Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
deathrow93

Condo Spending CP?

Recommended Posts

How do you handle the perm on one of these counterplans (ex: the united states federal government should give money to prisons) the cp adds the condition that they must also decrease overcrowding (ex: the united states federal government should give money to prisons, on the condition that they will decrease prison overcrowding) so how would one handle the perm on this CP?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That proposed cp has a solvency defecit bc it doesn't communicate the condition to the prisons.

 

Assuming the cp text is similar to The USFG should offer to increased funding for prisons if prisons agree to X, there are a few perm options.

 

1. Perm do both -- this perm is the plan text and the counterplan text, it doesn't really get you anywhere though b/c the neg should point out that prisons will accept the plan over the counterplan which makes the net benefit a disad to the perm.

 

2. Perm do the cp -- this perm argues that the aff should be able to implement the cp as is because it isn't textually competetive. If you choose to go this route you should read an interpretation of should.

 

3. Egregious intrinsic perm -- read a perm that to do the plan and implement X standards in prisons. Yeah it's cheating, who cares? Odds are the 1nc had conditional advocacies, so it's your job to lie cheat and steal more in the 2ac. Either:

A. The block gets bogged down in the perm spam and doesn't cover, so you're intrinsic perm solves the counterplan 100% by fiating the net benefit or,

B. The block points out you're a cheater. Then the 1AR stands up and says, "Not going for it, reject the argument not the team. Multiple perms key to hedge against the block." If the 2NR chooses to whine about it then the 2AR should make clear you aren't going for it and tell the neg to sod off.

 

4. Multiple worlds perm -- The counterplan fiats the possibility of two outcomes, one where prisons agree to the condition and the plan is passed, and one where prisons refuse the condition and the plan isn't passed. Therefore you should be able to advocate the world where prisons agree to the plan. It isn't severance because you advocate 100% of the plan. If prisons would say no you don't advocate the perm (but do go for case as a DA to the CP). It also isn't intrinsic because the CP fiats two possible outcomes, which are questions of solvency. You should pin the 1nc down in cross-x on the timeframe of the cp. Odds are they'll smirk and say the CP is immediate, thinking they're hot shit for running textually plan plus counterplans. If they hint that the CP is immediate then the perm isn't a timeframe perm. Which brings us to the final perm;

 

5. Timeframe perm -- Do the CP then do the plan. If you're lucky they'll think it's a lie perm and answer it incorrectly. If not they'll just call you a cheater for severing out of the immediacy of the 1ac, in which you reply, "reject the argument not the team." NOTE: this only severs timeframe, not the rest of the 1ac b/c if they say yes then the plan is redundant and if they say no you still do the plan. In the event that they say the perm severs out of part of the 1ac you should stand up and laugh. Also, the block must specify how you sever or they're s.o.l.

 

If you don't have substantive 2ac answers, read the generics and spam the perms. As long as you get rid of the obviously cheating perms in the 1ar then you're speaker points will be intact. If the 1ar goes for bad perms that are answered properly, you're speaker points will be hijacked.

 

Go for the multiple worlds perm.

 

Don't lose to multiple perms bad, it's shameful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

intrinsic on do both, it adds the conditioning. severance on do the cp. really just read theory against most/all of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
intrinsic on do both, it adds the conditioning. severance on do the cp. really just read theory against most/all of them.

Not so much (aside from the read theory part, which is obvious).

 

AT: Do Both -- "Doesn't solve the net benefit, prisons will get funding without adhering to conditions." This perm isn't intrinsic, it's just dumb considering the counterplan tests the opportunity cost of doing the plan unconditionally.

 

AT: Do the Counterplan -- severs out of 'should' and 'resolved' in the resolution (you should read interps of those two here). Githens was right to call it severance but without identifying what type of severance you're wasting your time and the 1ar will preempt 2nr clarification. Frantically yelling severance rarely works.

 

AT: Cheating Intrinsic Perm -- identify any intrinsic aspects and supplant that with the claim, "this makes neg wins impossible because the aff will fiat in the net benefit of the counterplan through the perm." Makes the aff a moving target, etc.

 

AT: Multiple Worlds Perm -- in CX of the 1nc you should be vague on the timeframe of accepting the condition, and assert it doesn't happen immediately. Doing so will make answering this easier because you can treat it like a timeframe perm even though it isn't. You should also nebulously claim it's severance (along the lines of do both) to try and scare the 1ar off of it. Note: there's a distinction between frantically yelling severance because you don't know how to answer a perm and yelling severance to force the (hopefully time-crunched) 1ar to explain a complex permutation. You should also assert that giving the 1ac the option of permuting outcomes makes them a moving target. Although not true, these arguments might scare away the 1ar at best. And at worst they'll drop something silly and the 2nr can go for it like it's their job (and it is). I'm not the most adept at answering this perm because it's kind of Truth.

 

AT: Timeframe Perm -- makes the aff a moving target because 'then' is unlimiting, which means the neg can never win, etc.

 

Don't go for Severance/Intrinsic Perms bad in the 2NR as a reason to reject the team, you look foolish. If you flag theory violations as reasons to reject the perm and not voting issues for fairness your speaker points will improve.

Two exceptions:

1. you have to because you got smoked by the 1ar -- this is "the prayer" 2nr because you hope deep down the judge pities you enough to vote neg

2. the 1ar was foolish and didn't say "reject the argument, not the team" -- this is the cheap shot 2nr, where you should be awarded for lying, cheating, and stealing better than the 1a.

 

What helps a lot in the 2nr is preempting what perms you think they'll go for (it should be obvious) by pointing out clearly what they dropped and why the missing explanation makes the perm impossible to win. Make sure to identify what wasn't there to prevent new arguments. Although judges should be keyed in people make mistakes, and 2ars are sneaky. It's also easier to sneak in a perm explanation than it is to sneak in a uniqueness/impact claim on substantive issues.

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...