The negative does not "have" a "should not". The negative is not affirming a null hypothesis. A vote for the negative does not mean "I think it's true that the United States Federal Government should not significantly reform its policy toward Russia." So yes, a CP *is* advocating "shouldn't do plan", but neg fiat is not derived from a resolution. So you have to look elsewhere for your justification (like fairness, as I highlighted above, or perhaps 'real world' or something). But arguing the neg gets fiat because of "should not" is not going to get you far unless you're debating someone bad at theory.
Neg fiat is derived from the parametricized
resolution, which is equal to aff's plan.
Neg is affirming a negative hypothesis, i.e. the hypothesis that the USFG should not enact aff's plan. A proof of "should not" is a proof that "should" is false.
Fundamentally, aff fiat is the "if A does B" part of "A should do B, because if A does B, then C will happen." So neg fiat is the "if A does D" part of "A should not do B because (1) if A does B, then A cannot do D and because (2) E will happen only if A does D."
A = USFG; B = plan; C = aff's advantages; D = counterplan; E = neg's advantages
To the question "what makes a counterplan legitimate," I have one answer explained in two different ways.Plain english:
it proves that aff's plan should not happen because the counterplan alone is better than the plan and better than the combination of the plan plus the counterplan.Debaterish:
I first rephrase the question as "what is the source of neg fiat," then define neg fiat as I describe it above, then argue that the source of neg fiat is neg's burden to negate the parametricized resolution.
Your fairness and boredom legitimizations are responses
to hypothetical arguments that counterplans consequentially harm
debate. That's one way of understanding the word "legitimate" -- you define it as "beneficial" or as "not harmful". The way I understand the "legitimacy" of an argument is "the reason why the argument is a reason to vote for the team that runs it."
Otherwise, there is no reason why the AFF should present a case that supports the res. If a vote for the NEG doesn't mean the opposite, then what is the ideological conflict in the round?
Fairness is the reason why aff should present a case that supports the round. It's commonly understood in debate culture that aff is limited to the resolution. People generally limit their research to resolutional topics. Aff should respect that.
The ideological conflict is the conflict over the plan. Aff's resolution is that their plan should happen. Neg's resolution is that aff's plan should not happen. How does this make a counterplan legitimate? If a counterplan is better than the plan and better than the perm, then the plan should not happen (neg's resolution) because the CP should happen instead
If the negative team proves the aff plan false/harmful/non-solvent/etc. then the resolution has been negated.
You're talking about the parametricized resolution (i.e. aff's plan). A proof that aff's plan should not happen is not a proof that the USFG should not significantly reform its policy toward Russia. Aff's plan is not the only way in which the USFG to significantly reform its policy toward Russia.
If they present a topical counterplan, they are simply providing an alternate (maybe even better) defense of the resolution.
They're defending the original resolution, which doesn't matter because that's not the resolution being debated. The resolution being debated is the parametricized resolution, which is aff's plan. Anything that negates the parametricized resolution is a negative argument, not an affirmative argument.
Thus, an affirmative ballot is warranted since their job of upholding the resolution has been fulfilled.
The whole thing about "my ballot says..." never made sense to me...could you explain what having 3 boxes you can check off has to do with CP theory?
Voting aff means "I voted for the affirmative team", not "I voted that the USFG should significantly reform its policy toward Russia." This is significant because the act of running a specific plan means that aff's resolution is their plan, not the original resolution. Unless a kritikal framework is run, "I voted aff" = "I am persuaded that aff's parametricized resolution is true."
I think this is the most straightforward argument in favor of topical counterplans: if aff runs a plan, and if the judge is persuaded that aff's plan should not happen, then aff should lose. It's as simple as that. How can aff win if neg successfully beats their plan? Aff certainly hasn't done the necessary work to defend their plan, so how can they earn the ballot?
Again, let's tie this to the original question: a topical counterplan is legitimate (i.e. a reason to vote negative) because it is a reason why aff's plan should not happen. It is a reason why aff's plan should not happen because it is an opportunity sacrificed by aff's plan.