Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
magicmasterk

Arguing against Performance "Perms"

Recommended Posts

hey, any performance debaters? how would you answer back a neg argument of...

 

Performance Perms - Used when the affirmative makes some use of performance in their 1AC; the negative attempts to argue they can subsume some or all of the performance and win the round on other grounds. Essentially, they argue that the judge can endorse the performance and still vote negative. Usually run as part of a strategy containing a counter-advocacy to the affirmative, in the form of a counterplan, kritik, or even negative performance.

 

 

Especially if your performance may be nontopical, how would you combat this strat when you are running performance on the aff?

 

Any help would be great...and I don't really want this to turn into another thread about how performance is bad in general. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well what is the reason to embrace the performance and still vote neg?

 

if its a CP it probably doesn't solve or isnt competative. but i dont know

 

I mean there are so many diff types of things you can do it really has to be a specific case or performance

 

if you could elaborate on what you mean, bcs to me "performance" is way too vauge

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I usually roll with a hip-hop aff similar to the "LSA" one from GDI, my framework sets up the ballot as a tool used in support of a critical education project. I've heard neg teams just saying that they agree with our project and because we don't affirm the resolution, there's no unique reason why the performance belongs to the aff. They usually run this with args that say like "ballotcentrism" is bad and it reifies oppression

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I usually roll with a hip-hop aff similar to the "LSA" one from GDI, my framework sets up the ballot as a tool used in support of a critical education project.

 

explain your framework? is it aff ballot = support, neg ballot = don't support or?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my framework says that aff ballot=judge supports our project. neg ballot=judge doesn't support our project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hell, it's been a while since i've posted around here.

 

Do you mean likewhe you read techno sweet, and they play techno and straight turn your argument. Hell I dont know, maybe beat their argument? Co-opting will probally solve a lot f your shit back.

 

No, I think the argument is more nuanced than that. The argument is that since a nontopical performance is (naturally) not part of the resolution, there's no coherent reason why the negative needs to negate the performance. Forcing the negative to negate only reifies oppressive power structures through 1. ballotcentrism (which I think is discussed pretty thoroughly in the johnny 23 argument in the kritik forum) and 2. forcing the negative team to lose merely because the affirmative is a good idea (ie, if the affirmative comes out and asserts that racism is bad, the negative has to either say racism is good [which generally won't fly], somehow have a clever kritik or PIC out of the advocacy, or lose) leads to the death of switch side debate in turn leads to a homogenization of discourse, reifying the harms that they plan to stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...