Someone help me with CPs in LD.....

I've heard of doing plans and CPs in LD, but I haven't had the experience of hitting one until this year. This is what happened:

Double Octos at La Costa Canyon, CA (formerly a bid in LD...now it's just bids for Congress top 6, Policy, PF). The topic was "Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote." I ran my case as the AFF; the Neg goes up and runs a CP. His CP is that all felons should be disenfranchised except for ex-felons.

Now, my response was that in the 1A I define felon as non-incarcerated felons, currently incarcerated felons, and ex-felons (In some states, ex-felons are still disenfranchised). The Neg didn't respond to said definition. So, my case framework centers around the idea that ex-felons are disenfranchised; thus the CP becomes Affirmative ground, not negative ground. I don't think I lost on the CP, but I ended up losing on a 2-1.

After the round, I realized something; I never advocate a "plan" in my AC. A counter-plan is a plan used as an alternative to a plan. Thus, a CP doesn't make sense.....am I right in that thinking? I was just wondering; I can handle theory and intense philosophy, but for some reason I'm stumped on CPs. Any help?

The CP is competitive with the resolution even though you don't advocate a plan. For example, "States ought not possess nuclear weapons." A stock aff is run that says nukes cause nuke war or something. CP: All states but the United States ought not possess nuclear weapons. The PIC is competitive with the aff because it allows 1 state to have nukes. If your definition was really dropped, the CP would become a reason to vote aff, though.

Yeah, the definition was dropped. I ended up losing two ballots off of some standard and burden he had; I beat the CP easy.

So I watched a debate last night (From the Big Bronx Invitational) and I think this helped me understand CP's better.....in a debate, there's no inherent "negative world," meaning that all the negative has to do is offer reasons why to negate the resolution; there's no inherent burden on the negative to prove some alternative better. Would a CP then be a negative offering some "world" or "alternative?" In the sense that while the neg has no burden to prove some alternative true, if they offer a CP they can strengthen their stance. Is that a good way of summarizing it?

Negating without a world is probably unfair since they get infinite disad ground by pointing out problems with the plan while denying the aff a world to attack. In your example, though, the CP is the neg world. However, if the CP isn't unconditional, the neg still gets the status quo in most cases.

The best way to understand a CP is as an opportunity cost to the plan. If we do the resolution, it prevents us from doing the CP, and the CP is better than the resolution, so we ought to do the CP instead.