Defeating the State Counterplan

 CX Strategy Session

Defeating the State Counterplan

The state counterplan is a popular negative strategy on this year's topic.  A state counterplan has the 50 states enact the affirmative plan rather than the federal government.  As the affirmative, there are four key responses you should make in your 2AC each time you debate a state counterplan.  The arguments form the easy-to-remember acronym STOP: Solvency, Theory, Offense and Permutation.  We discuss each type of argument below:

1. Solvency. Affirmatives should argue that the counterplan does not solve the advantages of the 1AC. Affirmatives can also read new add-on advantages in the 2AC that only the United States federal government can solve. International advantages such as modeling are advantages that only the United States federal government can solve. Action on the federal level is necessary for other nations to model U.S. energy policy. Affirmatives can also argue that soft power is an advantage that requires federal action. If affirmatives want to improve U.S. image around the world by increasing the use of alternative energy, they can claim that federal action is necessary for it to be perceived by the world as a U.S. policy. In addition, other solvency arguments may apply to certain groups that state action will not affect. For example, if the plan implements a carbon tax, affirmatives can argue that only the federal government has the authority to tax Native Americans, the military and nonprofit organizations. A state counterplan would not solve the entire affirmative because these groups would be exempt from a state-level carbon tax. In other cases, affirmative can argue that the commerce clause limits the states' ability to act on many electricity issues that cross state lines. Whatever your case, try to find a reason the federal government can be more successful than the states at solving your advantages.

2. Theory. Theory arguments are analytical arguments that often claim that counterplans are unfair or decrease the education of debate. One theory argument affirmatives may want to make against state counterplans is that they are artificial and unrealistic. It is highly unlikely that all of the 50 states would pass similar energy policies at exactly the same time. Realistically, states do not have an incentive to enact an energy policy because energy is a public good. If a good is a "public good" one person's consumption of it does not diminish another person's ability to consume it. Clean air, for example, is a public good. My enjoyment of it does not diminish your enjoyment and vice versa. Moreover, because a public good can be consumed by everyone, it cannot be restricted to those who help produce it. Thus, I can enjoy clean air even though I may have contributed notion to the effort to make it clean.

Many of the advantages the affirmative is trying to achieve through increased use of alternative energy, such as climate change and air pollution reduction are public goods.  Economic theory says that public goods will be under produced by the private sector because producers cannot capture the full benefits of their creation.  Because of this, a single federal actor is needed. 

As the affirmative, you can point out that there is no research available for either side of the state counterplan debate because it is an unrealistic scenario.  Evidence should be the bedrock of debate.  Without evidence, debate becomes my assertion vs. your assertion and the educational value of debate decreases.

3. Offense. Affirmatives should also run offense to the counterplan. Offense can be additional advantages the counterplan cannot solve or disadvantages to the counterplan. Affirmatives may choose to run a regulations disadvantage against state counterplans. Even if all of the states did decide to pass the affirmative plan, their regulations would differ slightly from state to state. The negative team might even strengthen this argument if they claim that state action is superior to federal action because it allows states to innovate. If each state gets to create its own slightly different regulations, businesses will have higher compliance costs as they try to meet varying standards. Affirmatives can argue that uniform standards are better for business.

4. Permutation. In order for a counterplan to be legitimate it must be competitive with the affirmative plan. Counterplans can be competitive by being mutually exclusive, meaning the counterplan cannot exist with the affirmative plan, or through net benefits, meaning the counterplan should not exist with the affirmative plan. State counterplans are competitive through net benefits since it is possible for both the states and the federal government to enact an energy policy at the same time.

A permutation is a test of competition.  When you permute the plan and the counterplan you do both the plan and the counterplan.  If the permutation achieves an advantageous combination, the counterplan is not competitive.  If the permutation fails, the counterplan is competitive.  If the permutation fails, the affirmative does not have to defend it throughout the round. A permutation is only a test, not an advocacy. 

Affirmatives permute the plan and the counterplan because the perm may be able to shield the affirmative plan from a link to the disadvantage.  If both the states and the federal governments act at the same time, it may cover up the federal government's link to the disadvantage.  Also, perms may solve more of the affirmative case than the state counterplan can alone.  For example, if only the states acted, certain groups such as Native Americans on reservations may not be affected, but if both the states and the federal government act at the same time, Native Americans would be affected.  In this case, the permutation would solve best. 

Remember the acronym STOP and make each of these arguments the next time you hear a state counterplan.