I want to start off by telling you a story of my life...

I have been fairly active in the local high school and college debate communities for a few years.  Now, within these communities, we have fairly definitively found a principle to be true.  Let me give you a hypothetical scenario:

One person is advocating Social Security reform.  They highlight 4 different problems in the world their proposal would fix.

Now, assume that I am arguing against this person.  Now, if the other guy wins that he fixes even one of those 4 problems he claims he can fix, he could spend the rest of the debate saying how that one issue is the most important thing to fix in the world, and I'll probably never win.  Thus, I have to take down all 4 of his advantages, either by saying that they aren't as big a deal as he's claiming, or by saying he doesn't actually fix the issues.

But if I stop there, there wouldn't really be a reason to vote for me, would there?  He may not solve any of the 4 things he wanted to fix... but if I don't present a reason why his proposal is BAD, what's the harm in trying the system out and seeing if it would work?

That means, essentially, I have to win 5 different  arguments to win this debate: One argument that takes down each advantage, plus some reason why the proposal is a bad idea.  If the opponent wins even one of these arguments, I lose the debate.  In some debates, the amount of arguments the opposition is forced to win in this case can be much higher.

But we debaters have been using another technique to take down proposals: presenting counteradvocacies.

Let's take social security reform.  Assume that its advocate is proposing exactly what Bush  Jr. proposed.  Assume still, in this case, that they're claiming 4 independent reasons why you should support their proposal.

What if I came up with another way to fix social security?  Perhaps I can argue that the current system is bad, but the opponent's PARTICULAR proposal isn't the BEST way to fix the system.

Let's go back to our theoretical debate.  Assume for the moment that I have a counteradvocacy that fixed 3 out of the 4 different problems the opponent is claiming the Bush proposal would fix.  Now what arguments do I have to win?

1: That my counter-proposal fixes those 3 problems.
2: Some reason why the 4th issue isn't as important as the opponent makes it out to be, or a reason why the opponent doesn't actually fix their problem.
3: Some other problem that would be caused by the opponent's proposal, yet wouldn't be caused by our own proposal.  (If you simply present a counter-proposal without any reason why the opponent's proposal is worse, then there's no reason to prefer your system over their system.

That description assumed that there was one advantage that the counterproposal couldn't fix.  However, there are many cases in which the counter-proposal will fix everything.  In that case, you only need to win two arguments in the entire debate.

Now you tell me: Which is easier?

******************************************************************************************************************

Okay, so telling stories about high school kids yelling at each other is one thing, but what does this mean in terms of real world shit?  For that, let's turn to the Health Care debate in the US.

Obama comes on stage and announces his proposal for health care.  The GOP hates the idea.  What do they do?

They could openly oppose the idea 100%, and advocate the current system.  However, that won't work.  The House has a GOP minority, and the Senate is filibuster-proof.  If the framing of the debate is "either universal health care or nothing," the Senate will most definitely opt for universal health care.  The Democrats would pass their bill, and the Republicans would be written off as losers in the debate.

However, the GOP didn't do that.  Instead, Republicans are presenting their own health care proposal.  They're cutting down a few programs, changing a few things... the works.  By presenting a more moderated policy, the Republicans have managed to break the Democrat lines: some conservative Democrats are questioning whether Obama's proposal is worth the debate or even whether it's a good idea.

Remember the context of these happenings: The GOP is only 40 people that can't successfully filibuster anything as long as the Democrats are a unified front.  Their only way of getting their voice heard is to break the Democrat lines.  The health care debate allowed the GOP to do exactly that, and now their minority position has gotten more political sway than it statistically should get.

As a person who is relatively on the conservative wing, I often find myself on the defensive on issues like this.

Universal health care: Democrats have a proposal, GOP is framed as wanting more of the same.
Gay marriage: Democrats have a proposal, GOP is framed as wanting more of the same.

However, the issue of being on the defensive isn't exclusive to Republicans: Democrats had to play defense on the Social Security Reform debate last year, and had to do similar with the domestic reforms in '01, such as No Child Left Behind.  So this isn't advice to one party or another.  It's advice to all people who are forced in the defensive on political discussions.

We can do one of two things while opposing a proposal.  First, there's the route of advocating the current system.  This is the way most people have taken the debate.

This is an uphill battle.  You may be 100% right on the issue.   But the population at large is much less willing to accept you than they will accept a proposal.  Here's why:
A: Testability: Many people in the US can point to relatives who they believe received improper treatment at a hospital under the current system.  If they can, it shows an empirical example of why there is something wrong with the current system.  However, you, as an opponent of that person's plan, can never point out people who have been given improper health care as a result of their exact scenario, as their system has not been tested.  You are trying to extrapolate real world deaths from hypothetical scenarios.  In short, they can PROVE your system has problems, but you can't PROVE their system has problems, simply because their system doesn't exist.

B: Most people who support health care reform can cite some person they know who was hurt under the current system.  To them, universal health care isn't an issue of comparative hypothetical models.  To them, it's about a mother, brother, child, spouse, friend, or other relative who actually was hurt.  To them, the issue is an emotional issue.  They want SOME change.  These people can't be won over without proposing a change in policy.

I'm not saying that we need to compromise on issues.  Republicans don't always need to present proposals that concede certain things to the Democrats.  Reforms can exist without the need for concessions.  Some examples:

Sean Hannity has proposed a health care system where people would be given a credit of a certain amount of money every year which they could use toward health care.  It would still operate within a free market health care system, and only makes extremely modest concessions.

In closing, I want to tell you roughly about a commercial I used to see a couple years ago.  It demonstrates exactly what I am talking about, and thus is one of my favorite political ads ever (which is ironic considering that I'm pretty much against their position).

The AARP ran an ad against Bush's proposed social security reform plan.  It opens with a plumber removing his head from under a sink, and a woman standing over by him.  The plumber says, "No doubt about it.  There's a leak... we'll have to rebuild the house."
As the homeowner stares at him, confused, an iron ball is suddenly thrown into the house, taking down a wall.

A backvoice then begins: "Social security is the same way.  Should we respond to some minor problems with Social Security by... taking down the house?"

An effective message: Large problems don't necessarily need large solutions.  While a small message, the AARP managed to send the exact message I'm talking about: some change may be needed, but the change the opponent (Bush) is advocating isn't the RIGHT change.