Except unless the neg runs a counter plan then they are supporting the status quo. They are saying that nothing should change. Not because there are other solutions (with exception of CP) but because the SQ should be kept.
The Negative negates the resolution. That can
mean supporting the status quo, but it doesn't have to - they could run a counterplan, as you say.
But as I've been saying, it makes no difference whether you run an opportunity cost argument as a DA or a counterplan. It's the exact same argument either way. The debate is about the factual truth of the resolution; officially "supporting/advocating" or "not supporting/advocating" a proposal doesn't change the facts involved. Whether the Negative officially advocates the proposal as a CP has no impact on whether it proves the resolution factually wrong.
_________________Abe bimuí bithúo dousí abe
- "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free"COG 2016 generics-only sourcebook
- NCFCA/Stoa (thread)Factsmith research software
- v1.4 currently available (thread)Loose Nukes debate blog
- stuff to read with your eyes.