pf dec 14 evidence

8/10/2019 PF Dec 14 Evidence

1/13

F rivate rison Evidence Template

Instructions/What is this?

Use this template to create your evidence packet for quick research and reference. ou should hi!hli!ht theportion of the cards you "ant to read in the round. #dditionally$ you should create %&locks' for eachar!ument. # &lock is a pre("ritten com&ination of the analytics you use in the round plus the evidence to&ack it up to ans"er your opponent. There is no need to reinvent the "heel in every round &y re("ritin!responses each time "hen you could "rite them &eforehand and make sure they are "ell "ritten.

)uick *o"(To+

1. ,lick on -ie"$ check avi!ation Pane

2. ,opy and Paste evidence in appropriate section

3. ,reate 0# citation "ith author qualifications in &rackets

4. ,reate Ta! usin! the %*eadin! 1$2$ or 3u&title' 3tyles

5. Write your analytics 4&lock5 &ased on the evidence.

In(6ound Use

7pen a ne" Word document to use as a %3peech 8oc'. ou can ,opy/Paste to this ne" document fromthis packet. # ne" 3peech 8oc allo"s you to type/edit your analytics and sho" your opponents cards theyask for "ithout sho"in!/flashin! the "hole evidence packet. Whether or not you use this 3peech doc tospeak directly from is up to you$ &ut havin! the evidence on a separate document is a must$ &ecause youdon9t "ant your opponent havin! access to everythin! you have.

This also makes referrin! to evidence &y name much easier. 7ne thin! ovice de&aters U3T !et a"ay

from is sayin! thin!s like+%I have a card that says:' or %I have a quote that says:'

Usin! Evidence Effectively

Use more effective lan!ua!e. 6efer to evidence &y name and inte!rate it smoothly into you9re your speech.First$ !et use to callin! it %evidence'$ not %card'$ this mi!ht help. I9m !uilty of this as "ell$ &ut thisis a holdover from a different era. We don9t make cards anymore.

%#ccordin! to the 0an!ston 1; evidence:'%0ook to our 0an!ston 1; evidence that says


2/13

ro+ >an rivate risons

rivate risons corrupt

ustice Policy Institute 911( %While private prison companies may claim that chan!es in criminal =usticele!islation are outside our control$@A they are in fact en!a!ed in a num&er of activities aimed at increasin! theircontrol of the marketB this includes applyin! political pressure to la"makers$ "orkin! to influence elections$ and&uildin! relationships "ithin a!encies or "ith !overnment officials to directly formulate policy.'%3ince 2CCC$ the three lar!est private prison companiesD,,#$ E7 and ,ornell,ompaniesiDhave contri&uted GH@$@1; to federal candidates$ includin! senators and mem&ers of the *ouse of6epresentatives. @ivin! to state level politicians durin! the last five election cycles "as much hi!her+J$C2$HH1.JC'%3ince 2CCH$ ,,# has spent up"ards of CC$CCC annually on federal lo&&yin!. A In addition to direct political!ivin! and "ork on model le!islation$ companies like ,,# and E7 continue to pay lo&&yists hundreds ofthousands of dollars to promote their &usiness interest in ,on!ress.'%these private prison companies have contri&uted over JCC$CCC to &allot measure campai!ns since 2CCC. AJ 3ucha "ide ran!e of state contri&utions &y these companies indicates the attempt to influence &oth the pu&lic andpolicymakin! de&ate around criminal =ustice and the privatiKation of prisons.

ust >an rivate risons o"

Arizona Republic Editorial Board 14- Because most prisoners will return to our streets, te

public is best ser!ed wen tose con!icted o" crimes emer#e "rom te criminal-$ustice s%stem

able to abide b% te law and "unction in societ%. &ri!ate prisons "ocus on "illin# prison beds

discoura#es alternati!es to prison tat mi#t be more cost-e""ecti!e and more li'el% to reduce

recidi!ism b% acie!in# real reabilitation.

A!ian (en 13-ttp)**tin'pro#ress.or#*$ustice*2+13*+*21*21321*tree-states-dump-pri!ate-prison-compan%-in-one-mont*

E /EE0 BA/ A( (/ A( &((BE (& E RRBE 6/0/( A/0

7//E6E((AR8 0EA( 9R: &R;AE &R(/(

(tate lawma'ers wo embraced pri!ate prisons as a cost-cuttin# measure are startin# to a!etrouble i#norin# teir ab%smal conditions. 6orrections 6orporation o" America, te lar#est and

most power"ul pri!ate prison compan% in te nation, lost "our prison contracts in te past mont

a"ter eladiator (cool.? Earlier tis %ear, 66A was cau#t

understa""in# te prison and usin# prison #an#s to control te population. e compan%

admitted to "alsi"%in# nearl% 4,@++ ours o" sta""in# records to sueeze more mone% out o" te

state "or none


3/13

ELamples of &ans or re!ulation 4re!. doesn9t "ork5

#2 6e!ulation

RE>7A/ ( AREA08 A&&E//> B7 / R/>

Belluc' /ew 8or' imes +3-io, e


4/13

far more "ei!ht than the ma=ority of studies conducted either &y correctional corporations or affiliatedor!aniKations that have purported to find cost savin!s. 41JJ5'

TeLas ,riminal ustice ,oalition$ %>y purposefully limitin! special(needs &eds$ private prisons offloadinmates requirin! eLpensive medical care to the state system$ at state eLpense. Further$ poor medical caremeans poor preventative care as "ell$ once a!ain costin! the state more for medical care in the lon! run.41@@5' private prisons don9t care a&out the "ell(&ein! of their inmates$ only a&out their profit and

tryin! to seem !ood enou!h to &e accredited.

,ause of overcro"din!

,orrupt af O %tou!h on crimemeasures such as mandatory sentencin! and three strikesla"s: have sentmore people D especially people convicted of dru! offenses ;2 D to prison$ and keep them there lon!er$ thusincreasin! the total num&er of people in prison. 3uch sentencin! policies have &een a primary contri&utor to thenum&er of people in prison.;H'#&ransky 2CC O 'the "ar on dru!spolicies that focused on harsher penalties for crimes commit(ted lar!ely &y inner city$ ethnic minority !roups as the primary cause of the increase in incar(cerationrates. (the cause of increased incarceration rates is the "ar on dru!s and three strikes la"s

implemented &y presidents

rivate risons have an incentive to overcro"d facilities.

#,0U of TeLas O %private companies have financial incentives to overcro"d the ,#6 prisons.

#ll of the contracts "e revie"ed contain occupancy quotas. The contracts stipulate that the

facilities must remain at or a&ove CP capacity. The contracts further provide %Incremental Unit

rice' payments for each additional prisoner a&ove the CP occupancy quota$ up to

11@P capacity.11J >y the terms of the contract$ the companies actually make more money &y

admittin! more prisoners from >7 than their facilities "ere desi!ned to hold.'

#ccreditation not everythin!

&0 (/ E;E/ A66RE0E0, 0E(/ :EA/ A/8/> M7( 6( :/E8

BE REA66RE0E0 E;ER8 8EAR. &R;AE &R(/( ARE /8 R8/> BE6:E

A66RE0E0 BEER A/ &7B6 &R(/(.

iller 2C1C O %accounta&ility$ accreditation$ some ar!ue$ offers false evidence of quality. *ardin!"rites Qaccreditation is pla!ued "ith a num&er of pro&lems. The process does not require eLtensivecontact "ith prisoners or physical eLamination of the prison facilities. #udits are al"ays scheduled "ellin advance. 0ast$ the #,#9s primary source of income is fees collected from the prisons it audits.Therefore$ the #,# has some interest not to fail too many prisons$ since it is dependent on them forfundin!. *am&our!er concludes$ Qit seems nave to look to accreditation as the solution to there!ulatory pro&lems.Q

rivate >ad for TaL ayers

t is no wonder tat 66A spent o!er =G12 million dollars between 2++2 and 2+12 lobb%in# "orpolicies tat protect teir bottom line and 'eep pro-pri!atization politicians in o""ice?. e A&

reports, =te industr%s #iants C 6orrections 6orporation o" America D66A, e >E >roup,

and :ana#ement and rainin# 6orp. C a!e spent at least G45 million combined on campai#n

donations and lobb%ists at te state and "ederal le!el in te last decade.?


5/13

e pri!ate prison industr% is !er% lucrati!e "or tose at te top. 66A brou#t in G1F@ million in

2+12 and >E brou#t in GF@ million. !er 4+N o" 66As total re!enue comes "rom "ederal

contracts. at is ta< pa%ers dollars linin# te poc'ets o" tese companies.

t is ob!ious to see tat te pri!ate prison industr% is a loss "or ta


6/13

#ns"ers to ,on Frame"orks and ,ontentions

revious 3peeches

3econd 3peeches >y 6ound

3ummary otes

Final Focus otes

,on+ 8on9t >an rivate risons

,ontention 1 Evidence+

(te!en e!itt - incarceration rates more tan tripled in te past tree decades.

http+//pricetheory.uchica!o.edu/levitt/Papers/0evittTheEffect7fPrison1J.pdf

ohn *o"ard RJ (#lthou!h prison admissions "ere eLpected to level off &y 1C$ overall prison

populations "ere still predicted to continue to !ro" throu!hout the 1GCs and 1Cs$ lar!ely as a result of

sentencin! and correctional policy chan!es "hich increased the len!th of prison terms.http+//""".=ohnho"ard.a&.ca/pu&/,;2.htmIn the AC9s and GC9s$ overcro"din! &ecame a ma=or issue. %7vercro"din! and ne!lect do$ of course$lead to more serious consequences$' said director of the I87,$ ,harles 6o"e in 1AG. %Institutions&ecome very difficult to keep clean. It &ecomes more difficult to provide meanin!ful academic andvocational trainin! pro!rams. any residents sit idle in their cells "ith a&solutely nothin! to do. Tensions&uild up and violence erupts.' In 1G@$ then(director ichael 0ane called the overcro"din! issue a%crisis.'http+//illinoistimes.com/article(AC2@(illinois(prisons+(standin!(room(only.htmlIn #pril$ ,alifornia contracted "ith E7 roup to open a 2JC(&ed "omenSs prison in >akersfield. Theprison is scheduled to open in fall 2C1;$ "ith the contract effective throu!h une HC$ 2C1G. In 2C11$ the U33upreme ,ourt ordered ,alifornia to reduce its prison overcro"din!. In response$ the state has contracted

"ith the for(profit ,orrections ,orporation of #merica to send male prisoners to out(of(state prisons in#riKona$ 7klahoma and ississippi.

http+//truth(out.or!/ne"s/item/2;1AH(california(turns(to(private(prison(to(address(overcro"din!(and(medical(careFor people in prisons in the U3$ communication "ith the outside "orld "as difficult. uards "ould tear upletters. 7thers "ould &e intercepted and read. erry 3ousa$ a prisoner at Walpole in 1AC$ sent t"o lettersDone to a =ud!e$ the other to the parole &oardDto tell a&out a &eatin! &y !uards. They "ent unans"ered.Fi!ht years later$ at a court hearin!$ he discovered the prison authorities had intercepted them$ never sent

them out.The prison re&ellions in the JC9s and AC9s shed li!ht on the conditions inside of the prisons.

Prisoner communication "ith the outside "orld "as nearly impossi&le &ecause !uards "ould intercept letters.# !roup of inmates$ includin! 0a"rence . *olt$ filed a suit in the federal courts 4*olt v. 3arver5 re!ardin!

#rkansas9s prison conditions$ and ended up "innin! the case as the =ud!e called the conditions%unconstitutional'. While the !overnment told #rkansas to reform$ no chan!es "ere made. ,ases almostidentical occurred in Florida$ TeLas and ,alifornia.http+//di!italcommons.pace.edu/c!i/vie"content.c!i?article12CCconteLtplr

Frame"ork

9rom 6ase- =e lan#ua#e o" te resolution does not as' "or a comparati!e cost e""ecti!e

anal%sis witin te status uo, but rater to !iew te resolution "rom a "uture point o" re"erence.
http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittTheEffectOfPrison1996.pdfhttp://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/pub/C42.htmhttp://illinoistimes.com/article-7025-illinois-prisons:-standing-room-only.htmlhttp://truth-out.org/news/item/24173-california-turns-to-private-prison-to-address-overcrowding-and-medical-carehttp://truth-out.org/news/item/24173-california-turns-to-private-prison-to-address-overcrowding-and-medical-carehttp://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1200&context=plrhttp://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittTheEffectOfPrison1996.pdfhttp://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/pub/C42.htmhttp://illinoistimes.com/article-7025-illinois-prisons:-standing-room-only.htmlhttp://truth-out.org/news/item/24173-california-turns-to-private-prison-to-address-overcrowding-and-medical-carehttp://truth-out.org/news/item/24173-california-turns-to-private-prison-to-address-overcrowding-and-medical-carehttp://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1200&context=plr


7/13

ere"ore an% comparisons made on te "acilities and te ualit% o" tem itsel" drawn "rom te

status uo is illo#ical. A cost e""icienc% perspecti!e uestions weter or not te responsibilit%

"or incarceration lies in te public or te pri!ate andsI meanin# it onl% wants to 'now wic is

better. e resolution states tat "or pro"it prisons sould be banned wic means tat te pro

as te burden to pro!e tat all arms associated wit "or pro"it prisons is completel% uniue to

itsel".

7vercro"din! ,onditions

ttp)**www.teroot.com*articles*politics*2+1+*11*'eepin#SamericasSprisonsSo!ercrowded.tml

(erril%n A. I!i%Kci!il ri#ts law%er and pro"essor at te 7ni!ersit% " :ar%land (cool " aw.Ll-

!ercrowdin# as led to orrendous conditions as sown te (cwarzene##er !. &lata case

wic 1@ states a!e $oined in a brie" supportin# te state o" 6ali"ornia and ma'in# tis !er%

ar#ument.. e lawsuit cited e!idence o" prisoners ="ound an#ed to deat in oldin# tan's

were obser!ation windows are obscured wit smeared "eces, and disco!ered catatonic in

pools o" teir own urine a"ter spendin# ni#ts loc'ed in small ca#es.? 9ederal courts a!e "oundtat an a!era#e o" one inmate per wee' was d%in# in 6ali"ornia prisons as a result o" medical

ne#lect or mal"easance. e prison ealt care s%stem is so poor tat te "ederal courts "ound it

!iolates te constitutional ri#ts o" inmates.

A"ter re!iewin# a trend o" !er% similar cases in 12 oter states, m% partner and concluded tat

=pri!ate prisons are te "irst and most lo#ical step to 'eepin# te prison s%stem "rom returnin# to

its ideous past.?

:&A6(

-7ndermined ealtcare leads to unnecessar% deats and e


8/13

the most active corrections officers union$ the ,alifornia ,orrectional Peace 7fficers #ssociation$has contri&uted massively in support of tou!h(on crime positions: and has !iven money to crimevictims9 !roups$ and pu&lic corrections officers unions in other states have endorsed candidatesfor their tou!h on(crime positions.H;'Thou!h corrections officers9 unions outside ,aliforniaaren9t as active as the ,,P7#$ many do advocate incarceration.EV#P0E3+ 7ne can see this inFlorida 48eslatte 2CCJ5$ichi!an 4ur"itt 115$ e" ork ,ity 4urphy 2CC25$ e" ork 3tate

4Falk 2CCH5$ and 6hode Island 4Whitehouse 2CCJ5.endel 9CJ( #nd in 2CC@$ it killed overnor 3ch"arKene!!er9s plan to %reduce the prisonpopulation &y as much as 2C$CCC$ mainly throu!h a pro!ram that diverted parole violators intoreha&ilitation efforts+ dru! pro!rams$ half"ay houses and home detention'

Mhttp+//volokh.com/2C1H/C1/11/the(effect(of(privatiKation(on(the(pu&lic(and(private(prison(lo&&ies(part(2/N

#2 riv. risons make ridiculous profit

&ri!ate sector pro"itabilit%) e pro"its o" te pri!ate sector arent i#I 1+ percent would be a

#enerous estimate D;olo' 2++F.

#2 ,ontracts are manipulative

a!anau# 14-e contracts also call "or te pri!ate-prison compan% to deed te prison o!er to

te state a"ter 2+ %ears. e state ten sa!es e!en more mone% because it ten car#es te

pri!ate operator rent.

e car#e tat pri!ate prisons lac' transparenc% is also bo#us. All state contracts wit pri!ate

prisons reuire on-site state inspectors to a!e "ull access at all times, and station tree state

inspectors at e!er% pri!ate prison to ensure tat te terms o" te contract are "ul"illed.

#2 rivate risons less supervised

avanau!h 91;(6e!ardin! the tra!ic and avoida&le escape from the private prison in in!man$ ifone tra!ic incident provides a rationale for revampin! an entire prison system$ then "e should haveprivatiKed #riKona9s prisons in 2CC; after the state(run #riKona 3tate Prison ,ompleL(0e"is "asthe site of the lon!est hosta!e standoff &et"een inmates and la"(enforcement officers in U.3.history.

rivate prisons hi!her quality #,,6E8ITE8

Pu&lic #dministration 6evie" O %Independent accreditation &y the #merican ,orrectional#ssociation 4#,#5 is desi!ned to sho" a facility meets nationally accepted standards for quality ofoperation$ mana!ement$ and maintenance. ,urrently there are more than @$CCC !overnment andprivately mana!ed detention facilities located around the United 3tates$ "ith only @H2 accredited &y

the #,#((;J@ are pu&lic and JA are private.1J Thus$ no more than 1C percent of !overnmentcorrectional facilities have &een accredited$ "hereas ;; percent of private facilities have &eenaccredited.'

To &ecome accredited$ prisons must provide a num&er of quality services 4e.!. food$ education$health care5 and reha&ilitative pro!rams. Further$ to meet accreditation standards$ prisons must havea lo" percenta!e of a!!ressive episodes &et"een staff and prisoners$ a lo" percenta!e of inmatedistur&ances$ a comforta&le and safe livin! environment for &oth inmates and staff$ and clearpolicies and procedures to maintain order$ safety$ security and the implementation of prison =ustice


9/13

4Ur&an Institute$ 1GB 0o!an$ 11B #rcham&eault$ 1JB Thomas$ 1AB ,ulp$ 1GB 0anKa(aduce Parker$ 1G5.

Ur&an Institute+ assachusetts( When they conducted the same study as the #,#$ they came to theconclusion that' )uality findin!s+ >etter quality at private facilities'

#riKona 8epartment of ,orrections 41A$ 2CCC5(The 1A report compared performance of the state9s one private prison to other state prisons.any aspects of prison mana!ement "ere eLamined includin!$ frequency of escapes$ ma=ordistur&ances$ homicides$ assault$ and inmate !rievances.)uality findin!s+ The performance of theprivate prison "as superior in pu&lic safetyissues$ protectin! staff and inmates$ and compliance "ith professional standards.

3e!al 9C@(In 2CC@$ 1C of pu&lic prisons had met quality standards to &ecome accredited "hile;; of private prisons had met accreditation standards 43e!al$ 2CC@5

o increased recidivism

Florida 3tate University(In a study that looked at HJ measures of recidivism for different !roups of

nearly C$CCC prisoners$ private and pu&lic prisons had nearly identical rates of recidivism.%6esults of multivariate statistical analyses indicated no si!nificant differences in recidivism rates"ere discovered for adult males and youthful male offenders released from private versus pu&lic

prisons$ "hich is consistent "ith previous research on Florida offenders'

Private prisons only sometimes appear to have hi!her recidivism rates &ecause they tend to haveyoun!er and more nonviolent prisoners convicted on dru! offenses$ "hich are si!nificantly morelikely to recidivate.ational ,rime Prevention ,ouncil RCG O %Inmates in the private prisons: "ere youn!er:had shorter sentences: served less time: MandN "ere more likely to &e released on pro&ation:

3everal factors may help eLplain the hi!her

recidivism rates amon! private prison inmates$ e.!.$ their relative youth and their

involvement in dru! offense'

Washin!ton post R1; O %# study &y 8avid Fara&ee and evin ni!ht: found no comparativedifference in the reoffense or reincarceration rates of males or =uveniles over a three(year post(release period$ thou!h "omen had lo"er recidivism in the private sector:>ales 91;(#nother study &y William >ales and coauthors$ an even more ri!orous study$ like"isefound no statistically si!nificant difference &et"een pu&lic(inmate and private(inmate recidivism.'Private Prisons use alternatives to incarcerations8oucette 9CJ( the #ssociation of Private ,orrectional and Treatment 7r!aniKations 4#P,T75 hasfrequently endorsed alternatives to incarceration and treatment pro!rams$ and other measures toreduce recidivism 4some of "hich "ould also &enefit its mem&er firms financially5 48oucette 2CCJa$2CCJ&$ 2CCJc$ 2CCJd5.

#2 rivate risons more eLpensive

er citiKen costs less. 3aves state and taL payer money

avanau!h R1; O %the %non(ad=usted' cost of housin! a medium(security prisoner "as J;.@2in a state(run facility and only @G.G2 in a private prison. When you further ad=ust these fi!ures$ asthe nonpartisan oint 0e!islative >ud!et ,ommittee did$ &y addin! in the hi!h eLpenses ofconstructin! the prisons and payin! for the costly and !rossly underfunded pu&lic pensions of statecorrections employees$ the private prisons &ecome an even &etter deal:'


10/13

:iller 1+- ac'enut and 66A appear to pro!ide si#ni"icant cost-sa!in#s. E!en in ei!en

/ew :ey 6ound

3ummary otes

Final Focus otes

)uick ,ounterplan 4, 5 Theory for u&lic Forum

First of all$ you need to realiKe that a counter(plan is not a native ar!ument to pu&lic forum de&ateB it has&een &orro"ed from policy de&ate. #ny ar!ument from policy de&ate is !oin! to &e accompanied "ith%theory'. Theory eLplains the accepta&le use of certain types of ar!uments. The deeper into a tournamentyou !o$ the more your "ill have =ud!es that understand ,P theory$ at least on some level.

, Topicality+ Eive the ?ud!e a 6eason to 7T vote 67.
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/prisons/review.phphttp://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/prisons/review.php


11/13

The !eneral rationale to runnin! a ,P is that you can offer a &etter a solution than the "ordin! of theresolution allo"s. Therefore$ most counterplans are considered to &e more persuasive if they are non(topical$meanin! they violate some specific "ord of the resolution. In the case of for(profit prisons there eLists a fe"options$ not that they are 778 ones$ &ut they illustrate the eLample+

-iolation ,ounterplan TeLt et(&enefit

>anned+ reform for(profit prisons %>an' is &ad$ harms can &e avoided$ etc.For(profit+ make them all privately o"ned 6emove comparative advanta!e

3tay private$ &ut not(for(profit 6emoves a lot of Pro !round$ etc.Prisons+ &an all prisons o Pro advanta!eIn the U3+ do it else"here 3olve a specific pro&lem some"here3hould+ chan!e to %ou!ht' 6emove a need to vie" outcomes$ only vie" values.

o"$ like I said$ they aren9t all "inna&le counterplans and many =ud!es "ould not like hearin! them$ &utthose are definitely eLamples of non(topical counterplans.

Topical counterplans do eList. any do not like this &ecause you &asically have t"o pro teams$ not a proand a con. 3ome =ud!es at that point$ even "hen they can vote for a team$ have a hard time findin! a

rationale to vote for con "hen there "as$ in fact$ no con presented. # topical ,P "ould include thefollo"in! options+

Temporal>an them at a different time$ the net &enefit is avoidin! the chaos of immediately dismantlin! the system asthe Pro is overly va!ue.

ustified 6ationaleThe Pro &ans them for the "ron! reasonsB they are un=ustified. The net(&enefit is that their rationale causesmore or &i!!er pro&lems. Therefore "e should &an them$ &ut &ased on a different rationale that does notaccrue these pro&lems. 0ay =ud!es may &uy this$ eLperienced =ud!es mi!ht "ant to slap you.

t needs to be noted tat do not su##est runnin# eiter o" tese two. 8ou a!e a low probabilit%o" ittin# a temporal 6&, and a REA8 low probabilit% o" ittin# a $usti"ication ar#ument Dli'e nil

but considerin# an answer to tese t%pes o" ar#uments will elp %ou in te case %ou ear

sometin# %ou werent prepared "or in a round.

" %ou "eel te need to counterplan, a!e a !er% clear rationale as to w% %ou need to do so, and

understand tat in public "orum, i" %ou dont win it, %ou will probabl% lose te round. %P

Because a counterplan accepts ma$or portions o" te &R case as true.

arts of a ,ounter(plan

Vi%atin0a non-topical counterplan 'eeps te &R "rom sa%in#, =tat sounds #reatU ell dotat too, tan' %ouU? because te% a!e to upold te resolution.

P%an T#)t0a clear statement o" %our plan.

S%v#n&+1C-p#titiv#n#""0ow does %our plan eiter sol!e te &R arms, or compete on

te same le!el as te resolutionP

N#t2B#n#!it0is is w% te $ud#e sould !ote "or %ou. at ad!anta#e claim Dor con!ersel%,

a!oid a disad!anta#e does te 6/ ma'e tat te &R cannot a!oidP " te net-bene"it is bi#


12/13

enou#, te 6& does not a!e to sol!e te &Rs stated arms because te net-bene"its will

outwei#. " %ou a!e no net-bene"it, %ou will not win te 6& Dor most li'el% te &9 round.

utual ELclusivity and the ermutation #ns"er

:utuall% e


13/13

e

pf dec 14 evidence

Documents