What is a plan in Parli?

• A concrete set of actions or policies proposed by a team to solve the problem stated or implied by the motion.
• Usually ran by Gov, but Opp can run a plan as well, which would be called a counter-plan.

Purpose:

• Clarifies the debate by fixing the ground each side must cover.
• Focuses the clash on real-world mechanisms instead of abstract ideals.
• Frames which impacts matter most (cost, rights, effectiveness, etc.).

Building a Plan

1. Pinpoint the degree of change you want to propose in reference to definitions/status quo:
   • Aim for something moderate to hard in your model — proposes real change without being extreme.
   • Allows for a rich debate with nuanced arguments on both sides, while avoiding trite or one-sided clashes.
   • Bigger changes are often more philosophically consistent and better match the scale of the problem to the scale of the solution.
2. How to construct one?
   • Easiest way: Steal someone else’s
     • Since most debate topics reflect real-world issues, you could easily adapt one from a government, NGO, movement, group, etc.
   • Modify an existing model
     • Strengthen or expand on a known model.
     • Be clear about the distinctions of your version.
   • Invent your own model
     • Great for originality; opponents are less likely to anticipate them
     • Start by identifying the root problem, then propose a solution that:
       • Is realistic (based on how people and institutions actually behave)
       • Is practical (affordable, technologically feasible, logistically sound)
3. Presenting & deploying your model:
   • First speaker should present model before giving arguments
     • Intro (contextualization, burdens, etc.) → model → contentions
     • This helps frame the debate and which issues are most important.

Other Cases

• Status quo
  • Gov should never run SQ unless compelled to by the topic. (Then it’s likely a bad resolution.)
  • Opp teams can run SQ, but be cautious:
    • Pros: If unprepared, you can piggyback on Gov’s contextualization and explanation of the current system.
    • Cons: You risk being exposed for a shallow understanding or failing to effectively rebut alleged “harms” of the SQ (which may also be exaggerated or incorrect).
• Opp counterplan
  • Pros: Will negate much of Gov’s preempted criticisms of the status quo.
  • Cons: Admitting the SQ is broken weakens your ability to claim the Aff model is implausible, especially if your model is novel as well.

Other tips for using/challenging models

• Models don’t win debates alone!
  • They structure the conversation, but need analysis to prove why the model works and why its benefits outweigh its harms or costs.
• Don’t fixate on the monetary cost of a model; what matters is whether the benefits are worth the price, and if the cost is plausibly bearable.
• A good way to attack a model: challenge the assumptions made when the team constructed it
  • e.g., Did they realistically assess how individuals and groups behave in society? Is it really the role of the government (or other organisation) to do what is being proposed?
• It’s okay for opposing teams to concede some benefits of a model, as long as they prove why its harms outweigh its benefits.
• Plausibility debate – Don’t rely too much on arguing that “the Aff model would never happen.”
  • Unless the model is truly insane, judges will assume viability for the sake of debate, so engage with it directly.

Example model: THS safe heroin injecting rooms

This motion allows for a range of plausible models depending on the implementation of the policy, which will significantly affect the debate. Here are some examples Gov might consider:

• Model of government supplied heroin
  • Mechanism: government provides heroin directly to registered users within designated safe injecting facilities
  • Criticisms:
    • Turns the government into a drug dealer – public backlash, ethical concerns
    • Raises questions about how long the government can afford to maintain such a system (especially if the number of users grow as a result)
  • Benefits:
    • Effectively puts many drug dealers out of business
    • Reduces overdose deaths by ensuring supply is not contaminated or laced with dangerous substances
• Model of user supplied system
  • Mechanism: Users bring their own heroin, and the facility allows use without questioning the source provided that use occurs within the safe injecting rooms
  • Criticisms:
    • Less control over drug purity and extent of undermining black market – limits the model’s ability to reduce overdoses and deaths
  • Benefits:
    • Avoids ethical and financial concerns of direct governmental provision
    • Still offers medical supervision, overdose prevention, support services, etc.