Jump to content
flyingjakob

How an Advantage Counterplan Take Out and Impact Even With a Perm?

Recommended Posts

I know that there was a thread for advantage counterplans already, but I didn't really follow the reasons why a perm doesn't solve and am still confused. Thought that I might make a new thread so that we could go more in-depth on this specifically. Sorry, about making a new thread, but it's kind of urgent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of advantage counterplans aren't mutually exclusive with the aff- you can technically do both at the same time, so the permutation solves if the advantage counterplan is read on its own. For example, say that an aff solves global warming through their plan, and that's their only advantage. Say that you propose an advantage counterplan that also solves global warming. You can technically do both the aff and the counterplan at the same time (as the counterplan alone is not a better option than doing the counterplan and the plan together or the plan alone) so the permutation solves and the aff wins.

 

That's why an advantage counterplan is meant to be read with a net benefit, usually in the form of a disadvantage that links to the aff but not the advantage counterplan. If the aff's plan (referring to the previous example) is politically unpopular while the advantage counterplan isn't, then you could read the politics disad as a net benefit to the advantage counterplan. The permutation would NOT be a good idea because while the advantage counterplan alone solves both global warming and avoids the politics disad, while a combination of the advantage counterplan and the plan OR the plan alone would not avoid the politics disadvantage (even if it solved global warming.)

 

tl;dr you're supposed to read a disadvantage that links to the aff but not the advantage counterplan. while the permutation is possible, it's not preferable because the advantage counterplan is net beneficial, which means that the judge should choose the neg since the neg solves the affirmative's advantages and avoids a disadvantage whereas the affirmative solves its own advantages but links to the disadvantage the neg doesn't link to. 

 

the advantage counterplan often doesn't solve the entirety of case, however. if your advantage counterplan only solves a part of case, turn/mitigate the advantages that your counterplan doesn't solve for, and read a disadvantage that links to the aff but not the counterplan. you win when you prove that the disad outweighs the parts of case that your counterplan doesn't solve.

Edited by chriskim
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just explain it in terms of force multiplication. Doing X combined with your plan (likely) multiplies the effectiveness of your scenario and concede that both plans likely cannot solve as well as we debaters lie that they can. Just go all in on the perm and read condo bad so they can't drop it. Get some fatty evidence about the multiplicative effects of public policy that works in tandem together and shit on them. I don't fucking care what these cheaters will say on this website about how we're supposed to just keep pretending that the hardcore tech side of debate is good enough to check back for actually naive and simply wrong conceptions of the world that we perpetuate when we say "that solves warming" or "nuclear war now, we stop that by doing ONE THING, only THIS THING can stop it. 

 

It doesn't matter if in your specific case it's not actually true that their are multiplicative effects. It's time for you to get the skills that Law School actually wants and learn to lie, but sound like you're always ahead of your opponent as you do. You should know terms-of-art of your topic area and use that ability to piece together some story about why the perm is 10x better than just aff or cp alone. Bank on the perm with the whole probability * timeframe thing in impact calc being explained in such a way that the judge believe that everything besides the perm is suspect. That is the right way to make every cheating team get collectively super mad and reevaluate their lives when they try to dodge actual substantive DA/K debates. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just explain it in terms of force multiplication. Doing X combined with your plan (likely) multiplies the effectiveness of your scenario and concede that both plans likely cannot solve as well as we debaters lie that they can. Just go all in on the perm and read condo bad so they can't drop it. Get some fatty evidence about the multiplicative effects of public policy that works in tandem together and shit on them. I don't fucking care what these cheaters will say on this website about how we're supposed to just keep pretending that the hardcore tech side of debate is good enough to check back for actually naive and simply wrong conceptions of the world that we perpetuate when we say "that solves warming" or "nuclear war now, we stop that by doing ONE THING, only THIS THING can stop it. 

 

It doesn't matter if in your specific case it's not actually true that their are multiplicative effects. It's time for you to get the skills that Law School actually wants and learn to lie, but sound like you're always ahead of your opponent as you do. You should know terms-of-art of your topic area and use that ability to piece together some story about why the perm is 10x better than just aff or cp alone. Bank on the perm with the whole probability * timeframe thing in impact calc being explained in such a way that the judge believe that everything besides the perm is suspect. That is the right way to make every cheating team get collectively super mad and reevaluate their lives when they try to dodge actual substantive DA/K debates. 

wut 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just explain it in terms of force multiplication. Doing X combined with your plan (likely) multiplies the effectiveness of your scenario and concede that both plans likely cannot solve as well as we debaters lie that they can.

Permutation is a test of competition and not an advocacy. You just conceded that your case can't solve. 

 

Just go all in on the perm and read condo bad so they can't drop it.

So...go all in on condo bad? That's not how debate works. They can still kick out of the counter-plan, they just have to answer condo. If you're going for condo the perm is irrelevant since the round comes down to theory anyways. 

 

Get some fatty evidence about the multiplicative effects of public policy that works in tandem together and shit on them.

See my first point. 

 

I don't fucking care what these cheaters will say on this website about how we're supposed to just keep pretending that the hardcore tech side of debate is good enough to check back for actually naive and simply wrong conceptions of the world that we perpetuate when we say "that solves warming" or "nuclear war now, we stop that by doing ONE THING, only THIS THING can stop it. 

 

It doesn't matter if in your specific case it's not actually true that their are multiplicative effects. It's time for you to get the skills that Law School actually wants and learn to lie, but sound like you're always ahead of your opponent as you do. You should know terms-of-art of your topic area and use that ability to piece together some story about why the perm is 10x better than just aff or cp alone.

This doesn't answer why it links to the DA. All this does is mean that the risk of voting neg became substantially lower because an aff ballot 'won't solve.' 

 

Bank on the perm with the whole probability * timeframe thing in impact calc being explained in such a way that the judge believe that everything besides the perm is suspect. That is the right way to make every cheating team get collectively super mad and reevaluate their lives when they try to dodge actual substantive DA/K debates. 

 

Unless you have specific evidence for why a CP is bad or why it can't solve (for example, in my V-debate here a few months ago I had the luxury of reading a  blackouts DA against someone's energy credit/tax thing) then it's just better to concede defense on that advantage and go for something else. This is why you read advantages with different internal link scenarios.

 

Also, I'd say a huge chunk of the judging community is extremely pro Advantage CP + DA strategies because really, it's just smart. Debate is a game, we're not actually going to solve warming by voting aff or neg, and it's way better than the usual shitty PIK debates. 

  • 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.

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...