Competition

Competition describes the method by which counterplans become legitimate arguments against the Affirmative plan. In order to be legitimate, a counterplan must "compete" with the Affirmative plan; that is, it must provide a reason why the Affirmative plan is bad, not just another nice option.

In general, there are two ways for a counterplan to become competitive: mutual exclusivity, where the counterplan fundamentally cannot be enacted at the same time as the Affirmative plan; and net benefits, where it is not net-beneficial to enact the counterplan at the same time as the Affirmative plan. In both cases, passing the Affirmative plan effectively removes the option of passing the counterplan; if the counterplan is a better idea than the Affirmative plan, passing the plan is the wrong choice, and the judge should vote Negative.

A permutation, or "perm", is a test of competition.

Examples
The Affirmative plan is to "go out to eat to McDonald's for dinner tonight." The Negative proposes a counterplan to "fast for the next 24 hours." The counterplan is competitive because it is impossible to do both the counterplan and the affirmative plan; it is mutually exclusive. If the counterplan is better than the Affirmative plan, it proves that eating at McDonald's is a bad idea.

The Affirmative plan is to "go out to eat to McDonald's for dinner tonight." The Negative proposes a counterplan to "cook a frozen pizza for dinner." The counterplan is competitive because it would not be good to eat two dinners; there is no value to the additional food yet it would be costly. It is not mutually exclusive, because it is theoretically possible to do both plans, but it is still competitive. If the counterplan is better than the Affirmative plan, it proves that eating at McDonald's is a bad idea.

The Affirmative plan is to "go out to eat to McDonald's for dinner tonight." The Negative proposes a counterplan to "eat ice cream for dessert." The counterplan is not competitive because it is neither mutually exclusive nor detrimental to enact both simultaneously. Even if the counterplan is better than the Affirmative plan, it doesn't prove that eating at McDonald's is a bad idea.

Textual competition
One specific application of competition is sometimes called "textual competition". It concerns counterplans that contain some or all of the Affirmative plan, with portions modified or added (e.g., plan-inclusive counterplans and plan-exclusive counterplans.) Because the identical parts of the plans don't compete, the counterplan only competes if the modified part competes. For example:


 * A counterplan is identical to the Affirmative plan, but adds an extra mandate (a "plan-plus" or "plan-inclusive" counterplan). The added mandate obviously does not compete with the rest of the plan, or else the counterplan would be self-contradictory (because it includes the rest of the plan.) Therefore, the counterplan is not "textually competitive".


 * A counterplan is identical to the Affirmative plan, but leaves out one of the mandates (a "plan-minus" or "plan-exclusive" counterplan). The removed mandate competes with the Affirmative plan, because it is mutually exclusive: you cannot both enact and not enact a mandate. Therefore, the counterplan is "textually competitive".


 * A counterplan is identical to the Affirmative plan, but changes one of the mandates. The changed mandate may or may not compete with the Affirmative plan, because it may or may not meet the mutual exclusivity or net benefits tests; it might be ideal to pass both the original mandate, and the changed mandate.