Topical Counterplans?

[Jim Hanson <HANSONJB@WPOFFICE.WHITMAN.EDU>]

      I'll throw in my two cents on whether topical counterplans are legitimate.
 I think topical counterplans are fine as long as the counterplan is
competitive with the resolutionally required mandates of the affirmative plan.
      I think topical counterplans are acceptable because, otherwise, on this
topic for example,  the negative could only defend the present system and
that may box the negative into ground that is just too difficult to defend. 
Plus, if the affirmative is going to advocate a change in one direction (say,
worse relations with Mexico), the negative should be able to say that we
should change in the other direction.
      At the same time, I do not like topical counterplans that are competitive
only with the logistical aspects of the affirmative plan.  Included in this kind
of counterplan are changing the board members, the funding, enforcement,
etc.  Such counterplans veer the debate from a discussion of whether or
not changing our foreign policy toward Mexico would be a good idea to
what is the best way to implement a new foreign policy.  In addition, they
can be incredibly abusive--as there is always some better person to put on
the board, some new funding mechanism, etc.

Jim Hanson
Whitman College

---

• Prev by Date: Mexico
• Next by Date: Mexico topic and topical CPs
• Prev by thread: Mexico topic and topical CPs
• Next by thread: Papa Smurf & benjamin
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page