Jump to content

Perf Cons

Recommended Posts

perfcon = performative contradiction


like if u critique apocalyptic rhetoric and then run a DA that ends in apocalyptic scenarios. to my understanding it would be used to show how outlandish the thing you're critiquing is, or maybe for an ironic argument. 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perfcons can be a little complex in the way they interact with other arguments in debate. It's also hard to give you a stable picture of what the argument "looks like" because there's not like a consistent set of "givens" with a perfcon insofar as everything is really up for debate with them. You should definitely make sure you're solid on conditionality and discourse first arguments before you start thinking about perfcon.


At the most basic level, a perfcon is a performative contradiction, which is some clash between two or more arguments made by one team. If you say that neoliberalism is bad and then advocate for introducing neoliberalism to Cuba, then there would be a performative contradiction in your advocacy, and also a double turn. At this point, we have to deal with the distinction between a perfcon and simply double turning yourself; again, because perfcons can be taken a lot of different ways, this is a fuzzy area, but I think a good general delineation is that a perfcon doesn't necessarily deal with evaluative statements, while a double turn does. For example, a double turn is (as a rule) saying X is bad somewhere and then saying X is good elsewhere (I mean, there are also link double turns, but that's essentially identical to evaluative double turns for our purposes because probability/causation claims don't really function differently here as far as I can tell). A pefcon doesn't have to be explicitly valuative, and is very often more implicit or rhetoric based: I can say gendered language is repressive and then scream fuck when my 1AR is ending soon (as I am prone to do). As you can see from that example, a perfcon isn't necessarily a double-turn, as in that example I'm not being evaluatively inconsistent, but I am linking into my own criticism, which I think is really the situation that perfcon describes best.


But can you criticize conditionally? Can you claim that gendered language is only bad if it's strategically favorable to do so? We all pretty much agree that you can conditionally advocate an action, yes, but I think it's not so easy to say that you can conditionally make an independent argument. When you kick the discourse K, unless you do it very cleanly and concede defense, I'm not super convinced that all of the arguments that go along with the advocacy are also discarded. 


Even if all of these arguments go in the favor of the team pointing out the perfcon, it's still not very strategically valuable. The time you need to take to adumbrate a significant impact would probably be better spent engaging substantively, unless the violation is egregious or offensive. 

  • Upvote 3

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.

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.


  • Create New...