Counterplan Text: “The United States federal government should enter into a prior and binding consultation with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) over [PLAN]. The United States federal government will accept the World Intellectual Property Organization’s recommendation.”
Explanation: This counterplan proposes that instead of directly implementing the affirmative plan, the US should first consult with WIPO and then follow WIPO’s recommendation. The key aspects are:
- Prior consultation: The US discusses the proposed plan with WIPO before taking any action.
- Binding: The US commits to following WIPO’s recommendation.
- Involves WIPO: Brings in an international organization specialized in intellectual property issues.
Net Benefits:
- Developing Countries Benefit:
- The counterplan argues that involving WIPO will help move developing countries’ policies towards innovation.
- This is crucial for addressing global challenges like pandemics, international insecurity, and terrorism.
- By improving economic conditions in developing countries, it reduces existential risks to humanity.
- UN Leadership / Countering China:
- The counterplan asserts that reaffirming US presence in WIPO is key to preventing China from shaping international standards.
- It argues that China is replacing US leadership at the UN, which could lead to global totalitarianism.
- By engaging with WIPO, the US maintains its influence in international organizations and counters China’s growing power.
- Avoiding Domestic Political Battles:
- By consulting with WIPO and following its recommendation, the plan avoids potential domestic political fights in Congress.
- This could link to a “Politics Disadvantage” where controversial domestic legislation could harm the president’s political capital.
In essence, the counterplan argues that by working through WIPO, the US can achieve the benefits of the affirmative plan while also:
- Helping developing countries
- Maintaining US leadership in international organizations
- Countering China’s influence
- Avoiding domestic political battles
The counterplan attempts to solve the case while also gaining these additional advantages.
Here are the key reasons why permutations won’t defeat this counterplan, based on the information provided:
Permutation “Do Both” (PDB) fails:
The counterplan specifies prior and binding consultation with WIPO, accepting their recommendation without stipulation. This is mutually exclusive with definite implementation of the affirmative plan.
If WIPO says no, the permutation severs the entire affirmative plan.
The counterplan only fiats the consultation, not WIPO’s approval.
“Lie” permutation fails:
Modifications are essential to solvency, so the permutation can’t allow them.
Lying undermines diplomatic credibility, which is crucial for effective international relations.
Countries already doubt US credibility, so only genuine commitment solves.
Permutation “Do the CP” fails:
It’s a severance permutation that shifts advocacy, skewing 1NC strategy.
Functionally allows the plan to be amended or vetoed.
Textually, “should” in the plan implies definite adoption, while the CP doesn’t guarantee this.
Allows for non-topical action, which is unfair and unpredictable.
Permutation on “other issues” fails:
It’s intrinsic, adding elements not in the original plan or CP.
There’s a time difference – the affirmative is immediate, while consulting WIPO takes time.
Consulting on other issues can’t resolve the specific net benefits of the counterplan.
General issues with permutations:
Goal ambiguity hinders agreement in policy-making.
Delegation of authority must be specific to be effective.
Allowing permutations can lead to moving targets and make all counterplans non-competitive.
In essence, the counterplan is structured to be mutually exclusive with the affirmative plan, and permutations either sever parts of the affirmative (which is unfair) or fail to capture the full benefits of the counterplan’s consultation process.