Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
nathan_debate

Timeframe Perms Legitimate

Recommended Posts

Dave Arnett makes the argument that mechanical perms are legitimate.

You don't have to do all the counterplan. Just all the plan.

 

If you sever the immediacy of doing the counterplan immediately--this doesn't seem to be illegit.

 

(although of course you're losing out on solvency of the c/p till then)

 

Thoughts?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting point. I'm lost on the relevance to the question of timeframe permutations.

 

On further thought...I think "its not immediate" can be warped into being intrinsic or severing the immediacy of the counterplan....

 

But I'm not sure how that changes things...

 

I think the larger question is how do you create a net benefit for this perm. (and they still probably have a link to their disad)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the aff can perm do plan now and CP later. Or CP now, plan later. They can do the same to disads. The fact that they dont doesnt matter - its a question of what it justifies.

 

As per the fairness of fiat interpretations, both plan and CP happen now. All action is taken immediately, delays are impossible in the world of fairness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so I spent a lot of time thinking about this last night...

 

Although I still maintain that because of fiat's immediacy, that time frame perms are illegitimate, I suppose the argument can be made that the counterplan is not an advocated policy that we should do, but a policy option we could do which is foregone by doing the aff plan. And likewise, the perm is a test of the counterplan, and it is something we could do.

 

But this only holds true in mutually exclusive counterplans. If it is non mutually exclusive, i.e. you can perm (regardless of whether the perm still bites the NB disad), then it doesnt hold true anymore because the CP must be a position which should be done in order for the neg to have leverage against the aff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the aff can perm do plan now and CP later. Or CP now, plan later. They can do the same to disads. The fact that they dont doesnt matter - its a question of what it justifies.

 

As per the fairness of fiat interpretations, both plan and CP happen now. All action is taken immediately, delays are impossible in the world of fairness.

 

You don't explain the parallelism between counterplans and disads very well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, not specifically to the disads, but if aff can delay the perm (or order it specifically), then there is no valid justification why the aff cant just delay plan to avoid the NB. So lets say you have a time sensitive politics disad with a CP. If the aff can say perm, do CP, avoid the Nb, then do plan (or whatever other ordering), the aff can just say "fine. wait until X happens which either makes the DA irrelevant or non-unique, and then do plan." There is no reason one can offer why the aff can justly and fairly delay in one situation and not the other - they are both uniquely bad for the competitiveness of the negative team.

 

Now, if the CP is mutually exclusive, the aff literally cant do this because the CP is a strict choice - you cant do both. And if you cant do both, then delay is impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, not specifically to the disads, but if aff can delay the perm (or order it specifically), then there is no valid justification why the aff cant just delay plan to avoid the NB.

 

His rational is that the permutation must do all of the plan (including immediacy), but not all of the counterplan (spike out of immediacy).

 

My problem with this, though, is that specifying a time is then intrinsic. Maybe it would be legit to spike out of immediacy and not specify when, but that makes it impossible to determine when the counterplan would happen (very possibly never, seeing as how the bottom of the docket never hits the top) and thus lose all solvency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
His rational is that the permutation must do all of the plan (including immediacy), but not all of the counterplan (spike out of immediacy).

 

My problem with this, though, is that specifying a time is then intrinsic. Maybe it would be legit to spike out of immediacy and not specify when, but that makes it impossible to determine when the counterplan would happen (very possibly never, seeing as how the bottom of the docket never hits the top) and thus lose all solvency.

 

 

Thats arbitrary. There is no reason why plan must be immediate but CP be whenever. Its about the power of delay and what it justifies. That would be no different than saying the aff can use fiat... but only on Thursdays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well no.

Let's pretend that immediacy is a plank of the plan and counterplan (in real life, we will assume that it is a required and assumed plank)

Therefore, spiking out of immediacy is like spiking out of a plank of a multi-plank counterplan. You can't do that with the plan, because that is severance. But, permutations have to be all of the plan and part of the counterplan, not necessarily all of it (though it can be all of it). Therefore, severing out of immediacy is only justifiable on the counterplan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well no.

Let's pretend that immediacy is a plank of the plan and counterplan (in real life, we will assume that it is a required and assumed plank)

Therefore, spiking out of immediacy is like spiking out of a plank of a multi-plank counterplan. You can't do that with the plan, because that is severance. But, permutations have to be all of the plan and part of the counterplan, not necessarily all of it (though it can be all of it). Therefore, severing out of immediacy is only justifiable on the counterplan.

 

Correct, perms can have a part of a CP. But it cant have part of the "immediacy". A CP is always immediate because the rules of fiat make it so.

 

In doing such perms, you lose the ability to consider a world of implications which occur post-CP. CP still needs to 'occur' for you to evaluate its impact. The CP employs fiat. Fiat must be immediate for reasons outlined previously and in other active thread (see DA and CP forum).

 

If the CP is delayed, it doesnt get the right of fiat. It never passes, you cannot evaluate its implications, and its a dead issue. No point in evaluating a policy which has no implications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that is probably true; if you delayed the counterplan, then the negative can easily win that the coutnerplan would never pass. However, if you had evidence indicating that, should Obama present X piece of legislation (the counterplan) it would pass very quickly, but Obama isn't presenting it, then doesn't that mean that you win that the delay permutation is legit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You miss the point entirely.

 

Fiat is a process-exclusionary principle. Plan never "passes" in the debate world. Fiat allows debaters to consider a status quo world in which plan exists. In order to do this fairly and equitably in a competitive game, it is assumed that the plan exists now.

 

The counterplan uses fiat just as much as the aff plan. The reason it uses fiat is because it is a deviations from the SQ. In order to envision the implications of change, the CP requires fiat. If it requires fiat, then it must be immediate.

 

Therefore, any argument suggesting the delay of plan or counterplan, irrespective of content and character, violates the basic tenets of fiat. In violating fiat, you create a world of un-fairness in that you can simple future-nonunique your opponents arguments. It also makes the predictability of implications significantly reduced because of the intervening events. Neither team can delay anything, for the sake of fairness. So not only can you not evaluate the implications of your policy(ies) if you delay, but you bite the fairness debate because its not what you do, its what you justify.

 

Politics disads, as linked through the mechanism of passing laws, violates fiat, btw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way i view timeframe perms is exactly as stated in the first post.

 

Legitimate timeframe perm

DO plan the CP later

 

illegitimate

DO CP then PLan

 

Reason the affirmative fiats the immediacy of plans passage in 1AC thus it doesn't matter, if they want to change it (definitions of should normally have something to do with expressing intent)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You miss the point entirely.

 

Fiat is a process-exclusionary principle. Plan never "passes" in the debate world. Fiat allows debaters to consider a status quo world in which plan exists. In order to do this fairly and equitably in a competitive game, it is assumed that the plan exists now.

 

The counterplan uses fiat just as much as the aff plan. The reason it uses fiat is because it is a deviations from the SQ. In order to envision the implications of change, the CP requires fiat. If it requires fiat, then it must be immediate.

 

Therefore, any argument suggesting the delay of plan or counterplan, irrespective of content and character, violates the basic tenets of fiat. In violating fiat, you create a world of un-fairness in that you can simple future-nonunique your opponents arguments. It also makes the predictability of implications significantly reduced because of the intervening events. Neither team can delay anything, for the sake of fairness. So not only can you not evaluate the implications of your policy(ies) if you delay, but you bite the fairness debate because its not what you do, its what you justify.

 

Politics disads, as linked through the mechanism of passing laws, violates fiat, btw.

 

I disagree with this statement, the affirmative isn't bound by the negatives fiat just as the negative isn't bound by the affirmatives.

 

If the negative can run a counter-world as your seeming to put it, then the affirmative can argue a third world or a permutation, in which the plan happens then the CP happens and that has absolutely no theoretical inconsistencies.

 

In your view i agree with you up until you talk about the counter-plan.

 

The COunter-plan does not function in the same formulation of Fiat as the plan. Simply put the counter-plan in my view is nothing more than a test of the oppurtunity cost of the affirmative plan. i.e. this is what we forgo to do the plan. If the plan proves that in the world we function in (i.e. assumption of plan going on now) the CP could still be done then the CP does not prove the plan is a bad idea, and thus is rendered uncompetitive.

 

Ask if you need clarification running on no sleep right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our positions arent mutually exclusive - except with the instance of a mutually exclusive counterplan (note: I havent seen a single team run one of those in more than ten years). Counterplans which can be done simultaneously (i.e. consult, states, etc) are not counterplans - they are neg policy options. The term counterplan implies that there is forced choice. In the world of non mutually exclusive counterplans, there is no forced choice, only a better choice... aka best policy option paradigm.

 

Without neg fiat of the CP, you cannot evaluate the implications of the CP (i.e. that it avoids a NB or has an intrinsic advt over the plan or greater solvency or what have you). The reason you cannot evaluate the implications is because you can never consider it a a nonmutually exclusive policy option in the realm of possibilty - it faces the same inherency inertia as plan. And fiat by both teams must be immediate for the reasons of fairness outlined... well... everywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dave Arnett makes the argument that mechanical perms are legitimate.

You don't have to do all the counterplan. Just all the plan.

 

If you sever the immediacy of doing the counterplan immediately--this doesn't seem to be illegit.

 

(although of course you're losing out on solvency of the c/p till then)

 

Thoughts?

 

**Note: I did not read very much of this thread so if my answer overlaps with others, I am sorry.

 

I think that you are framing this incorrectly. It is not severing immediacy. This permutation is intrinsic, because it adds on time between the plan and the counterplan. [insert reasons why intrinsic perms are bad]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>>Maybe it would be legit to spike out of immediacy and not specify when, but that makes it impossible to determine when the counter plan would happen (very possibly never, seeing as how the bottom of the docket never hits the top) and thus lose all solvency.

 

Perhaps I should re-frame--pass now, implement later.

 

Actually, I think if bills are at the bottom of the docket they have to circle through them to end the session--but I don't know for sure.

 

Also, arguably fiat means plan gets on the docket and is passed--else wise debate would be pointless--because inherency would always already stop plan passage. So automatically before the session ended--fiat ensures that plan passes.

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...