The counterplan is a recent strategy used in debate whereby the negative team can urge adoption of a new policy rather than defend the status quo. This paper isolates some of the requirements for a debate counterplan, discusses its strategic implications, and describes three conditions which debate theorists define as necessary for a valid counterplan. First, it cannot adopt the topic; in doing so, both teams would agree on some form of the resolution and the affirmative team would automatically win. Second, it must be competitive with the affirmative plan; the negative team must demonstrate that its plan is exclusive and superior. Finally, the counterplan must be reasonable, presenting a policy option that the judge is able to adopt. The paper considers the potential uses for the counterplan and discusses the controversy concerning the traditional debate concepts of presumption and burden of proof in reference to it. (MAI)