Topical counterplan

A topical counterplan is a counterplan that could be run as a topical Affirmative case. Whether or not a topical counterplan provides a reason to vote Negative is one of the most controversial theory topics in NCFCA/Stoa debate.

Under the common rezcentrist framework, topical counterplans affirm the resolution, so they do not provide any reason to vote Negative. Many, however, feel that topical counterplans should provide a reason to vote Negative, and thus prefer an alternate resolutional interpretation like plancentrism or (most commonly) parametrics.

The congressional analogy
Proponents often use the analogy of Congress: if an immigration reform bill is on the floor of the Senate, it's a perfectly valid argument to say, "well, this immigration bill isn't a good idea, but this other immigration bill would be a good idea." Since "topical counterplans" are realistic and important arguments in real-life policymaking, proponents feel that they should also be allowed in academic debate.

Opponents argue that this analogy is flawed, because the resolution isn't asking about whether we should pass a specific immigration bill, it's asking whether we should pass an immigration bill at all. (This is obvious from the wording of the resolution.) If the analogy doesn't fit the theory, they argue, that doesn't mean the theory is flawed; that means the analogy is flawed. Debate must not be like Congress after all. One proposed alternate analogy is of a party-meeting prior to the legislative session, at which senators try to decide whether they should put forward an immigration bill that year. Senators may propose various bills, but saying "this one is bad, but that one is good" still affirms the initial question: should we try to reform immigration at all? Yes, we should. Vote Affirmative.

Real-world issues
Proponents argue that topical counterplans raise real-world issues that are educational and worth addressing. For example, if the Affirmative team abolishes nuclear weapons, it is perfectly reasonable for the Negative to counterplan with reducing nuclear weapons instead. Abolishing vs. reducing is an important, educational, real-world issue that merits an in-depth discussion.

Opponents argue that just because something is important doesn't mean it should be brought up in-round. The entire purpose of the resolution is to narrow the ground of discussion. Reduction vs. abolition may feel like a worthwhile issue, but it's not actually what the resolution is about (the resolution asks, "should we reform our nuclear stockpile?", not "how should we reform our nuclear stockpile?") Running a topical counterplan is like running a non-topical Affirmative case about smallpox in Africa; it may be important, but it's not relevant.

Increases Negative ground
Some proponents argue that topical counterplans provide more ground to the Negative, and that this is a good thing because rounds are automatically biased Affirmative. Affirmatives have more time to prepare their case, so giving more options to the Negative can help even things out.

Opponents respond that any bias towards the Affirmative varies with the resolution and judging pool, so it is not at all clear that the Negative needs more ground. Further, some argue that using subjective "round bias" as a basis for resolutional interpretation is a slippery slope. How do we decide how "unfair" something has to be to justify changing our entire theory system?

Encourages pointless argumentation
Opponents argue that allowing topical counterplans can encourage debaters to engage in pointless disputes over implementation details, rather than actually attacking the Affirmative plan. For example, a Negative team might run a counterplan that is identical to the Affirmative's plan, except for one mandate; the round would consist entirely of pointless arguments over picky implementation details, instead of actually discussing the merits of the plan. Topical counterplans, they argue, can provide an easy "out" for debaters who don't want to attack the Affirmative directly, thus decreasing the quality of discussion. (This is actually a serious problem in some leagues where topical counterplans are common.)

Proponents argue that there are other ways to discourage frivolous counterplans. For example, it may be possible to make competition arguments against counterplans that are nearly identical to the Affirmative's plan; or, debaters could ask the judge to vote down frivolous counterplans simply because they are frivolous. Thus, they argue, allowing topical counterplans does not necessarily degrade the quality of discussion.