Observation 1: negative must give only a single counterproposal.

This means that the neg must provide a counter plan to the affs case. The reason that the Neg must do this can be seen in the national forensics association rulebook The negative may present one counterproposal specific to the affirmative problem area. Counterproposals should be used to demonstrate that a reasonable alternative plan would be better policy than either the status quo or the affirmative plan . If the negative does not give a CP then you must vote aff So now the neg has a necessary but insuffient burden to provide a cp meaning that they will lose the round if they do not have one but yet they cannot win off one alone
By this, we mean that the counterproposal mus t deal with the problem ar ea defi ned by the affirmati ve, and not the for m of government, ec onomic s ystem, or need for further study (UNLESS SPECIFIC ALLY IDENT IFIED AS A KEY ISSUE IN TH E R ESOLUT ION). . Counterpropos als s hould be l ogicall y c onsistent with all other negati ve arguments c onstructed during the debate. If inconsistencies aris e and the affir mati ve poi nts them out, the j udge s houl d rej ect the arguments i nc onsis tent with the counterpr opos al. C ounterpr opos als must be non-topic al and are s ubj ect to the s ame burdens of s ol venc y as are r equired for affirmati ve plans

Observation 2: The negatives plan cannot be a kritik Again look to the national forensics association rulebook: the counterproposal must deal with the problem area defined by the affirmative, and not the form of government, economic system, or need for further study This means that any K argument should be completely disregarded
The negati ve may pr esent one c ounterpr opos al s pecific to the affirmati ve problem area. By this, we mean that (UNLESS SPECIFIC ALLY ID ENTIFIED AS A KEY ISSU E IN TH E R ESOLUT ION). Counter proposals shoul d be us ed to demonstrate that a reas onable alternati ve plan would be better polic y than ei ther the status q uo or the affir mati ve plan. C ounter proposals should be logic all y c onsi stent with all other negati ve arguments constr ucted during the debate. If i nconsis tenci es arise and the affir mati ve points them out, the j udg e s hould rej ect the arguments inconsistent with the counter pr oposal. Counterpropos als must be non-topic al and are subject to the same bur dens of s ol venc y as ar e req uired for affir mati ve pl ans.

Observation 3: Topicality arguments have no weight and should not be valued at all in this round one last time lets look to the national forensics association rulebook:
The negati ve may pr esent one c ounterpr opos al s pecific to the affirmati ve problem area. By this, we mean that the counterpropos al mus t deal with the problem ar ea defi ned by the affirmati ve, and not the for m of government, ec onomic s ystem, or need for further s tudy (UNLESS SP ECIFIC ALLY ID ENTIFIED AS A KEY ISSUE IN TH E R ESOLUT ION). Counter proposals should be us ed to demons trate that a reasonabl e alt ernati ve plan woul d be better polic y than either the status quo or the affir mati ve pl an. C ounterpr opos als s houl d be logicall y consi s tent with all other neg ati ve arguments cons tructed duri ng the debate. If i nc onsistenci es arise and the affir mati ve points th em out, the j udge s hould rej ect the arguments inconsistent with the c ounter proposal.

Counterproposals must be non-topical and are subject to the same burdens of solvency as are required for affirmative plans.

"LD Rules." National Forensic Association. NFA, n.d. Web. 05 Nov. 2013