Jump to content
persrap

Perming a D/A

Recommended Posts

I'm pretty sure I understand this, but more explaination would be nice.

 

Has anyone ever won on this argument? is it legit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest fizelly27

can u post ur basic explanation for us people who ahve no diea wat ur talkin bout rite now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never went for the argument. From what I understand, if the link is to something regarding an action of the judge or the actor of the plan (eg. congress), then you can perm to solve for the uniqueness.

 

It's intrinsic, which could be a theory argument on top of the "abuse" of perming a DA. I'd say it's cheating, but "legit".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you "perm" a DA, you're basically saying that the DA isn't intrinsic because there is an intervening action that could prevent the DA from happening.

 

Example: Plan = Give Johnny a Dollar

DA = Johnny will use that dollar to buy crack

Perm = Do the plan and educate Johnny on how crack is bad

 

 

It's about as conditional as you can get on the AFF side.

 

As for its legitimacy...

Good luck pulling that in Colorado.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a good argument and it is certaintly more legitimate than a politics disad.

"Debate without intrinsicness is artificially divorced from real decision making processes."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When you "perm" a DA, you're basically saying that the DA isn't intrinsic because there is an intervening action that could prevent the DA from happening.

 

Example: Plan = Give Johnny a Dollar

DA = Johnny will use that dollar to buy crack

Perm = Do the plan and educate Johnny on how crack is bad

 

 

It's about as conditional as you can get on the AFF side.

 

As for its legitimacy...

Good luck pulling that in Colorado.

 

Better, and a bit more justifiable example: AFF spends money, NEG argues that increased levels of spending leads to economic crash and nuclear war. AFF could argue, "your disad is stupid. If spending is going to cause a nuclear war, obviously Congress isn't so dumb* as not to realize that they should cut spending elsewhere."

 

*They are that dumb.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think that as long as the neg gets adv CP;s teh aff gets intrinsicnes perms, and if the neg uses a disad like p-tix as the net benefit to an advantage CP i think that the neg will have a snowballs chane in hell of winning intrinsicness perms bad.

 

 

 

heres my question tho,

 

is perming a disad geberally just a test of competition, or if the neg doesnt go for the disad in the 2nr, can the 2ar come up and extend the permutation and claim the advantages of the disad?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I generally think of it as a test. The way I think of intrinsicness is that you should only evaluate disads intrinsic to plan, meaning as a result of plan action. Ex/ Plan pisses off China would be intrinsic to plan. You shouldn't get disads based off the impacts of another action by the US, these impacts are the result of another action, not plan. Ex/ Politics.

 

This interp would get you out of some of ground arguments the neg has. Allowing any action to repair any argument pretty much jacks the entirety of neg ground.

 

In my view the intrinsicness answer serves just as a test of the intrinsicness of the DA to the plan. If its not intrinsic it goes away.

 

It would pretty much be the same as advocating the perm against a CP. If they didn't pin you down, their fault, go for it.

 

Those are just my probably ignorant ideas.

 

Oh and dont call it a perm. Its not.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is only really legit against disads like politics that base the impacts off the US taking another action.

 

I agree. The example with "give johnny a dollar and mandate he won't spend it on ___" is obviously abusive, but the DA perm doesn't HAVE to be that bad. It may sound sketchy, but it can be pretty logical, primary on politics and other process disads.

 

The "perm" that I have run against politics in the past is using signing statements. Basically, if the neg argues that this will affect Bush's PC, then you say he will issue a signing statement that communicates his obvious disapproval of the action of the congress, but allows it to go through anyway. If its perceived that this is not one of "bush's policies" then he doesn't alienate the repub base/gain/lose PC, etc.

 

In these terms, personally, i think that it had legitimate ground. This isn't really even a perm, when you think about it, its normal means for Bush. In this sense, the perm on the disad becomes a contest on how the plan will be passed. Allowing the "perm" for the aff gives them ground to dispute a link/normal means that the neg would otherwise be able to arbitrarily establish. Basically, if you're arguing over how the plan is going to be passed, the neg shouldn't get to decide (the aff should).

 

That being said, I think its rare that you'll find a judge that will listen to it (let alone vote on it).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Politics is a disad to NORMAL MEANS which every aff should defend. If you don't want to cut uniqueness updates, critique the business like a normal person.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Politics is a disad to NORMAL MEANS which every aff should defend. If you don't want to cut uniqueness updates, critique the business like a normal person.

 

Or you can just impact turn. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If debate is about finding the best policy option, and the permutation is real world and predictable, perming non-intrinsic process disadvantages is probably pretty strategic.

 

There are two things that should probably be done:

1. It's important to understand the major distinction between perming a change in U.S.-Mexican relations and perming the passage of another bill. Your interpretation should be that only the intrinsic perming non-intrinsic process disadvantages is legitimate, which probably solves all of their predictability offense. Winning that intrinsicness is good is pretty easy too.

2. Read some form of theory on their counterplan/kritik alternative. Most teams will respond with "best policy option." Conceding this is a sweet justification for your permutation.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can perm a disad through severance too.

I've (on rare occasions) seen some aspect of normal means or a subset of a blanket organization severed, with the justification being plan focus good theory. Mostly, disad perms seem to either be:

1. Red Herrings meant to distract other teams.

2. A method of veiling the 'reject their argument' portion of some theory block against an abusive da.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, intrinsic or not, politics DAs are amazing even if they arent intrinsic to the plan.

 

Politics benefit the activity as a whole because they reward the team that does the work and keeps up with current events. People should know the immediate ramifications of passing a plan and if it has non-intrinsic ramifications...so what? This is like having the US pass an open immigration plan September 12th...probably a bad idea even if the plan itself would have seemed amazing on the 10th.

 

Additionally, politics are uber-educational and since YES the aff plan would probably effect politics, then politics leave a lot more specific room for affirmative strategy that could adequately answer the scenerio or have to do with case (i.e. democrats love/hate our specific aff).

 

I agree, this intrinsicness is not an awful argument, [at the same time, I completely understand why it holds very little water].

 

(*This post has been modified to better describe my viewpoint)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The "perm" that I have run against politics in the past is using signing statements. Basically, if the neg argues that this will affect Bush's PC, then you say he will issue a signing statement that communicates his obvious disapproval of the action of the congress, but allows it to go through anyway. If its perceived that this is not one of "bush's policies" then he doesn't alienate the repub base/gain/lose PC, etc.

 

In these terms, personally, i think that it had legitimate ground. This isn't really even a perm, when you think about it, its normal means for Bush. In this sense, the perm on the disad becomes a contest on how the plan will be passed. Allowing the "perm" for the aff gives them ground to dispute a link/normal means that the neg would otherwise be able to arbitrarily establish. Basically, if you're arguing over how the plan is going to be passed, the neg shouldn't get to decide (the aff should).

 

That being said, I think its rare that you'll find a judge that will listen to it (let alone vote on it).

 

 

I think that your interp of normal means is perhaps one of the most abusive ideas I've heard in awhile. Simply because it's infinitely regressive. Plan can always consult XYZ, issue statements of advocacy/non-advocacy of plan, or pull money from funds A&B so as not to take away from C & D.

 

 

 

If debate is about finding the best policy option, and the permutation is real world and predictable, perming non-intrinsic process disadvantages is probably pretty strategic.

 

Read some form of theory on their counterplan/kritik alternative. Most teams will respond with "best policy option." Conceding this is a sweet justification for your permutation.

 

That is pretty tricky, and I do like that.

 

Still a bad idea over all though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree. The example with "give johnny a dollar and mandate he won't spend it on ___" is obviously abusive, but the DA perm doesn't HAVE to be that bad. It may sound sketchy, but it can be pretty logical, primary on politics and other process disads.

 

Actually, I think you're completely assbackwarding the justification for intrinsic perms and fitting them into this false mold that I'll label "Mary-land" at this point and time.

 

The entire theoretical justification for the intrinsic perm is that it doesn't make sense in a world in which the judge is assuming they're the USFG. Example: Politics disads often say "passage of x makes congress pass y, and y's bad" - if the judge is roleplaying a member of congress, it makes *no sense* for them to go "omgz - plan is such a good idea that I will literally *have* to vote for a piece of leg that is bad!" I find the intrinsic perm on the disad most persuasive when both teams are conceeding this functional framework for the round.

 

The "perm" that I have run against politics in the past is using signing statements. Basically, if the neg argues that this will affect Bush's PC, then you say he will issue a signing statement that communicates his obvious disapproval of the action of the congress, but allows it to go through anyway. If its perceived that this is not one of "bush's policies" then he doesn't alienate the repub base/gain/lose PC, etc.

 

Such a thing may exist in Mary-land, but not in real debate. This is clearly clarifying in the 2AC the process in which the plan functions, functionally no-linking the argument by changing the way plan works. This is *far* different than the argument that the way the disad functions simply doesn't make sense in a given framework. This is like your above example, except that Johnny gets his crack via medicinal form so that he no-links the WOD DA. Seriously.

 

In these terms, personally, i think that it had legitimate ground. This isn't really even a perm, when you think about it, its normal means for Bush. In this sense, the perm on the disad becomes a contest on how the plan will be passed. Allowing the "perm" for the aff gives them ground to dispute a link/normal means that the neg would otherwise be able to arbitrarily establish. Basically, if you're arguing over how the plan is going to be passed, the neg shouldn't get to decide (the aff should).

 

If this is so, then frame it as "no-link - normal means is x - your link assumes y."

 

That being said, I think its rare that you'll find a judge that will listen to it (let alone vote on it).

 

More exist than you think.

 

That is pretty tricky, and I do like that.

 

Still a bad idea over all though

 

But look at what Structuralism is talking about. The 'search for the best policy option' is assuming that the judge somehow has the magical ability to pass plans, make amendments, and initiate in active discussion, e.g. they're roleplaying congress. If Congress realizes that Immigration reform is bad, they're *not* going to pass it just because Bush convinced them all that Gay Marriage is evil - gay marriage is an issue independent of immigration, and thus, such a link doesn't make sense.

 

However, this functionally only exists in a world where one assumes the judge is the USFG/Congress/Bush/etc. If you're assuming the judge to just be a critic of the plan that can't actually pass/modify the proposal, then such a perm would be ground-shifty and abusive. However, such perms are possible. For instance, perms like "do the plan and nothing else that links to the link" is effective in showing that the link evidence is really talking about a wide range of political changes, not just the affirmative plan. It's the same way as perming a Statism K by saying you affirm plan, not the entire statist structure, for instance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Look, intrinsic or not, politics DAs are amazing even if they arent intrinsic to the plan.

i beg to differ.

Politics benefit the activity as a whole because they reward the team
sorry, you meant assistant coaching staff, right?
that does the work and keeps up with current events. People should know the immediate ramifications of passing a plan
what's immediate about building bipartisanship or spending political capital?
and if it has non-intrinsic ramifications...so what?
...so it's not a reason to reject a plan, just a cute little observation.
Additionally, politics are uber-educational and since YES the aff plan would probably effect politics then politics leave a lot more specific room for affirmative strategy that could adequately answer the scenerio or half to do with case (i.e. democrats love/hate our specific aff).
you give no reasoning as to how politics is educational; you just say that affs can find link cards going both ways. woohoo. that's not educational.
I agree, this intrinsicness is not an awful argument, at the same time, I am very sympathetic towards judges that ignore it.

how can you be sympathetic towards judges that ignore ANY argument? that's completely antithetical of what their function is supposed to be.

 

more specifically, i think perming politics disads is entirely legitimate. you just have to be able to defend it. it's not all that difficult and there are several ways to pull it off. just set it up in the 1ac.

 

i also think politics disads are satan's spawn.

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If debate is about finding the best policy option, and the permutation is real world and predictable, perming non-intrinsic process disadvantages is probably pretty strategic.

 

There are two things that should probably be done:

1. It's important to understand the major distinction between perming a change in U.S.-Mexican relations and perming the passage of another bill. Your interpretation should be that only the intrinsic perming non-intrinsic process disadvantages is legitimate, which probably solves all of their predictability offense. Winning that intrinsicness is good is pretty easy too.

2. Read some form of theory on their counterplan/kritik alternative. Most teams will respond with "best policy option." Conceding this is a sweet justification for your permutation.

that makes zero sense. absolutely zero. you are clearly cheating if you make that argument

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that makes zero sense. absolutely zero. you are clearly cheating if you make that argument

 

I think that's because he starts describing perming a disad on a *policy level* in his #1, and then starts talking about how it would work if you were advocating a critical policy in his #2.

 

At any rate, I think he's on the right track. Process disads don't make sense in a world in which the judge is the ultimate arbiter of which policy option they pass. To say "judge, you'll love our plan so much that you'll give into bush and pass immigration reform, even though we all know it's bad" makes no sense. This is what the permutation is arguing - that if debate really is about competing policy options, then the passage of future legislation that's bad due to plan isn't intrinsic - the disad is a reason not to pass that leg, not a reason to fail plan.

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...