Tim Sanders, Loyola-Marymount University

1984 - Waging War on Poverty

The purpose of this article is to increase discussion of counterplan theory. Over the past few years several papers have been written about counterplans but this article seeks to deal specifically with the issue Of competition. Because of the increasing role of counterplans, it is important that substantial thought be given to competition and that its argumentation be refined. That is the purpose of this article, which presents an affirmative strategy against counterplan competition. This article should be equally useful to negatives in preparing to defend counterplan competition.

There are several reasons that affirmatives should increase their sophistication in arguing competition. First, on an educational level, competition is an absolute must. Many teams, because they do not utilize counterplans, have thus given insufficient attention to counterplan theory. Judge intervention against counterplans is not the appropriate way to deal with abusive or non-applicable counterplans. Appropriate use of counterplans can only result from proper argumentation on the part of affirmative teams. Second, counterplans are a legitimate part of any policy analysis. To limit discussion to what exists and exactly one alternative is artificial, and, frankly, Cro-Magnon. In the real world the complex mind demands the examination of multiple alternatives, and debate should not except itself. As an educational forum, debate should attempt to parallel real world policy analysis in this respect in order to provide appropriate analytical skills. Conditional and generic counterplans do create special concerns. Without specifically examining the legitimacy of such counterplans, it seems apparent that, in general, counterplan theory is appropriate to the debate process. The best defense against abusive and generic counterplans, then, is solid competition analysis.

This article is organized into three sections. The first section provides a general framework by defining competition. Criteria are advanced to establish jurisdictionality, the presumption claim and the requirement that all negative competition standards must conform to the affirmative definition of competition. The second section develops the concept of extra-competition. The last section outlines the use of permutation. The arguments presented in this article are only as credible as the logic that supports them. It is important to remember in debate that there are no rules, no authoritative "debate" evidence, only analysis by people in the activity. It is the responsibility of each debater to develop authentic reasons for his/her theoretical positions

Section One: Conceptual Framework for Competition

The definition of competition that this writer defends is simple and straightforward. Competition is a burden that requires a counterplan be an intrinsic reason to reject the affirmative plan. The resolution of the competition issue is to be determined with this requirement in mind. Competition's root word is obviously "compete," and this definition is an applied use of the word. In short, the competition burden is part of a larger requirement that a counterplan be superior and competing, or in direct conflict, with an affirmative plan.

This definition of competition is appropriate for several reasons. First, this definition is consistent with the demands of logic. For a counterplan truly to be a voting issue, it must be an intrinsic reason to reject the affirmative plan. If the superiority of the counterplan comes from exclusion not intrinsic to the affirmative, it is contrived. To argue that positions don't have to be true is not only to defy logic but to detract from the usefulness of debate. If one can eliminate artificial arguments, the focusing of issues becomes easier. in counterplan rounds that are "messy" it's the artificial argument that usually breeds the "junkfest." The use of buzzwords such as "intrinsic" and "searching for truth," leads some people to associate this argument with hypothesis testing. While the requirement of intrinsic clash may be consistent with hypothesis testing, its roots lie in all paradigms. All paradigms share the necessity for logical, truthful argumentation. Even games theory, for example, requires play by logical rules. An attack against the paradigmatic assumptions of this argument does not undermine the "intrinsic" position itself. This argument does not depend on the assumptions of hypothesis testing of a scientist searching for the truth of the resolution. Instead it is applicable to any decision-maker and focuses on the plan and not the resolution.

This definition is also justified because it brings the counterplan in line with other traditional negative burdens. All arguments, disadvantages, plan-meet-needs, and counterplans are basically reasons to reject the affirmative. By explicitly requiring the counterplan to meet this same burden, the affirmative has only stated the obvious. Once a definition of competition is established, exterior criteria must follow.

Affirmative criteria are applied in the same way as the negative utilizes topicality standards. The criteria will serve to provide a framework for a judge to use in determining the competition of a counterplan. There are several compelling reasons why competition criteria are important. An affirmative should argue standards that will serve to bolster their arguments against competition. This part of the game involves beating the negative to the punch. Affirmatives can be sure that if they don't offer criteria for competition, the negative will. Many negatives lack competency in competition theory but they slide by because affirmative teams don't aggressively pursue the issue. Affirmative criteria turn the tables. In this situation many negative teams will under-allocate answers to the criteria themselves, leaving the affirmative in the driver's seat in rebuttals. In short, an affirmative arguing competition without criteria, is like arguing Malthus without answers to overcompensation. To make any of the following arguments viable, the underlying theory of competition must be thoroughly understood.

One basic criterion for competition is that of jurisdictionality. This Position argues that competition is a jurisdictional issue, analogous to topicality in that both burdens exist to limit the scope of discussion. Just as a resolution defines a "jurisdiction" that the affirmative must operate within, competition demands that the counterplan be within the jurisdiction established by the affirmative. If the affirmative's jurisdiction is unreasonable, the negative can simply argue topicality. The purpose of this criterion is to maintain affirmative ground in a counterplan round. Since competition is jurisdictional, the negative has the burden to prove the relevance of their counterplan. one point must be made, however. If an affirmative argues that competition is reciprocal to topicality, they must be certain that their affirmative case is consistent with the standards they establish. The heavier the burden they place on the negative to establish competition, the better position the negative will be in to argue strict topicality standards. If the affirmative case is "down the middle" of the topic, they can afford to establish strict competition standards.

A second criterion argument to be made Of competition is the presumption claim. In a counterplan round, presumption against competition is affirmative. Just as presumption against the affirmative plan is negative, its reciprocal assignment lies against competition in a counterplan round. The negatives presumption against the affirmative plan is assigned due to the risk of change. Similarly, the affirmative's presumption against the competition of a counterplan lies in the risk of exclusion. Excluding a desirable policy intellectual risk, and it is the negative's duty to justify such exclusion. This position serves, just as traditional presumption does, as a tiebreaker in a close round. There are those who contend there is never a "tie" in debate, but that doesn't make presumption irrelevant. Many judges find themselves with

a battlefield on their flow, looking for an easy way out. Presumption resolves messy rounds. If the affirmative has presumption on competition, the negative must be clear on the issue. This argument is designed to answer the negative's claim that they only have to win one standard, or that the 1AR only has to drop one "blip." The presumption argument says the negative must clearly win a justified standard.

A third criterion is found in the application of the definition of competition. cAn affirmative can argue that all negative competition standards must be an intrinsic reason to reject the affirmative. The impact of this argument is to weed out "junk" competition arguments. Frequently, a first negative will recite half of the alphabet under his or her competition underview, but the affirmative can weed most of this garden by applying the above definition.

Section Two: Extra-Competition

Extra-competition is an argument that correlates to extra-topicality. This argument contends that certain parts of the counterplan are "extra" competitive, and the resulting advantages from those parts of the counterplan must be ignored. An obvious example is found in funding planks. An affirmative cannot legitimately claim advantages from extra-topical funding planks. A similar application of extra-competition is possible. If a negative funds their counterplan with a ten percent increase in taxation on cigarettes and alcohol, they cannot claim reduced consumption as an advantage because it would be extra-competitive. The easiest way to remember the mechanics of this argument is by looking at it as 'extra-topicality in drag." Unfortunately, not all cases of extra-competition are as obvious as the above example. Before examining additional examples of extra-competition, it is necessary to justify the standard.

The first rationale for extra-competition is found in the notion of reciprocity. The standard of reciprocity assumes that division of ground in a debate should be fair and equitable. If a negative is allowed to establish ground rules that make the round "unfair" to the affirmative, then the debate itself loses any value. If inequity were acceptable in the format and rules of debate, then speaking time might vary. The negative would undoubtedly argue that the 1AR should only get two minutes while the 2NR gets twenty. That is not allowed within the formal structure of debate because it is not an equitable distribution of time. This same principle of reciprocity supports the extra-competition argument. If the negative is given a particular privilege or voting issue in a round, the affirmative must have some correlative right. Given the precedent for reciprocation, the negative will be hard pressed to defend an unfair assignment of privileges in a given debate round. This is particularly true if the affirmative carries the analysis to its logical conclusion. If the negative supports uneven assignment of privileges, the affirmative would be justified in arguing for an extra minute in the 1AR because of the nature of the negative block. If this occurred the negative would "scream bloody murder" at the unfairness the affirmative suggests. This "shoe on the other foot" analysis should serve to make the reciprocation argument extremely clear to both sides in a given a debate.

Since reciprocation is a reasonable request, its application to competition should be obvious since all parts of the affirmative plan that gain advantages must correlative burden should be placed on a negative policy position. Earlier in this article it was established that competition and topicality were parallel in that they served to demarcate a particular jurisdiction within which teams must operate. Therefore, for jurisdictional purposes the burdens of extra-competition should be the same as those for extra-topicality. All negative counterplan advantages must stem from competitive parts. If this were not the case a negative would ban the affirmative in plank 1, feed the starving millions in plank II and win a convincing victory against a less significant case. This would not promote clash or educational values. Although some counterplans are not this blatant in their "abuse," the same burdens should exist.

These affirmative strategies can be particularly effective against conditional counterplans. If the negative contends that extra-competitive advantages should be taken into account, the affirmative might choose to amend the plan, conditionally, and add an extra-topical provision that outweighs the ,Counterplan. This move would be no less unacceptable than letting the negative use extra-competitive parts of the counterplan to supply a "reason to reject" the affirmative plan. Even if this strategy by the affirmative doesn't win the round, it can force the negative to take a consistent and equitable position in the round. This is not a recommended approach, merely an option to remind negatives that the winds of trickery blow both ways.

Finally extra-competition serves to prevent false exclusion. This is especially true in a systems or agent of change counterplan. If solvency of the counterplan is pinpointed and then analyzed from the standpoint Of competition, the affirmative can more easily defend themselves. False exclusion, as was previously explained, is the rejection of one plan for an alternative, which in fact, they could both co-exist. extra-competition cuts to the heart of what is competitive and discards the rest as irrelevant. This weeding-out process makes clip round clearer and reduces the risk of false exclusion.

Once an extra-competition argument is made, its impact must be argued as well. It would be unwise to argue that one extra-competitive counterplan plank means the that the entirety of the position must be rejected. This is because reciprocation runs both ways. If the affirmative can reject a counterplan because one part is extra-competitive, the negative has the right to claim that one extra-topical plan provision is an absolute issue. Therefore, the impact of extra-competition should be in line with what the affirmative is willing to pay on extra-topicality. It is best argued that all extra-competitive parts of a counterplan should be severed, leaving the remaining portions intact. Once the counterplan is cleansed of its extra-competitive parts, a re-examination takes place. If the counterplan, once viewed, no longer maintains any advantage, the argument is a reason to reject the counterplan. This argument should not cut against any affirmative if they have written their plan correctly, since affirmative advantages should always stem from topical planks. This is consistent with the negative arguments that extra-topical advantages are irrelevant and cannot be used as a reason to adopt the plan, thus reciprocity is maintained.

The severing of extra-competitive parts of a counterplan can often be a fatal blow. Two examples make this point obvious. If, under a resolution that requires all injuries from hazardous waste to be compensated, a negative offered a counterplan that compensates all injuries except mental anguish, extra-competition could be applied. Using the previous analysis, the only part of the counterplan that is competitive is the part that makes the exception; the other parts are not. The counterplan then only prohibits compensation of mental anguish and nothing else. Now the affirmative can weigh their case advantage versus what counterplan advantage remains. In other words, the part of the counterplan that "compensates everyone but those claiming mental anguish" is extra-competitive, because the affirmative compensates all of those same people in their plan as well. A second example is found with what is known as "handwritten" competition. This is the one sentence that is written in one minute before the first negative stands up that bans the affirmative. while the negative will claim that the entirety of the counterplan is competitive, only the part that bans the affirmative actually is. All remaining advantages are liquidated, and the only position the negative is left with is that the plan should be banned. The negative argumentation is circular, and they would have been better off directly arguing the case and disadvantages. To make it extremely clear how extra-competition analysis can assist affirmative teams in answering counterplans, additional examples assuming the employment topic will be presented.

One possible counterplan on this year's topic will be a balanced budget amendment. This would freeze all spending and immediately balance the budget to promote economic growth. This counterplan's competition would be claimed at the resource level. Since all government programs would be frozen, the affirmative's costly program would be prohibited. Using extra-competition analysis, an affirmative can reduce this counterplan to a mere cost disadvantage. The only part of the counterplan that is competitive is the part that prohibits funding for the affirmative. The other parts, that trim the military budget and other non-related programs, would be extra-competitive. It would be possible that money could be appropriated for full employment and at the same time that funding could be reduced for the military or across the board. Since the only part of the counterplan that is competitive is the prohibition of affirmative funding, all other advantages are irrelevant. According to this analysis no advantage could be claimed from balancing the budget overall, only for the money saved by prohibiting the affirmative plan. Again, the negative counterplan has been brought full circle to reveal only a spending disadvantage.

Another counterplan might be adoption at the state level. However, those Darts of the counterplan that are competitive are only the parts that prohibit the federal government from mandating state action. The part of the counterplan that adopts the affirmative in federal jurisdictions, such as Washington D.C., would be extra-competitive. It is possible that states would adopt the proposal within their jurisdictions and the federal government would do the same within the federal jurisdictions simultaneously. Therefore, all advantages that assume implementation within federal jurisdictions are extra-competitive. The affirmative could then weigh the need for uniformity, or more specifically the need for the affirmative plan in Washington D.C., against the federalism advantage of the counterplan. While this argument may not completely defeat the counterplan, it is a strategy that can increase the affirmative's chances of victory.

This section has discussed the issue of extra-competition in the context of past resolutions as well as this year's tovic. Each affirmative team should look at a counterplan and first determine what parts, if any, are competitive. Next, see if the advantages stem from those competitive oarts. If the advantages come from somewhere else, the affirmative can sidestep them and save considerable time and effort. This approach also clearly identifies the affirmative advantages not achieved by the counterplan. The unique affirmative advantages can thus more easily be weighed against the unique counterplan advantages.

Section Three: Permutation

This section will discuss how the affirmative can use permutation to argue against counterplans. Permutation will be defined for the purposes of this article as the hypothetical restructuring of the counterplan so as to maintain all of its advantages and allow for the simultaneous adoption of the affirmative plan. Basically, permutation is an assumption for the purpose of determining competition. Permutation is possible if the counterplan is designed to compete structurally with the affirmative when the counterplan advantages are not inherently antithetical to affirmative advantages. Permutation is a test used to determine competitiveness.

Because permutation is the most complex argument in the field of competition, its definition must be clearly understood. An operational use of permutation will best clarify its true meaning. On last year's high school debate topic, several teams argued for a counterplan banning all criminal courts. The advantages to banning courts were such things as deterrence, socialism and even the guarantee of Sixth Amendment rights. In this instance, permutation would re-organize the counterplan to make way for the affirmative, without sacrificing the counterplan advantages. Suppose you are affirmative in a round where the negative has offered the court ban counterplan. The case you are defending deals with juvenile courts. Your permutation argument says that the counterplan can be reworded to ban all courts except the juvenile courts specified by the affirmative. It is now the negative's burden of proof to show that any of their counterplan advantages would be eliminated by this permutation. It is arguable that the preservation of the specified juvenile courts would not inhibit counterplan advantages. In this case adoption of both plans under the permutation would be optimal and eliminate the risk of false exclusion. What you essentially accomplish is the acid test of competition against a generic position. If the counterplan has no real conflict with the affirmative plan, the use of permutation will bear this out. If the negative in this round has no evidence linking any of their advantages specifically to the juvenile courts, they should lose this competition argument. The impact of permutation is to demonstrate the inability of the negative to meet your definition of competitiveness. If the counterplan can be permutated so as to co-exist with the affirmative at no sacrifice, then it is obviously not an intrinsic reason to reject the affirmative plan. While this argument seems logical on its face, an affirmative should provide substantive justification for the judge to conduct a permutation.

Permutation is a legitimate argument initially, because it maximizes truth and logic. If two policies could co-exist but don't due to reasons within one's control, a forced choice between the two would be the inappropriate action. To do this would be to act negligently, not exercising any concern for the best possible decision. The logic of permutation is that one should strive to maximize their "decision-making" so as to achieve the best of both worlds. If both the affirmative and the counterplan could coexist, all that is possible should be attempted to accomplish that. There is no conceivable explanation, other than a time or resource-based argument not relevant to debate, for a decision-maker to eliminate one proposal in favor of another if both were attainable.

Secondly, permutation is legitimate because it examines the root of the competition argument. If both plans could co-exist, then the question of competition is answered both in the abstract and the specific. If the negative has merely structured the counterplan to conflict artificially with the affirmative, this is demonstrative only of their desperation, not competitiveness. Competition must be an argument which places some duty on the negative. If the negative only had to write in a sentence banning the affirmative, they would always be competitive while at the same time eliminating clash. Affirmatives have the duty to go beyond merely putting a plank in their plan stating the resolution, and thereby becoming artificially topical. Permutation forces this same duty upon the negative to present counter plans which are genuinely inhibited by the negative counterplan advantages still remain, you have cut to the heart of this artificial argument. In this sense, permutation is a powerful weapon against attempted abuse hungry and desperate teams.

Finally, permutation becomes clear by examining its application to two counterplans that can be offered under this year's resolution. The balanced budget counterplan mentioned in the second section is vulnerable to permutation. This counterplan essentially freezes all funding, including funding for the affirmative plan. If you permutate the wording of the counterplan to freeze all funding except for the affirmative program, your plan and the counterplan could co-exist. The negative would have to then prove that the specific cost of the affirmative plan will destroy the "balanced budget" advantage. The negative is again left with a cost disadvantage and nothing more. This will force the negative's hand, to see if they have any evidence specific to your level and type of funding.

The assumption of permutation is also applicable to the decentralized socialism counterplan. This counterplan would eliminate all current institutions and set up regional and national cooperatives that determine policy. Private property would be banned and all the needs of the populace would be taken care of by the socialist organization. Negatives will claim competition because the affirmative utilizes current institutions, which would be eliminated under the counterplan. Your permutation would be to eliminate all institutions but those minimally necessary to implement the affirmative plan. The affirmative advantage is now accrued and a socialist system is simultaneously fiated into existence. The negative must prove that this one proposal would destroy a socialist system once established. If the negative reads evidence indicating that all institutions must be eliminated to reach socialism, it still ignores the permutation. Since competition asks only whether they could both co-exist, no time order is mandated. If the policy analyst first adopted the socialism counterplan and them implemented the affirmative plan, the assumptions of this evidence would be incorrect. This negative evidence does not assume the power of fiat. Instead, this evidence assumes that there must be a revolution leading to socialism, not one all encompassing use of fiat. The evidence merely indicates that the affirmative would inhibit the transition to socialism, not that it would necessarily inhibit the advantages if the plans were permutated and fiated into existence. Even if the negative infers some increment of the counterplan advantage would be lost, it must outweigh any unattainable advantage that the affirmative accrues. By this use of permutation the affirmative has tested the counterplan for competitiveness. The affirmative merely hypothetically modifies and simultaneously adopts both plans. After this modification is made the affirmative re-examines the advantages of the dual policy in comparison to the advantages of the counterplan alone. This net benefit analysis should resolve the competition issue.

Permutation should be a standard argument against any counterplan. The affirmative should always examine what parts of the counterplan could be modified so as to make the affirmative plan and the counterplan compatible. Then the affirmative should scrutinize the counterplan advantage to see if this permutation would cut against the advantage. If the test is "negative" and simultaneous adoption through permutation is more desirable, this constitutes an absolute argument against the counterplan. If permutation is possible the counterplan does create a false exclusion.

Conclusion

In approaching counterplans the affirmative should always establish their own ground and maintain control of the argumentation. One way to accomplish this is by arguing extra-competition or permutation as a separate argument rather than in response to the negative competition block. The affirmative will find it easier to extend the argument if it is made separately, but it should be applied specifically to the negative competition underview. This affirmative approach is a holistic position that subsumes all negative arguments on competition. Regardless of what the negative argues, according to the definition developed, the counterplan must still be an intrinsic reason to reject the affirmative plan. If the affirmative can establish that all advantages are extra-competitive or that permutation makes simultaneous adoption desirable, they will win the competition issue.

An affirmative should always keep in mind that competition is a burden placed on the negative in order to limit the scope of the debate. It functions in the same way topicality functions to limit the affirmative team. A negative can always challenge an affirmative on the topicality issue with elaborate standards and careful extension. The affirmative should seize the same opportunity against a counterplan. The competition burden is the shield that deflects the projectiles of contrived imagination. To lower that shield is suicidal.