Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Clark Kent

Appropriate Aff Responces to K?

Recommended Posts

If you are running an affirmative, say FGM, with an advantage that critques status quo society, and the negative runs a Kritik that does the same, but not exactly, ie one is patriarchy one is racism, Is an appropriate responce by the affirmative "Perm - Do the plan, plan enacts the criticism with policy", perhaps combined with a no alt solvency without policy action at the perm debate? Is the perm intrinsic? If so, is the intrinsic perm justified?

 

Edit: Just realized this could be put in theory forum as well, move if needed please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

don't add the second part of the perm

essentially you're saying "perm- do plan" then read the policy key stuff for perm solvency

really, its a fancy link turn/we solve the root cause of your K arg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

really, its a fancy link turn/we solve the root cause of your K arg

 

See, that's what gave me the logic train to posting this question.

 

Making the argument that "we solve root cause of K" adresses the impact, but not the link. For instance, if the negative leads a discourse link, and the judge buys that discourse first before action, or if the negative wins (perhaps theoretically illegit :P) that the aff's harms are post-fiat, and the K is pre-fiat, then the judge has the option of voting for the K. The neg can say, overall, that even if post-plan there would be less racism (to continue the scenario from above), it doesn't change the fact they are being racist in the room right then.

 

In contrast, saying the word Perm contests the link/competitiveness of the K. It's saying that the K is no longer a reason to reject the aff because aff solves for racism post plan, "enacting" the cricicism. This is what made me think it could be intrinsic, because the aff changes the "status" of the 1AC - After the 1AC, aff says an effect of the plan is less racism in the world, post 2AC, the aff says this AND because they say we should solve for racism that means the K doesn't matter (maybe or maybe not regardless of their discourse etc) because the aff wants the same things as the neg.

 

Of course, it would be debatable whether that would actually work, but how does it stand as a competitive argument?

 

My $0.02

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...