I am the MG. When I hit a CP, the MO's answer to the MG's perm is typically that the CP is "competitive" through net benefits because it is better than the perm due to DAs that link to the plan but not to the CP.
What's up with that? If valid, it prevents gov from weighing advantages vs. disadvantages because opp uses the CP to non-unique the advantages. I articulate competition as follows:
"Gov's advocacy is a statement. A gov ballot is agreement with that statement. An opp ballot is agreement with the opposite of that statement, not agreement with whatever statement opp arbitrarily advocates. Because opp cannot access gov's advantages via any advocacy that contradicts gov's, an opp vote is a vote against the advantages. Vote neg only if the disadvantages outweigh the advantages."
In my experience, this is unpersuasive. Should I articulate it differently? Do I need to argue that this is fairer or more educational than letting opp use non-competitive CPs to non-unique gov's advantages? Should I concede that the CP non-uniques gov's advantages and attempt to perm in a way that de-links from the DAs?
Ok, Good question. The opp's job is to say that we should NOT do the plan. For what reason you should reject is up to the neg. If the neg had to always just oppose every word the gov said, it would just become a contradiction fest. This is why their are counter plans and Kriticks. So that the neg can grant part of the case but still oppose the plan. So even if the plan and counter plan are not mutually exclusive, as long as you can propose a better alternative to the plan and doing the plan will ruin that alternatives solvency, the CP is competitive. One thing you should do is run solvency presses along with a disad against the CP. You can write it CP specific or write some generic ones. For example: a consult bad DA. Then run conditionality bad. Now you have offense against the CP and if they try to kick it you have proven abuse of the CP bad cause you rad the disad against the CP.