PhilosophicalCompetition(Counterplans)

Philosophical competition is the argument that the counterplan is competitive with the plan because the two spring from different and irreconcilable philosophical foundations. For example, if the plan is "The Bureau of Indian Affairs should do X", and the counterplan is "Give back the land", some would argue that the BIA is steeped in paternalistic logic which is irreconcilable with the CP.

Philosophical competitition is generally not the strongest competition story available (insert obligatory disclaimer about different judges having different opinions and all arguments being malleable in the debate round). The best way to make the argument is to run a criticism or critical advantage which is unique to one position or the other (for example, run "Paternalist logic is oppressive" against the plan in the above instance). The perm will generally not solve for the link to the criticism (or the advantage). If you just run philosophical competition without an impact associated with it ("Why would the government do those two things together? They're opposites!"), you tend to lose to the arguments "Empirically, the government does contradictory or ill-advised things all the time -- seen the tax code recently?" and "Regardless of whether these two actions are contradictory in some vague philosophical abstraction when we win the argument that the combination of them is net-beneficial relative to either taken by itself thats sufficient reason to enact the policy (or prove that the CP does not compete, pick your favorite phrasing)".

Jon Bruschke once said that philosophical competition was just a net-benefit the neg didn't have a card on. He's basically right. If you're using a kritik to prove your "philosophical competition," then it's probably wise to just use the K as your net-benefit to the counterplan.