PF Private Prison Evidence Template

Instructions/What is this?
Use this template to create your evidence packet for quick research and reference. You should highlight the
portion of the cards you want to read in the round. Additionally, you should create blocks for each
argument. A block is a pre-written combination of the analytics you use in the round plus the evidence to
back it up to answer your opponent. There is no need to reinvent the wheel in every round by re-writing
responses each time when you could write them beforehand and make sure they are well written.

Quick How-To:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Click on View, check Navigation Pane

Copy and Paste evidence in appropriate section
Create MLA citation with author qualifications in brackets
Create Tag using the Heading 1,2, or Subtitle Styles
Write your analytics (block) based on the evidence.

In-Round Use
Open a new Word document to use as a Speech Doc. You can Copy/Paste to this new document from
this packet. A new Speech Doc allows you to type/edit your analytics and show your opponents cards they
ask for without showing/flashing the whole evidence packet. Whether or not you use this Speech doc to
speak directly from is up to you, but having the evidence on a separate document is a must, because you
dont want your opponent having access to everything you have.
This also makes referring to evidence by name much easier. One thing Novice debaters MUST get away
from is saying things like:
I have a card that says or I have a quote that says
Using Evidence Effectively
Use more effective language. Refer to evidence by name and integrate it smoothly into youre your speech.
First, get use to calling it evidence, not card, this might help. Im guilty of this as well, but this
is a holdover from a different era. We dont make cards anymore.
According to the Langston 14 evidence
Look to our Langston 14 evidence that says _____ in response to their contention ____.
_____ from our Langston 14 evidence supporting our ______ framework clearly outweighs their
_______ evidence.
In your summary and final focus speeches write the ballot for the judge by articulating the
winning arguments through the lens of your framework. This keeps the important evidence and arguments in
the mind of the judge.
Remember: Facts alone are not sufficient to persuade. Reframing the debate in the mind of the
judge is mandatory. Frames without evidence are not persuasive either, however.

Pro: Ban Private Prisons

Private Prisons corrupt
Justice Policy Institute 11- While private prison companies may claim that changes in criminal justice
legislation are outside our control, 57 they are in fact engaged in a number of activities aimed at increasing their
control of the market; this includes applying political pressure to lawmakers, working to influence elections, and
building relationships within agencies or with government officials to directly formulate policy.
Since 2000, the three largest private prison companiesCCA, GEO and Cornell
Companiesihave contributed $835,514 to federal candidates, including senators and members of the House of
Representatives.59 Giving to state level politicians during the last five election cycles was much higher:
$6,092,331.60
Since 2003, CCA has spent upwards of $900,000 annually on federal lobbying. 79 In addition to direct political
giving and work on model legislation, companies like CCA and GEO continue to pay lobbyists hundreds of
thousands of dollars to promote their business interest in Congress.
these private prison companies have contributed over $600,000 to ballot measure campaigns since 2000. 76 Such
a wide range of state contributions by these companies indicates the attempt to influence both the public and
policymaking debate around criminal justice and the privatization of prisons.

Must Ban Private Prisons Now

Arizona Republic Editorial Board 14- Because most prisoners will return to our streets, the
public is best served when those convicted of crimes emerge from the criminal-justice system
able to abide by the law and function in society. Private prisons focus on filling prison beds
discourages alternatives to prison that might be more cost-effective and more likely to reduce
recidivism by achieving real rehabilitation.
Avian Shen 13-http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/06/21/2193261/three-states-dump-private-prison-company-in-one-month/
WE NEED TO BAN AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO STOP THE HORRIBLE CONDITIONS AND
UNNECESSARY DEATHS FROM PRIVATE PRISONS
State lawmakers who embraced private prisons as a cost-cutting measure are starting to have
trouble ignoring their abysmal conditions. Corrections Corporation of America, the largest and
most powerful private prison company in the nation, lost four prison contracts in the past month
after extensive reports of abuse, neglect, and even fraud within their operations.
Idaho cut ties with the corporation on Wednesday, which turned the states largest prison into a
violent hellhole inmates called Gladiator School. Earlier this year, CCA was caught
understaffing the prison and using prison gangs to control the population. The company
admitted to falsifying nearly 4,800 hours of staffing records to squeeze more money out of the
state for nonexistent security work. Shift logs at the prison showed the same security guards
working for 2 to 3 days at a time without breaks.
Texas closed two CCA prisons, including one with a history of suspicious prisoner deaths. One
lawsuit alleges prison staff ignored an inmates cries for medical assistance, forcing her to give
birth in a prison toilet to a baby that died four days later.
CCA was also booted from Mississippi earlier this month after multiple deadly riots over poor
food and sanitation, lack of medical care, and mistreatment by guards. PRIVATE PRISONS ARE
ABUSING HUMAN RIGHTS

Examples of bans or regulation (reg. doesnt work)

A2 Regulation
REGULATION IS ALREADY HAPPENING BUT NOT WORKING
Belluck New York Times 03-Ohio, Texas, Tennessee and several other states have enacted or
are considering legislation to control private prisons, some responding to lapses in these prisons
in their own states.
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/04/15/us/as-more-prisons-go-private-states-seek-tightercontrols.html
Some U.S. states have imposed bans, population limits, and strict operational guidelines on
private prisons:
WE NEED TO COMPLETELY BAN BECAUSES REGULATIONS HAVE NOT WORKED
Banning privatization of state and local facilitiesIllinois in 1990 (Private Correctional
Facility Moratorium Act), and New York in 2000, enacted laws that ban the privatization of
prisons, correctional facilities and any services related to their operation. Louisiana enacted a
moratorium on private prisons in 2001.
Banning speculative private prison constructionFor-profit prison companies have built
new prisons before they were awarded privatization contracts in order to lure state contract
approval. In 2001, Wisconsins joint budget committee recommended language to ban all future
speculative prison construction in the state. Such anticipatory building dates back to at least
1997, when Corrections Corporation of America built a 2,000-bed facility in California at a cost
of $80100 million with no contract from the California Department of Corrections; a CCA official
was quoted as saying, "If we build it, they will come".[60]
Banning exportation and importation of prisonersTo ensure that the state retains control over
the quality and security of correctional facilities, North Dakota passed a bill in 2001 that banned
the export of Class A and AA felons outside the state. Similarly, Oregon allowed an existing
exportation law to sunset in 2001, effectively banning the export of prisoners. Several states
have considered banning the importation of prisoners to private facilities.
Requiring standards comparable to state prisonsNew Mexico enacted legislation that
transfers supervision of private prisons to the state Secretary of Corrections, ensuring
that private prisons meet the same standards as public facilities but saw no improvement
in the facilities. In 2001, Nebraska legislation that requires private prisons to meet public prison
standards was overwhelmingly approved by the legislature, but pocket-vetoed by the governor.
Oklahoma passed a law in 2005 that requires private prisons to have emergency plans in place
and mandates state notification of any safety incidents.

Private Prisons save no money

Over the past 38 years corrections spending has increased to three times that of state spending on education. 126
There may appear to be an immediate cost savings compared to that of facilities run by a government, but longterm costs negate those savings.

Deckert and Wood, federal and state agencies [alike] that have found no evidence in support of the costeffectiveness of private prisons. Some of these include studies from the U.S. Government Accounting Office
(GAO 1996) the National Institute of Corrections (NIC 1998), the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA
2001), the Arizona Department of Corrections (2010), and the state of Florida (2010). These studies carry

far more weight than the majority of studies conducted either by correctional corporations or affiliated
organizations that have purported to find cost savings. (166)
Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, By purposefully limiting special-needs beds, private prisons offload
inmates requiring expensive medical care to the state system, at state expense. Further, poor medical care
means poor preventative care as well, once again costing the state more for medical care in the long run.
(155) private prisons dont care about the well-being of their inmates, only about their profit and
trying to seem good enough to be accredited.

Cause of overcrowding
Corrupt af tough on crime measures such as mandatory sentencing and three strikes laws have sent
more people especially people convicted of drug offenses 42 to prison, and keep them there longer, thus
increasing the total number of people in prison. Such sentencing policies have been a primary contributor to the
number of people in prison. 43
Abransky 2009 the war on drugs policies that focused on harsher penalties for crimes commit-

ted largely by inner city, ethnic minority groups as the primary cause of the increase in incar-ceration
rates. - the cause of increased incarceration rates is the war on drugs and three strikes laws
implemented by presidents

Private Prisons have an incentive to overcrowd facilities.

ACLU of Texas private companies have financial incentives to overcrowd the CAR prisons.
All of the contracts we reviewed contain occupancy quotas. The contracts stipulate that the
facilities must remain at or above 90% capacity. The contracts further provide Incremental Unit
Price payments for each additional prisoner above the 90% occupancy quota, up to
115% capacity.116 By the terms of the contract, the companies actually make more money by
admitting more prisoners from BOP than their facilities were designed to hold.

Accreditation not everything

HPD ISNT EVEN ACCREDITED, IT DOESNT MEAN ANYTHING IT JUST COST MONEY TO
BE REACCREDITED EVERY YEAR. PRIVATE PRISONS ARE ONLY TRYING TO BECOME
ACCREDITED TO LOOK BETTER THAN PUBLIC PRISONS.
Miller 2010 accountability, accreditation, some argue, offers false evidence of quality. Harding
writes "accreditation is plagued with a number of problems. The process does not require extensive
contact with prisoners or physical examination of the prison facilities. Audits are always scheduled well
in advance. Last, the ACAs primary source of income is fees collected from the prisons it audits.
Therefore, the ACA has some interest not to fail too many prisons, since it is dependent on them for
funding. Hambourger concludes, "it seems nave to look to accreditation as the solution to the
regulatory problems."

Private Bad for Tax Payers

It is no wonder that CCA spent over $12 million dollars between 2002 and 2012 lobbying for
policies that protect their bottom line and keep pro-privatization politicians in office. The AP
reports, the industrys giants Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), The GEO Group,
and Management and Training Corp. have spent at least $45 million combined on campaign
donations and lobbyists at the state and federal level in the last decade.

The private prison industry is very lucrative for those at the top. CCA brought in $178 million in
2012 and GEO brought in $78 million. Over 40% of CCAs total revenue comes from federal
contracts. That is tax payers dollars lining the pockets of these companies.
It is obvious to see that the private prison industry is a loss for taxpayers. We are overpaying
for services with lockup quotas, while they collect massive profits from slave labor camps
inside the prisons.

Slave Labor Camps are a rip off for prisoners

Liz Iacobucci - talked about these atrocities before in the NH Labor News post, Another thing
that went wrong in the Bush Economy. That post describes how inmates in Arizona are forced
to work for $2.00 an hour while CCA takes 30% to offset their incarceration costs and the state
takes another 30% for legal costs. That means inmates are being forced to work for about $.80
cents and hour. In state prisons they would receive 30% more for their hard work.
http://nhlabornews.com/2013/09/private-prisons-your-tax-dollars-hard-at-work-lining-thecorporations-pockets/

Less Deaths
The number of inmates who died while in the custody of state prisons declined from 3,414 in
2009 to 3,232 in 2010, for a total decrease of 5%, which is the largest decline in the number of
prison deaths since the DCRP began collecting prisoner mortality data in 2001.
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4558 Bureau of Justice Statistics

Unions good
Miller 2010 Unions offer a level of stability and training requirements not present in private
prisons.

A2: Regulation Solves

A2: Overcrowding
Anderson 2009 The recent surge in corrections privatization is largely a product of the

Governments choice to build new facilities to accommodate large inmate populations, rather than
address the root causes of overcrowding.31 Drastic rises in incarceration rates are attributable not to
increased criminal activity Instead of repealing ineffective and costly criminal laws, which may
be a politically unpopular solution, many lawmakers continue to support new prison construction as
a means to accommodate the influx of prisoners convicted and sentenced under these draconian
measures.37

Answers to Con Frameworks and Contentions

Previous Speeches
Second Speeches By Round
Summary Notes
Final Focus Notes

Con: Dont Ban Private Prisons

Contention 1 Evidence:
Steven Levitt 96- incarceration rates more than tripled in the past three decades.
http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittTheEffectOfPrison1996.pdf
John Howard 96 - Although prison admissions were expected to level off by 1990, overall prison
populations were still predicted to continue to grow throughout the 1980s and 1990s, largely as a result of
sentencing and correctional policy changes which increased the length of prison terms.
http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/pub/C42.htm
In the 70s and 80s, overcrowding became a major issue. Overcrowding and neglect do, of course,
lead to more serious consequences, said director of the IDOC, Charles Rowe in 1978. Institutions
become very difficult to keep clean. It becomes more difficult to provide meaningful academic and
vocational training programs. Many residents sit idle in their cells with absolutely nothing to do. Tensions
build up and violence erupts. In 1985, then-director Michael Lane called the overcrowding issue a
crisis.
http://illinoistimes.com/article-7025-illinois-prisons:-standing-room-only.html
In April, California contracted with GEO Group to open a 260-bed women's prison in Bakersfield. The
prison is scheduled to open in fall 2014, with the contract effective through June 30, 2018. In 2011, the US
Supreme Court ordered California to reduce its prison overcrowding. In response, the state has contracted
with the for-profit Corrections Corporation of America to send male prisoners to out-of-state prisons in
Arizona, Oklahoma and Mississippi.
http://truth-out.org/news/item/24173-california-turns-to-private-prison-to-address-overcrowding-and-medicalcare
For people in prisons in the US, communication with the outside world was difficult. Guards would tear up
letters. Others would be intercepted and read. Jerry Sousa, a prisoner at Walpole in 1970, sent two letters
one to a judge, the other to the parole boardto tell about a beating by guards. They went unanswered.
Fight years later, at a court hearing, he discovered the prison authorities had intercepted them, never sent
them out. The prison rebellions in the 60s and 70s shed light on the conditions inside of the prisons.
Prisoner communication with the outside world was nearly impossible because guards would intercept letters.
A group of inmates, including Lawrence J. Holt, filed a suit in the federal courts (Holt v. Sarver) regarding
Arkansass prison conditions, and ended up winning the case as the judge called the conditions
unconstitutional. While the government told Arkansas to reform, no changes were made. Cases almost
identical occurred in Florida, Texas and California.
http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1200&context=plr

Framework
From Case- The language of the resolution does not ask for a comparative cost effective
analysis within the status quo, but rather to view the resolution from a future point of reference.

Therefore any comparisons made on the facilities and the quality of them itself drawn from the
status quo is illogical. A cost efficiency perspective questions whether or not the responsibility
for incarceration lies in the public or the private hands; meaning it only wants to know which is
better. The resolution states that for profit prisons should be banned which means that the pro
has the burden to prove that all harms associated with for profit prisons is completely unique to
itself.

Overcrowding Conditions
http://www.theroot.com/articles/politics/2010/11/keeping_americas_prisons_overcrowded.html
Sherrilyn A. Ifil [civil rights lawyer and professor at the University Of Maryland School Of Law.]lOvercrowding has led to horrendous conditions as shown the Schwarzenegger v. Plata case
which 18 states have joined in a brief supporting the state of California and making this very
argument.. The lawsuit cited evidence of prisoners found hanged to death in holding tanks
where observation windows are obscured with smeared feces, and discovered catatonic in
pools of their own urine after spending nights locked in small cages. Federal courts have found
that an average of one inmate per week was dying in California prisons as a result of medical
neglect or malfeasance. The prison health care system is so poor that the federal courts found it
violates the constitutional rights of inmates.
After reviewing a trend of very similar cases in 12 other states, my partner and I concluded that
private prisons are the first and most logical step to keeping the prison system from returning to
its hideous past.
IMPACTS
-Undermined healthcare leads to unnecessary deaths and exacerbates negative mental health
outcomes
-Overcrowding endangers corrections officers and staff as shown in a brief filed by 35,000
California correctionals officers in the Plata case saying that the overcrowding makes it
impossible for [them] to facilitate the provision of constitutionally adequate care to prisoners in
the system.
The fact that overcrowding undermines the provision of adequate health care to prisoners and
exacerbates negative mental health outcomes among the incarcerated has been well-known for
decades. It's also well-established that prison overcrowding endangers corrections officers and
other personnel who work in prisons. In an extraordinary move, the organization representing
the 35,000 correctional officers in the California system filed a brief on the side of the Plata
plaintiffs, arguing that overcrowded conditions make it impossible for corrections officers to
"facilitate the provision of constitutionally adequate care" to prisoners in the system.

A2 PP Use Lobbying
-Public Unions lobby more- NON UNIQUE ARGUMENT
Volokh 13- self-interested pro-incarceration advocacy is already common in the public sector.
The California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA), a public corrections officers
union, spends more than $7.5 million per year on political activities. It contributes to political
parties and candidates, and it hires lobbyists, public relations firms, and polling groups For instance,

the most active corrections officers union, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association,
has contributed massively in support of tough-on crime positions and has given money to crime
victims groups, and public corrections officers unions in other states have endorsed candidates
for their tough on-crime positions.34 Though corrections officers unions outside California
arent as active as the CCPOA, many do advocate incarceration.EXAMPLES: One can see this in
Florida (Deslatte 2006),Michigan (Gurwitt 1991), New York City (Murphy 2002), New York State
(Falk 2003), and Rhode Island (Whitehouse 2006).
Mendel 06- And in 2005, it killed Governor Schwarzeneggers plan to reduce the prison
population by as much as 20,000, mainly through a program that diverted parole violators into
rehabilitation efforts: drug programs, halfway houses and home detention
[http://volokh.com/2013/01/11/the-effect-of-privatization-on-the-public-and-private-prison-lobbiespart-2/]

A2 Priv. Prisons make ridiculous profit

Private sector profitability: The profits of the private sector arent high; 10 percent would be a
generous estimate (Volokh 2007).

A2 Contracts are manipulative

Kavanaugh 14-The contracts also call for the private-prison company to deed the prison over to
the state after 20 years. The state then saves even more money because it then charges the
private operator rent.
The charge that private prisons lack transparency is also bogus. All state contracts with private
prisons require on-site state inspectors to have full access at all times, and station three state
inspectors at every private prison to ensure that the terms of the contract are fulfilled.

A2 Private Prisons less supervised

Kavanaugh 14-Regarding the tragic and avoidable escape from the private prison in Kingman, if
one tragic incident provides a rationale for revamping an entire prison system, then we should have
privatized Arizonas prisons in 2004 after the state-run Arizona State Prison Complex-Lewis was
the site of the longest hostage standoff between inmates and law-enforcement officers in U.S.
history.

Private prisons higher quality ACCREDITED

Public Administration Review Independent accreditation by the American Correctional

Association (ACA) is designed to show a facility meets nationally accepted standards for quality of
operation, management, and maintenance. Currently there are more than 5,000 government and
privately managed detention facilities located around the United States, with only 532 accredited by
the ACA--465 are public and 67 are private.16 Thus, no more than 10 percent of government
correctional facilities have been accredited, whereas 44 percent of private facilities have been
accredited.
To become accredited, prisons must provide a number of quality services (e.g. food, education,
health care) and rehabilitative programs. Further, to meet accreditation standards, prisons must have
a low percentage of aggressive episodes between staff and prisoners, a low percentage of inmate
disturbances, a comfortable and safe living environment for both inmates and staff, and clear
policies and procedures to maintain order, safety, security and the implementation of prison justice

(Urban Institute, 1989; Logan, 1991; Archambeault, 1996; Thomas, 1997; Culp, 1998; LanzaKaduce & Parker, 1998).
Urban Institute: Massachusetts- When they conducted the same study as the ACA, they came to the
conclusion that Quality findings: Better quality at private facilities
Arizona Department of Corrections (1997, 2000)The 1997 report compared performance of the states one private prison to other state prisons.
Many aspects of prison management were examined including, frequency of escapes, major
disturbances, homicides, assault, and inmate grievances. Quality findings: The performance of the
private prison was superior in public safety
issues, protecting staff and inmates, and compliance with professional standards.
Segal 05-In 2005, 10% of public prisons had met quality standards to become accredited while
44% of private prisons had met accreditation standards (Segal, 2005)

No increased recidivism
Florida State University-In a study that looked at 36 measures of recidivism for different groups of
nearly 90,000 prisoners, private and public prisons had nearly identical rates of recidivism .
Results of multivariate statistical analyses indicated no significant differences in recidivism rates
were discovered for adult males and youthful male offenders released from private versus public
prisons, which is consistent with previous research on Florida offenders
Private prisons only sometimes appear to have higher recidivism rates because they tend to have
younger and more nonviolent prisoners convicted on drug offenses, which are significantly more
likely to recidivate.
National Crime Prevention Council 08 Inmates in the private prisons were younger
had shorter sentences served less time [and] were more likely to be released on probation
Several factors may help explain the higher
recidivism rates among private prison inmates, e.g., their relative youth and their
involvement in drug offense
Washington post 14 A study by David Farabee and Kevin Knight found no comparative
difference in the reoffense or reincarceration rates of males or juveniles over a three-year postrelease period, though women had lower recidivism in the private sector
Bales 14-Another study by William Bales and coauthors, an even more rigorous study, likewise
found no statistically significant difference between public-inmate and private-inmate recidivism.
Private Prisons use alternatives to incarcerations
Doucette 06- the Association of Private Correctional and Treatment Organizations (APCTO) has
frequently endorsed alternatives to incarceration and treatment programs, and other measures to
reduce recidivism (some of which would also benefit its member firms financially) (Doucette 2006a,
2006b, 2006c, 2006d).

A2 Private Prisons more expensive

Per citizen costs less. Saves state and tax payer money
Kavanaugh 14 the non-adjusted cost of housing a medium-security prisoner was $64.52
in a state-run facility and only $58.82 in a private prison. When you further adjust these figures, as
the nonpartisan Joint Legislative Budget Committee did, by adding in the high expenses of
constructing the prisons and paying for the costly and grossly underfunded public pensions of state
corrections employees, the private prisons become an even better deal

Miller 10- Wackenhut and CCA appear to provide significant cost-savings. Even in Texas, a
state that has the lowest cost per inmate, these two private organizations seem to provide less
expensive services than public prisons. On average, private corporations provide a 5-15% cost
savings when measures focus on cost per inmate rates [Smith, 1993
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/prisons/review.php]
Mitchell 04- New Mexico has been on the cutting edge of innovation in
privatizing its prisons. In this study research economist Matthew D. Mitchell conducts an
interstate econometric test of the relative efficiency of private-run versus government-run
prisons. Accounting for a number of cost factors, significant per prisoner
savings were found in states that house a portion of their prisoners privately. All other
factors being equal, states such as New Mexico with forty-five percent of their prisoners in
private custody spent about $9,660 less per-prisoner in 2001 than non-privatized states. Given
New Mexicos prison population of 5,300 this is an annual savings of $51 million. Forty-five
percent privatization is expected to reduce the typical department of corrections budget by
about
one-third.
[http://www.riograndefoundation.org/papers/prison_study_march18.pdf]
Saves State Money
Kavanaugh 14-The contracts also call for the private-prison company to deed the prison over to
the state after 20 years. The state then saves even more money because it then charges the
private operator rent.
[http://archive.azcentral.com/opinions/articles/20140111private-prisons-keep-money-taxpayerspockets.html]

Answers to Pro Frameworks and Contentions

Previous Speeches
Second Speeches By Round
Summary Notes
Final Focus Notes

Quick Counterplan (CP) Theory for Public Forum

First of all, you need to realize that a counter-plan is not a native argument to public forum debate; it has
been borrowed from policy debate. Any argument from policy debate is going to be accompanied with
theory. Theory explains the acceptable use of certain types of arguments. The deeper into a tournament
you go, the more your will have judges that understand CP theory, at least on some level.

CP Topicality: Give the Judge a Reason to NOT vote PRO.

The general rationale to running a CP is that you can offer a better a solution than the wording of the
resolution allows. Therefore, most counterplans are considered to be more persuasive if they are non-topical,
meaning they violate some specific word of the resolution. In the case of for-profit prisons there exists a few
options, not that they are GOOD ones, but they illustrate the example:
Violation
Banned:
For-profit:
Prisons:
In the US:
Should:

Counterplan Text
Net-benefit
reform for-profit prisons
Ban is bad, harms can be avoided, etc.
make them all privately owned
Remove comparative advantage
Stay private, but not-for-profit
Removes a lot of Pro ground, etc.
ban all prisons
No Pro advantage
do it elsewhere
Solve a specific problem somewhere
change to ought
Remove a need to view outcomes, only view values.

Now, like I said, they arent all winnable counterplans and many judges would not like hearing them, but
those are definitely examples of non-topical counterplans.
Topical counterplans do exist. Many do not like this because you basically have two pro teams, not a pro
and a con. Some judges at that point, even when they can vote for a team, have a hard time finding a
rationale to vote for con when there was, in fact, no con presented. A topical CP would include the
following options:
Temporal
Ban them at a different time, the net benefit is avoiding the chaos of immediately dismantling the system as
the Pro is overly vague.
Justified Rationale
The Pro bans them for the wrong reasons; they are unjustified. The net-benefit is that their rationale causes
more or bigger problems. Therefore we should ban them, but based on a different rationale that does not
accrue these problems. Lay judges may buy this, experienced judges might want to slap you.
It needs to be noted that I do not suggest running either of these two. You have a low probability
of hitting a temporal CP, and a REALLY low probability of hitting a justification argument (like nil)
but considering an answer to these types of arguments will help you in the case you hear
something you werent prepared for in a round.
If you feel the need to counterplan, have a very clear rationale as to why you need to do so, and
understand that in public forum, if you dont win it, you will probably lose the round. Why?
Because a counterplan accepts major portions of the PRO case as true.
Parts of a Counter-plan
Violation: a non-topical counterplan keeps the PRO from saying, that sounds great! Well do
that too, thank you! because they have to uphold the resolution.
Plan Text: a clear statement of your plan.
Solvency/Competitiveness: How does your plan either solve the PRO harms, or compete on
the same level as the resolution?
Net-Benefit: This is why the judge should vote for you. What advantage claim (or conversely,
avoid a disadvantage) does the CON make that the PRO cannot avoid? If the net-benefit is big

enough, the CP does not have to solve the PROs stated harms because the net-benefits will
outweigh. If you have no net-benefit, you will not win the CP (or most likely the PF round).

Mutual Exclusivity and the Permutation Answer

Mutually exclusive is a term used to describe how the counter-plan and the PRO case cannot
exist at the same time. For example, you cannot simultaneously ban for-profit prisons and make
all prisons for-profit, private entities; the two mutually exclude each other from existence. The
judge must choose. This is an important concept to counterplan theory, as the PRO must be
able to win the argument, or else it just becomes abuse. One, but not the only, answer to a CP
is to test the exclusivity with Permutations, or perms. The permutation has a few iterations in
policy debate, but you will only need to think of it generally: How can the CP and the PRO
combine to exist at the same time? If they can, then the CP fails the competitiveness test and
should not be voted for.
The PRO can articulate:
Straight Combination Perm: articulate how both the PRO and the CP can exist together. This
effectively coopts the CP from the negative and can be claimed by the PRO team, thank you
very much.
Temporal Perm: Articulate how one side should be done first, then do the other.
Partial Perm: Do the PRO, then any non-exclusive part of the CON. What this means exactly
need to be articulated clearly. The non-competitive parts are the CP components that can exist
with the PRO.
Permutations need to be carefully thought through. Just as a CP legitimizes certain components
of the Pro case, a Permutation tells the judge that at least on some level, the Con is right
because the perm accepts much of the argument.
General CP Answers
The permutation is only one answer to the CP, and sometimes not the best. The general
acronym for answering a CP is S T O P.
S-Solvency: CP doesnt solve the problem. Always attack this. Look for where the CP agrees
with the PRO and magnify this area.
T-Theory: This includes CP status. Status refers to whether or not you are stuck with the
argument (unconditional status)or if you can kick out of it without penalty (conditional- because
they feel like it at any time, dispositional- only kick if you argued Offense against it, see below).
Generally, the first thing another team asks in CX is whats the status of the CP? Be ready for
this if you run a counterplan. I do not believe PF should be able to kick a CP without penalty
ever. Time is too constrained for this to be anything but abusive. Write a short PRO block

explaining why this is true and have it ready. On the CON, your status is unconditional. You
are stuck with it. Consider the implications of this. If you hear a counterplan run against you, ask
the status I doubt they will know.
O- Offense. The CP causes additional problems. Always argue this.
P- Perm. Attacks the competitiveness, see above. Argue this last. The rationale is that even if
the judge buys the solvency, you still win because the CP is not mutually exclusive, therefore
not a reason to vote against the resolution.
Final Thoughts
On the PRO, write answers to counterplans based on your case and have them ready. Include
answers to the status of counterplans (unconditional is ok, conditional, dispositional should be
avoided in PF). Why they should not have the option of kicking out of one in PF. Therefore, if
you win the counterplan, you should pretty much win the round. You should never lose to one if
you are prepared. Therefore, you should never be scared of facing one. They rarely win in policy
debate anymore.
On the CON, be able to explain why dispositional (kicking it when offense is read against it) is
not abusive. This is because the CP is only a test. If they pass the test, we go on to something
else, and well win elsewhere. If they fail the test, we will keep it in the round and go for it. Not
abusive. Conditional (kicking it at any time for any reason), seems really abusive in PF debate.