Jump to content
Guest silvermdc1

Vague Perms bad

Recommended Posts

what does a vague perm look like?

 

cx

a. what was that perm?

b. do the plan and parts of the alternative

a. what parts?

b. you know, those parts.

 

seriously though, aren't teams just like "do both," or "pass plan and do all parts of the alt beside voting neg"? any perm i've seen that sounds confusing at first is usually just intrinsic, at least i've never run into a "vague" perm. if they don't clarify in the cx, then the judge is definitly not gonna be on their side, it seems like most people would just go for a solvency defecit on an unarticulated perm, or make more mutual exclusivity analysis. if they can't explain a clear way in which the plan can be done with the cp/alt, then it probably doesn't solve, and it probably just proves that the two can't be done together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

seriously though, aren't teams just like "do both," or "pass plan and do all parts of the alt beside voting neg"? any perm i've seen that sounds confusing at first is usually just intrinsic, at least i've never run into a "vague" perm. if they don't clarify in the cx, then the judge is definitly not gonna be on their side, it seems like most people would just go for a solvency defecit on an unarticulated perm, or make more mutual exclusivity analysis. if they can't explain a clear way in which the plan can be done with the cp/alt, then it probably doesn't solve, and it probably just proves that the two can't be done together.

 

This.

 

But if you must run this argument, you could probably do something like:

 

a. the perm is vague [explain why]

 

b. this is bad and a voting issue for the following reasons:

 

1. Ground- It allows the aff to shift out of any offense we put on the perm by changing their intent in the rebuttals.

 

2. Clash and Education- The perm is educationally bankrupt because its too vague for us to ever really debate it; we'll spend the entire round just trying to determine what it does.

 

3. It proves the superiority of the alternative/counterplan- We're giving you a clear explanation of how the alternative/counterplan functions. You'll prefer this over the vague, indeterminate solvency story of the perm.

 

This really isn't that good of an argument, though, so I definitely wouldn't recommend putting much weight on it in the round. Whatevs.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its a complete moving target. When you try to generate offense against it, they say "oh no, thats not what we meant, its this!" Allows them to constantly change advocacies.

 

even if they dont actually do it, still has the potential to meaning it still skews your strategy because you dont have a reliable way to answer it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. Ground- It allows the aff to shift out of any offense we put on the perm by changing their intent in the rebuttals.

 

This is as called a moving target. ;)

 

EDIT: Vague perms are also unfair; they allow an aff side bias via allowing affirmatives to always use vague, shitty perms to prove the uncompetitiveness of the alternative/CP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This.

 

But if you must run this argument, you could probably do something like:

 

a. the perm is vague [explain why]

 

b. this is bad and a voting issue for the following reasons:

 

1. Ground- It allows the aff to shift out of any offense we put on the perm by changing their intent in the rebuttals.

 

2. Clash and Education- The perm is educationally bankrupt because its too vague for us to ever really debate it; we'll spend the entire round just trying to determine what it does.

 

3. It proves the superiority of the alternative/counterplan- We're giving you a clear explanation of how the alternative/counterplan functions. You'll prefer this over the vague, indeterminate solvency story of the perm.

 

This really isn't that good of an argument, though, so I definitely wouldn't recommend putting much weight on it in the round. Whatevs.

 

Wow all this stuff is probably way more applicable to the K alt. . . might be dangerous (as well as just being. . .bad) to read on a K perm. . .

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sweet warrants. Not all alternatives are vague, especially in the same sense that these types of perms are vague.

 

Regardless, as Rachel has already said, this isn't a very good argument in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow all this stuff is probably way more applicable to the K alt. . . might be dangerous (as well as just being. . .bad) to read on a K perm. . .

 

Not necessarily. Good K teams will use a coherent, well-articulated alternative that they'll stick to all round. If your alternative is sketchy enough to bite those arguments, you have bigger problems in the round than a vague perm.

 

Like I said, I don't recommend reading this argument, but the original post asked for arguments you could use...in my experience people aren't interested in being told "don't run that", they want their question answered.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not necessarily. Good K teams will use a coherent, well-articulated alternative that they'll stick to all round. If your alternative is sketchy enough to bite those arguments, you have bigger problems in the round than a vague perm.

 

Like I said, I don't recommend reading this argument, but the original post asked for arguments you could use...in my experience people aren't interested in being told "don't run that", they want their question answered.

 

Yeah, and good aff teams will use a coherent, well-articulated perm.

I don't know, it seems like by the time you have to break these arguments out, the round already sucks anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a note: this isn't a very high quality argument to make. At most, it is a reason to reject the perm.

 

3 judges in an outround at Ohio Valley ignored this argument even when the 1AR and 2AR conceeded it and the neg said it was a reason to reject the team (with warrants).

 

I'm not saying you shouldn't make this argument, just don't overestimate its viability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...