Kacey counterplan

The Kacey Counterplan is an interestingly designed, somewhat obscure, somewhat loony counterplan that the Negative team can run in Policy Debate. It could theoretically be used in other modes of debate, but with less application, and is therefore optimized for the Policy branch.

History
The Kacey Counterplan is of unknown origin, but it first was reportedly used in 1994, in response to ASPEC. The organization specified to enact the Plan was a non-governmental organization that specialized in risk education. The general idea was that it would send education to any geographic or political region currently risking its health or prosperity, by demonstrating the similar plight of others. This would then spur the victimized countries into acting as much as possible on their own, reducing the need for foreign aid. The shell has changed a bit in the 14 years since its reported conception to encompass more inherent international and political Status Quo observations, as well as the current Resolution.

The counterplan has varied theories as to its namesake. One is that it was named after its creator, but that is unverifiable because its original source has never been found. Another theory is that it is simply an acronym for "Kritiking Affirmative Case through Enterprising Yonder". A more widely accepted theory is that it was named for someone who was often criticized as being somewhat an apparent example of what one doesn't want to be. Again, like any Kacey Counterplan origin theory, it lacks any proof or validation, however, this last theory makes the most sense, since it could have been named after the person who inspired it.

Structure
The 1NC Kacey Counterplan shell is fairly slim. The whole argument is based around the assumption that education solves for all the Affirmative's harms. This can be backed up using a number of different sources that claim that education is key to solving any problem. The shell begins with a variation of the Plan Text: "The United States Federal Government should educate about the risks of continuing to rely on foreign aid. The USFG can then ." Then the shell can include various arguments and evidence in regards to net financial benefits, sustainability, and overall education. Education is cheaper than solving the problem, and with the region contributing as much as possible to its own well-being, the ultimate cost of the Plan would be reduced. Also, the region would be increasingly motivated to sustain its wellbeing longer if it is effectively educated on the risks of not doing so.

This counterplan is not designed or intended to be run solo. While reports of it being run for the entire Negative Block have surfaced occasionally, these are usually debunked shortly after. It can easily be run in conjunction with a generic spending disadvantage, and has often been successfully run with Malthusian ethics advocated in a separate world.

Advantages
As mentioned earlier, the Kacey Counterplan is very obscure, so most teams will not have sufficient resources to defend against it. However, the counterplan is not an international actor counterplan, and does not involve removing the Affirmative’s right to Fiat, because the Plan is eventually passed.

Affirmative Answers To
Most judges do not accept the Kacey Counterplan as legitimate because of its lack of documentation. For that reason, the Affirmative can usually win a well thought-out defense. Unfortunately, there are very few offensive arguments to run against the Kacey Counterplan, and virtually none that the Affirmative stands any chance of winning. However, a well put-together defense block containing cards about how education would not solve, or would make the problem worse, or would be a waste of time, are the Affirmative’s best bet. The only way the Kacey Counterplan competes is through net benefits, of which it has three (education, spending, and sustainability). If the Affirmative can strip each one away, the counterplan is reduced to a meaningless waste of time that would be better spent enacting the Plan before the Status Quo worsens. A good debater should be able to defend those answers, but the Affirmtive generally has the upper hand if it is well prepared. However, since the Kacey Counterplan is widely unexpected, most teams have very little if not no documentation to defend it, and often lose it on the flow, because they did not have adequate defensive cards.

Main Menu

See Also

Main Menu