particulars
presented in first affirmative.

Perhaps the discussion of significance that would ensue with the acceptance of the
topical counterplan could serve to clarify the "presumption" question. (At what level of
change does one accept an alternative solution to the problem area?)

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

clash in rounds. With the ability to choose the best of options negative ground is
reasserted. For example, under the energy topic if the affirmative instituted nuclear
power the negative could now offer solar power as an alternative to solving the energy
crunch. Presently the negative is often forced to defend inferior non-resolutional
alternatives. To preclude the negative from advocating a competitive topical
alternative may very well beg the real policy questions.

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

the foundation and study counterplan. The judge is forced to serve as head of a
national foundation, or the lead researcher for the National Academy of Sciences.
Jurisdictional problems and tedious fiat questions would be removed from debate.

The topical counterplan could serve as the rationale for rejection of the affirmative
example. Even if judges lack the jurisdiction to implement a topical counterplan (a
somewhat preposterous judgment since s/he is assumed to have the ability to
implement a topical plan), the counterplan is still a reason reject the affirmative plan.
By this rationale the affirmative plan should be sent back to the committee ( and
personally rejected) until it is given in its optimal form.

The topical counterplan mitigates against the huge advantage that is provided
affirmative by directionless topics. The negatives would now enjoy the same
educational benefits of a wide topic that the affirmative currently enjoys.

The enhancement of the policy making paradigm in debate is also a justification for
the topical counterplan. Lichtman and Rohrer note: "The process of policy argument
inherently requires a comparison of Policy systems to determine their relative merit."
3/ In this Paradigm the affirmative team wins the judge's ballot if their policy Option
is superior to other options. Action is taken only after it can be proven that the policy
in question is superior to all other alternatives. 4/

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

engage in meaningful argumentation, as it removes frivolous discourse from the
round. The artificial constraints of the topic often reduce the negative to defending
inconsistent and often unthinkable alternatives. The topical counterplan in many cases
would make the notion of fifty states acting in union less attractive. The debates would
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 not
so readily concede the issue of topicality, regardless of the arguments presented in
defense of topical counterplans. The negative should present a standard of
reasonableness in determining the non-topicality of a counterplan. The standard for
reasonableness states that all a negative need be is non-topicality of a counterplan. The
standard of reasonableness states that all a negative need be is topical at some level. In
recent years, the standard of reasonableness has come to be accepted norm in
determining the topicality of the affirmative plan. To be fair to the negative team, a
similar standard of topicality should apply to both sides of the advocacy question.

Essentially, there exists three justifications for a standard of reasonableness. First, there
is no one correct interpretation of the resolution, therefore, application of one set
standard would vary and be arbitrary -from round to round. The negative, like the
affirmative, need only provide a reasonable definition of the proposition.

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

Although there are problems with this concept, the benefits derived are enormous. The
student learns about a wide range of subjects, and hopefully not at the expense of
argumentative depth. The solution to the problems incurred by a wide topic is not
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 for
counterplans would seem to be appropriate.

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

counterplan is that the judge grants an advocate presumption in terms of the ground
on which s/he stands. Thus, the counterplan would only have to be Don-topical at one
of several levels that would be presented by the negative in a round. A strict standard
(meaning any hint of topical implications) of topicality would be an unfair standard to
impose upon the negative.

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

effects. If a problem lies entirely within the jurisdiction of the federal government, any
solution to the Problem would be considered topical. For example, if the topic called
for alteration in Human Services by the federal government, the negative would be
limited in their position against a Social Security case. Social Security falls only within
the jurisdiction of the federal government and the federal topic could prohibit the
negative from any federal agent. The negative would be reduced to a defense of the
present system. Any counter action by the negative would effect the federal
jurisdiction over Social Security, thus it would be topical. By the effects standard, a
negative team could never win a counterplan unless topical alternatives were allowed.

The effects standard also tends to be extremely subjective. The effects standard
requires some level Of solvency before topicality can be determined. The judge must
determine the level of solvency the counterplan achieves and determine if that
solvency level is significant, before the question of counterplan topicality is addressed.
This standard allows a semi-short counterplan to be topical one round and not the
next, thereby leading excessive subjective argumentation into the debate setting.

As stated earlier, the affirmative team ha, been gaining more of an advantage from
recent debate theory applications. The topical counterplan could be a useful tool for
the negative in gaining loss ground during the present era of broad topic . A
questioning of the theoretical underpinnings of counterplan topicality finds them to be
extremely suspect, as they increasingly assure affirmative success at the expense of the
theory-bound negative team. The topical counterplan would seem to enhance
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.