Jump to content
Ralmar

New to Theory arguments

Recommended Posts

I am very new to theory arguments, I knew a little about them tell I did mass research on them for the past couple of days because of my surgery. Anyways if permutations are just theories in policy who's to say the negative cannot perm. I read up and clarified my knowledge of a perm I think at least, and I have come to understand they are used to show how the negs harms should not be applied as an argument based on the grounds that they can be solved by just combining both plans. Especially a article in 2005 I read from some guy ( I could pull up author if you want and link) stated that perms started from some essay talking about the theory of a perm argument in like the 80's. Anyways he argued you should argue against the neg after you perm them because a perm doesn't mean you will do it literally its just a way to show the judge that you can easily solve there harms as I stated before. But what is stopping a neg cp or k from perming a aff for the same reason a aff would? These are some questions I have that I would appreciate if someone more advanced cleared it up because I started to think about making neg perm argument but I know I need peer review before I give it actual consideration. Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Ralmar said:

I am very new to theory arguments, I knew a little about them tell I did mass research on them for the past couple of days because of my surgery. Anyways if permutations are just theories in policy who's to say the negative cannot perm. I read up and clarified my knowledge of a perm I think at least, and I have come to understand they are used to show how the negs harms should not be applied as an argument based on the grounds that they can be solved by just combining both plans. Especially a article in 2005 I read from some guy ( I could pull up author if you want and link) stated that perms started from some essay talking about the theory of a perm argument in like the 80's. Anyways he argued you should argue against the neg after you perm them because a perm doesn't mean you will do it literally its just a way to show the judge that you can easily solve there harms as I stated before. But what is stopping a neg cp or k from perming a aff for the same reason a aff would? These are some questions I have that I would appreciate if someone more advanced cleared it up because I started to think about making neg perm argument but I know I need peer review before I give it actual consideration. Thanks

Perms are really just tests of competition, which is why the affirmative can't go for them as advocacies. The burden of the negative, under a traditional policy framework, is to prove that the aff should not be done. That means that negative advocacies must be competitive to be weighed in a debate. Therefore, a negative perm serves the same functional purpose as an aff perm. It just proves that the negative advocacies aren't competitive, so these arguments would actually hurt you. Obviously you can think of a good policy option that could be done along with the plan, but that doesn't mean you should win. Of course, there are PICs and PIKs that allow you to access the affirmative, but that's a different issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PrideOfLenin said:

Perms are really just tests of competition, which is why the affirmative can't go for them as advocacies. The burden of the negative, under a traditional policy framework, is to prove that the aff should not be done. That means that negative advocacies must be competitive to be weighed in a debate. Therefore, a negative perm serves the same functional purpose as an aff perm. It just proves that the negative advocacies aren't competitive, so these arguments would actually hurt you. Obviously you can think of a good policy option that could be done along with the plan, but that doesn't mean you should win. Of course, there are PICs and PIKs that allow you to access the affirmative, but that's a different issue.

I am confused though because what I read from old text books and old essays on perms suggest they are a argument to show that the negative is not really competitive like a you suggested a test of competition. But they say also that they test competition but it also shows that the harms the negative would bring up would/ should not be a voter based on the fact that a perm argument could solve it. Because from what I understood perms are just a way of showing that harms are not voters so don't even consider them when judging but also you should argue against the plan you are perming because a perm isn't being literal, its just a way of showing that the negatives harms don't matter. But also with the different types of perms you can technically get around competitiveness of your opponents case. Like for example I am running a neo lib k. any plan I run up against I instantly link to them because the plan has to go through USFG but theoretically couldn't we do a severance perm with our neo lib k so we do not enact the USFG part we skip that out but we instead run our alt, (which is people rise up and take over the U.S and turn it to a communist government) as well we do a severance perm to the aff were we enact lets say part of their plan where it says "decrease immigration restriction by allowing open borders." So to sum up my idea in my head as a neg K, I perm the aff using a severance perm just as the aff could do to us but we do not enact the USFG part of the plan which would cut out our competitiveness, but cutting out our competitiveness would be fine because that is the point, we are only cutting it out because of the specific type of perm we would use. But perms as I said before are just a way to show your opponents harms they bring up should not be judged because of the way we could perm there case so we could solve there harms. We cut out competitiveness so we can perm but we can only do this by doing a perm that says we enact all of the cp or k, then we enact some of the plan. The aff could do the same thing to us by saying they don't enact their USFG part but enact the entire cp solving all of our harms. I do know though there are theory arguments that say these types of perms are bad but you could find a defense to that easy because of all the theory arguments from Gonzaga etc. This is all an idea though and like I said I am very new to theory arguments and such but I thought of this the day I started expanding my knowledge about theory arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Ralmar said:

I am confused though because what I read from old text books and old essays on perms suggest they are a argument to show that the negative is not really competitive like a you suggested a test of competition. But they say also that they test competition but it also shows that the harms the negative would bring up would/ should not be a voter based on the fact that a perm argument could solve it. Because from what I understood perms are just a way of showing that harms are not voters so don't even consider them when judging but also you should argue against the plan you are perming because a perm isn't being literal, its just a way of showing that the negatives harms don't matter. But also with the different types of perms you can technically get around competitiveness of your opponents case. Like for example I am running a neo lib k. any plan I run up against I instantly link to them because the plan has to go through USFG but theoretically couldn't we do a severance perm with our neo lib k so we do not enact the USFG part we skip that out but we instead run our alt, (which is people rise up and take over the U.S and turn it to a communist government) as well we do a severance perm to the aff were we enact lets say part of their plan where it says "decrease immigration restriction by allowing open borders." So to sum up my idea in my head as a neg K, I perm the aff using a severance perm just as the aff could do to us but we do not enact the USFG part of the plan which would cut out our competitiveness, but cutting out our competitiveness would be fine because that is the point, we are only cutting it out because of the specific type of perm we would use. But perms as I said before are just a way to show your opponents harms they bring up should not be judged because of the way we could perm there case so we could solve there harms. We cut out competitiveness so we can perm but we can only do this by doing a perm that says we enact all of the cp or k, then we enact some of the plan. The aff could do the same thing to us by saying they don't enact their USFG part but enact the entire cp solving all of our harms. I do know though there are theory arguments that say these types of perms are bad but you could find a defense to that easy because of all the theory arguments from Gonzaga etc. This is all an idea though and like I said I am very new to theory arguments and such but I thought of this the day I started expanding my knowledge about theory arguments.

The examples you're giving are PICs. You wouldn't call that a perm because the aff doesn't have the burden of being competitive with the neg. It's the other way around. PICs are different because they test whether the whole of the aff is necessary rather than whether the neg is actually proving that the aff is bad. Say you read a counterplan to increase food aid to Africa and then make a "perm" to do that and part of the plan. What is the strategic importance of the counterplan to increase food aid to Africa? It would be better to just read "do part of the plan" as a PIC given that they can just perm do both away the advantage to the CP. Also, the aff can't say they don't enact their USFG part because that would sever out of the plan. Severance perms bad isn't actually an easy argument to beat, because it's true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The neg can make perms, they're called plan plus counterplans and they don't win. If the neg can say "do all of the aff but also this other thing" they will always win because there's always another good thing you could do in addition to the aff, and doing all of the aff and another good thing is net better than doing the aff without that good thing, which is unfair and a bad model of debate. The neg CAN make arguments that do most of the aff (but not ALL of it) and they're called PICs. If the plan was "do x, y, and z" the neg could read a PIC that said "do x and y" then give reasons why doing z is bad. That means that the neg doesn't have to worry about beating x and y since they can access all the offense from x and y, so all they have to do is win that z is bad. Since the aff has to defend that the whole plan is good (or else they sever which is bad) it means that if they can't win that z is good then they should lose. Also side note, old articles about perm theory are probably not very useful since debate and the community evolves very quickly and they become outdated after a few years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, XrossEcramination said:

The neg can make perms, they're called plan plus counterplans and they don't win. If the neg can say "do all of the aff but also this other thing" they will always win because there's always another good thing you could do in addition to the aff, and doing all of the aff and another good thing is net better than doing the aff without that good thing, which is unfair and a bad model of debate. The neg CAN make arguments that do most of the aff (but not ALL of it) and they're called PICs. If the plan was "do x, y, and z" the neg could read a PIC that said "do x and y" then give reasons why doing z is bad. That means that the neg doesn't have to worry about beating x and y since they can access all the offense from x and y, so all they have to do is win that z is bad. Since the aff has to defend that the whole plan is good (or else they sever which is bad) it means that if they can't win that z is good then they should lose. Also side note, old articles about perm theory are probably not very useful since debate and the community evolves very quickly and they become outdated after a few years.

Process CPs can win

it's just a bit of work to do

but there's only one good one this year, as far as i can tell

the HRIA CP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/21/2019 at 5:01 PM, AlistairTheKDebater said:

Process CPs can win

it's just a bit of work to do

but there's only one good one this year, as far as i can tell

the HRIA CP

Process CPs and plan plus CPs are distinct. Process CPs can win since they have a net benefit through their process, but plan plus cps don't have a net benefit since it doesn't uniquely link to the aff. Also, process CPs probably shouldn't as much as they do, since they're definitely on super sketchy ground.

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...