Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
HxC Forensics

Perms?

Recommended Posts

perms are a test of competition against the counterplan - therefore it's an aff argument

basically, it's to see whether the counterplan competes - if it is some option that is preferable over doing both the plan and part or all of the counterplan. they check against counterplans that are utopian, like world peace counterplans, or counterplans that are completely unrelated to the topic (like, for the upcoming africa topic, an example would be running a counterplan to expand LSA)

there are perms such as intrinsic perms, which add some third element not found in plans or counterplans, and severance perms, which don't include 100% of the aff plan. there are theoretical debates behind both of those perms, but imho they should be avoided.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perms aren't just for counter plans--they also should be made on K alts

A perm is a combination of the aff plan and a neg advocacy other than the SQ. A legit perm would include all the aff plan and all or part of the CP/alt

If it doesn't include all plan, it's severance, probably not legit

If it includes more than what is in the plan and CP/alt it's intrinsic, also probably bad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should search the forums for perms. There have been some really good discussions about what they are and how to use them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's try something a little less technical: A "perm" (short for "permutation") is a response to an opponent's proposal. Its purpose is to demonstrate that the opponent's proposal (no matter what it might be) is not a reason to reject YOUR proposal. Some examples:

 

Example 1:

  • Your proposal = Eat lunch at Culver's.
  • Opponent's proposal = Call your mother.
  • Your response = "Perm, do both." Your argument is that you can do both, and therefore calling your mother (no matter how desirable) isn't a reason NOT to eat at Culver's. Your opponent in this case is unlikely to have a satisfactory response...

Example 2:

  • Your proposal = Make debate a weighted class like other honors courses at your school.
  • Opponent's proposal = Abolish weighted classes at your school altogether.
  • In this example, you cannot "perm" because the opponent's proposal is mutually exclusive with yours. The judge can do one or the other, but not both.

Example 3:

  • Your proposal = USFG should distribute food to famine-ravaged areas in Sub-Saharan Africa.
  • Opponent's proposal = United Nations should distribute food to famine-ravaged areas in Sub-Saharan Africa.
  • In this example, you can try to "perm" because the opponent's proposal is not mutually exclusive with yours, but your opponent will argue that it would be better for Sub-Saharan Africa received food aid ONLY from the UN, not from both the U.S. and the U.N. This is called establishing competition via a "net benefit." If your opponent wins the net benefit argument in the debate, your "perm" response is no longer considered sufficient.

Does that make it a little clearer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks ts human, that was probably the best expl. Not saying the others didnt help, but i like the most basic expl. for things i really have no understanding as to what they are.

 

thanks guys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the need/justification for this new - and obviously ambiguous - "term of art" (read: artificial debate jargon)... "perm?" (Note: not only is the term "perm" a piece of jargon - it's an abbreviation for the original jargon.)

 

What's wrong with saying:

 

"The Negative CP is not mutually exclusive. There's no barrier to doing both." (First example.)

 

and/or...

 

"The Negative CP merely supplements our Plan; it does not deny its benefits. Again, we could do both. (Third example: both a US program and a UN Program.)"

 

"And besides, you lazy, sleazy, mental Lilliputians, the U.S. created, supports, maintains, and dominates the UN in the first place... What's the matter? Couldn't you find anything in those stupid-looking ugly rubber tubs to defend the Status Quo?"

 

[sorry... got a little carried away there.]

 

Seriously - What's wrong with debating in plain, conversational English? Is there some theory which holds there's an "upside" to redundant debaterbabble?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

now i have a question about a possible perm. lets use an offshore balancing CP as an example....

 

plan: Increase people in the military

CP: go to offshore balancing, pull all troops back to US

perm: Increase people in the military and use offshore balancing EXCEPT keep troops in Iraq.

 

 

what would this perm be since it is severance of the CP? WOuld it qualify as intrinsic? That is what it seems to me but i just want to check with someone who knows a bit more perm theory than me....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
because, this way in the 1ar you can say, "your cp has been permuted"

 

 

Nobody better say that in front of me if there's ladies in the room. Them's fightin' words!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
now i have a question about a possible perm. lets use an offshore balancing CP as an example....

 

plan: Increase people in the military

CP: go to offshore balancing, pull all troops back to US

perm: Increase people in the military and use offshore balancing EXCEPT keep troops in Iraq.

 

 

what would this perm be since it is severance of the CP? WOuld it qualify as intrinsic? That is what it seems to me but i just want to check with someone who knows a bit more perm theory than me....

 

 

What is the topic we're debating for this hypothetical?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is the topic we're debating for this hypothetical?

 

lets go with natl service because of the increase in troops, but out of curiousity why does it matter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You would have to know what the topic is to do a complete analysis of whether or not a CP is competitive and/or mutually exclusive. At least I would think that you would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is the need/justification for this new - and obviously ambiguous - "term of art" (read: artificial debate jargon)... "perm?" (Note: not only is the term "perm" a piece of jargon - it's an abbreviation for the original jargon.)

 

What's wrong with saying:

 

"The Negative CP is not mutually exclusive. There's no barrier to doing both." (First example.)

 

and/or...

 

"The Negative CP merely supplements our Plan; it does not deny its benefits. Again, we could do both. (Third example: both a US program and a UN Program.)"

 

"And besides, you lazy, sleazy, mental Lilliputians, the U.S. created, supports, maintains, and dominates the UN in the first place... What's the matter? Couldn't you find anything in those stupid-looking ugly rubber tubs to defend the Status Quo?"

 

[sorry... got a little carried away there.]

 

Seriously - What's wrong with debating in plain, conversational English? Is there some theory which holds there's an "upside" to redundant debaterbabble?

 

word economy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
word economy?

 

 

1. Go back and compare my version to Schuman's. With the exception of the sarcastic outburst (which WAS intended as a joke), mine's shorter.

 

2. Word economy is no bargain if the words which remain are incomprehensible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. Go back and compare my version to Schuman's. With the exception of the sarcastic outburst (which WAS intended as a joke), mine's shorter.

 

2. Word economy is no bargain if the words which remain are incomprehensible.

 

i am of the mind that the "perm" allows for more concise argumentation, even if it doesn't economize our phraseology.

 

more to the point, i would like to note that dictionary.com has seven entries for "permutation." I would hardly call the word, or much of the other jargon used my team debaters incomprehensible. I cant imagine that it takes a very long time to explain what a "perm" is. perhaps the reason we TD'rs don't speak speak like "normal" people is because we arent. we are not unlike doctors and lawyers who have terms that are specific to their profession. i bet that the average citizen wouldnt know what "mens rea" is, it takes some explanation just like any other esoteric- or rather profession specific jargon would.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i am of the mind that the "perm" allows for more concise argumentation, even if it doesn't economize our phraseology.

 

more to the point, i would like to note that dictionary.com has seven entries for "permutation." I would hardly call the word, or much of the other jargon used my team debaters incomprehensible. I cant imagine that it takes a very long time to explain what a "perm" is. perhaps the reason we TD'rs don't speak speak like "normal" people is because we arent. we are not unlike doctors and lawyers who have terms that are specific to their profession. i bet that the average citizen wouldnt know what "mens rea" is, it takes some explanation just like any other esoteric- or rather profession specific jargon would.

 

If you're happy with the language you use, more power to you. I encourage you to do what you're most comfortable with, and I wish you every possible success.

 

Just a few thoughts, and I'm going to let this point drop, because - ironically - I don't want to "debate" it.

 

1. I know of no downside to using language which is commonly understood. By contrast, in my experience, using language that is commonly understood is helpful because it broadens your audience.

 

2. (A) I don't use legal jargon (i.e. mens rea) very much, either - even when I communicating only within the legal community. In fact, for the last thirty years, lawyers have been under constant and increasing pressure from all corners - including the bench - to "lose the legalese" and speak plain English. (B) I spent years conducting seminars to teach doctors to avoid medical jargon. I've been forced to defend doctors and other health care professionals in at least two dozen malpractice cases that were filed for one reason, and one reason only: they spoke medical jargon to their patients, their patients misunderstood them, and when they patients didn't get the results they thought they were "promised," they sued for fraud, misrepresentation, or plain old breach of contract.

 

3. If a term (i.e. "perm") has 7 different definitions - that guarantees that it's ambiguous.

 

4. I'm not sure what "normal" in our society is, and I would never encourage anyone to settle for being "average," but I don't think of myself as "abnormal," and I don't think of debaters as being "abnormal" either.

 

Well, now... for an advocate of "word economy," I've shot my mouth off much too much - so let me just wish you good luck, and Godspeed! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a question that will boggle some of you, what does it mean when T is permed? And how would you answer it? ( Yes I understand it won't win many opinions but I need to know how to answer it)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's a question that will boggle some of you, what does it mean when T is permed? And how would you answer it? ( Yes I understand it won't win many opinions but I need to know how to answer it)

 

uhh something like:

 

1nc: policy requires an administrative mechanism to implement it

 

2ac: counter-interpretation: policy is a course of action by the government

 

neg block: perm their interpretation--it doesn't compete. A policy is a course of action by the government carried out through an administrative mechanism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
now i have a question about a possible perm. lets use an offshore balancing CP as an example....

 

plan: Increase people in the military

CP: go to offshore balancing, pull all troops back to US

perm: Increase people in the military and use offshore balancing EXCEPT keep troops in Iraq.

 

 

what would this perm be since it is severance of the CP? WOuld it qualify as intrinsic? That is what it seems to me but i just want to check with someone who knows a bit more perm theory than me....

 

bump

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should be noted that there are other sub-flavors of permutations besides intrinsic and severance permutations. A timeframe perm, for example, would say first do A and then do B. A parital permutation is a term sometimes used to describe a perm that doesn't do all of the negative advocacy.

 

CP perms are generally held to be a test of the competitiveness of the CP, while a kritik perm is often held to be a test of the link of the K.

 

It should also be noted that disads have, in the past, been permuted as a way to test the claim that the disadvantage challenges the beneficience of the affirmative plan. In the past couple of years, however, these kinds of permutations have been largely supplanted by discussions of the "intrinsicness" of the disadvantage. Some debaters and judges don't like that pathway of argumentation, however, and it is by no means a "common" argument.

 

There are also counter-permutations, which are also sort of weird and uncommon. A counterperm is used to answer a perm that is held to be intrinsic. If plan is to expand the Peace Corps presence in Southeast Asia, and the CP is to consult ASEAN, with a piracy net benefit, one possible permutation would be to do plan and consult ASEAN on piracy. A possible counterperm would therefore be to consult ASEAN on both plan and piracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it can be used that way. Something approaching a permutation to do plan without expending political capital, or to do plan by spending Reid's political capital instead of Bush's have been used for that in the past.

 

Ultimately, it's not that different from a no link argument that presents evidence that Reid wants plan and has capital to spend on it.

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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...