Jump to content
CarlaR

How to answer perm double bind

Recommended Posts

Hey all

 

I always struggle with answering perm double bind arguments from the aff in my 2nc. I usually say stuff like "rejecting frontierism in every instance is key" (because it's a frontier K). If anyone has any advise on what could be said or done differently that would help a bunch. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Kritik turns the case - means there's no net benefit to including the case - any risk that the case is bad is a reason to favor the alt"

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, infinite regression.  Every time the K is brought up, the elites will say "okay, we'll stop doing bad things, but make an exception this one time", the end result being that no change is made at all.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To recapitulate, this all is true if the K is good. Kritiks need to turn, outweigh, and solve the case in some capacity. If they don't do those things, or they don't affect the ballot's framing, then the aff will have more leverage on the permutation double bind.

Since this is at the end of the post, I wanted to pull it out and emphasize it as what I think is the most important part of dancon's post. And it's really true for all kinds of theory debates; if you know what your argument really is saying and how it acts as a reason to vote Aff/vote Neg/reject the plan, all these theory debates become much easier. You get in trouble when you abstract debate theory from the meaning of your argument, and then you do things like saying "Aff dropped the perm in the 1AR, so we get to claim the perm on Neg and get the benefit of Aff's advantages too," and then you manage to lose a round where all you had to do was extend and explain the ecofem K you were winning going into the 2NR...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its theoretically illegit, there are no other instances

 

No matter how many times K teams say that it never ends up being true. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No matter how many times K teams say that it never ends up being true.

Why not? It's clearly not an open-and-shut case, but I've always found the perm to be intuitively intrinsic. It doesn't seem much better than allowing the judge to perm a politics disadvantage, honestly. But I'm interested to hear what you think.

Edited by dancon25

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not? It's clearly not an open-and-shut case, but I've always found the perm to be intuitively intrinsic. It doesn't seem much better than allowing the judge to perm a politics disadvantage, honestly. But I'm interested to hear what you think.

AOI is definitely intrinsic unless the kritik includes all instances already. If the K does include all instances it is severance out of part of the K (but not the aff) which is always legitimate. 

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...