Using Alternative Solutions on Opp
In a court of law, the defense does not need to provide an alternative solution. Their only job is to prove reasonable doubt. A similar maxim holds true in debate for the Opposition or Negative, in that the opposing side simply needs to prove that their opponents’ arguments are too flawed to accept.
However, sometimes using an alternative solution can make for a powerful counterpunch to the Government’s case.
For this year’s Novice Scrimmage, we recycled and updated one of my favorite motions, “This House would set maximum age limits for elected office.” To me, this is an all-timer, and I love how invested students are in the topic.
When we first ran this in October of 2023, an interesting counterargument for Opp emerged early on: “Why age limits? Why not term limits?”
This raised the question, “is Gov really providing the best solution to the problem?” If Opp can latch onto a counter like that, it can be a game-changer in a round.
Contention or Counterplan?
If an alternative solution is available, a team must weigh if it’s best to use it as a contention or a counterplan. There’s no wrong course of action here, so it might depend on the strength of the contentions you can come up with for Opp.
In other words, if you feel you have three solid contentions and don’t want to abandon any of them, introduce the argument as a counterplan. Be sure to mention it in the LOC, ideally before your contentions so they can enter the conversation with adequate time, and provide just enough logos to register with the judge.
“Our counterplan is to enact term limits rather than age limits, as we believe that this is a more effective measure in curbing the issue of older elected officials serving as gatekeepers to younger candidates. Enacting term limits in Congress will create a ripple effect leading to younger presidential candidates. We believe this path better balances the power within our government.”
If you think this works better as a contention, word it as such when introducing your arguments, and keep it concise. You’ll have time to elaborate later.
“Our third contention is that term limits provide a much more viable solution than age limits.”
Note: a counterplan should not contradict a contention. Make sure your reasoning is consistent throughout unless you want to make it an easy round for Gov.
Open the door with a POI
Look for an opportunity to bring your alternate solution into the discourse early, ideally somewhere between the Prime Minister’s first and second contention. How they answer yields a bit of a choose your own adventure game in how you address this with the judge in your clash:
“Wouldn’t you agree that term limits also provide a reasonable solution to the issues you raise?”
If the Prime Minister agrees, then you’ve caught them in a bear trap for later.
“When asked about term limits, the Prime Minister acknowledged that this measure would also serve to solve the problem. If that’s the case, why are we looking to penalize candidates over their age?”
If they disagree, you can flip the script.
“My opponent stated that age limits would be a better measure than term limits, but his plan still allows for members of Congress to serve multiple terms and stay in power far too long.”
If they take the diplomatic middle ground and say they support both, pose the question.
“Our opponents admitted they’d support age limits and term limits, but we have to ask ourselves if age limits are worth the cost of the problems they present.”
Remember, any POI you ask should be brought up again to help fortify your case. If not, it’s a missed opportunity.
Determining if there is another path
Here are some steps to figuring out if there is a better solution to a motion, and if it’s worth pursuing.
Identify the motion type and core problem. Policy is the most likely to yield possible alternatives, but motions with “prefers” or “regrets” may be more limiting.
Ask yourselves if Option B is something Gov might be overlooking. If so, it could be worth using in your favor.
Determine if there is feasibility and weight. Does this solution seem feasible? Since Opp doesn’t have to present solutions, choosing to do so must make sense and feel easy to execute. If it doesn’t, and if there isn’t enough “meat on the bone,” your thoughts might not land with a judge.
Most motions don’t present clear alternatives, so thinking outside the box and applying pre-existing knowledge can be helpful.
The Mutual Exclusivity Trap
There is one caveat to this approach: mutual exclusivity. If you are proposing a counterplan or an alternative solution of any kind, you have to make sure that it is mutually exclusive with what the Government is proposing. That is to say, what you are proposing is not something that can be done in addition to age limits.
This is tricky because technically, term limits could be passed along with age limits. There is a possibility that both measures could exist, and a sharp Gov team will point that out and say they'd happily support both.
That's where cost comes in. Even if both can exist, you can argue that doing both is worse than doing term limits alone. Once term limits open the door for younger candidates, age limits add little benefit while still pushing capable officials out over a number. The question isn't whether both measures can exist; it's whether age limits are worth their cost when a better tool is already on the table.
You have to read the room and read your opponents above all else. If they correctly mention mutual exclusivity, you're not stuck. Make the cost argument, and you may have just secured yourself an argument they can't find a way around.
The packet is not the Bible
Unlike other leagues, CDA has one motion for the entire competition. To help students, we provide a packet of multiple articles on the topic. But the answer won’t always be laid out cleanly.
In this most recent iteration of the age limits packet, only the first article mentions both “age caps and term limits.” Past that, there is nothing else in the subsequent articles that reference this possible solution, and the concept itself is not presented as a clear alternative path.
However, that doesn’t mean it can’t be utilized.
Prep can be stressful. One hour to digest as much as you can, develop arguments, weighing mechanisms, etc. But taking your time and thinking through something like this can unearth a true diamond in the rough that can be hard to argue against.
Don’t reinvent Opp
While this strategy is definitely worth considering, don’t rethink the role Opp plays in a debate too deeply. This is an exception that proves the rule. But, with a little nuance, sometimes the Defense can provide a smoking gun of their own.
