An additional way a team can demonstrate that a counterplan is not competitive is by permuting the counterplan. Any part of the counterplan included in the permutation becomes irrelevant to the judge's decision because those parts are not competitive. If the counterplan bans the affirmative plan's increased outerspace development and also increases exploration of the Antarctica, the affirmative could permute the counterplan. They could argue that exploration of outerspace could happen at the same time as increased exploration of the Antarctica. So, the only relevant part of the counterplan would be the part which banned outerspace development.
Some teams argue that they can capture the advantages of the permutation.
For example, the affirmative team in the previous example could argue that since Antarctic exploration is now included in the permutation, the affirmative should also be able to claim the advantages of Antarctic exploration. However, the captured portion must still be topical. If it is not, then the advantage or support does not support the topic. In addition, the negative may argue that the affirmative's capture is unfair since it means the affirmative has essentially created a new affirmative case. Thanks to John Grace for this question.