Jump to content
PhatAlbert

Perming a da

Recommended Posts

first, i think technically, it is POSSIBLE to perm a disad. You could just get rid of the link, like "do plan and pass bushs policy" or "do plan and make china happy". It is possible

 

second, it is one of the single most abusive things ever. The negative would literally never win. Since the perm would probably end up severing, and would be intrinsic, it means everything the neg runs, the aff can perm, and adjust the text to solve it all back. Id just run severance and intrinsic perms bad, and theres a major abuse story. The perm is do part of the plan, part of the disad, and a little something else. Very abusive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but if you DO perm a da (do not do this) and you say "just do plan and let da happen" (which is what a "da perm" would be) then the mpx would happen too, which is what the negative is proving is whats terrible about passing the plan. the mpx are why the negative team wins on DAs. if the aff perms a da, they concede the link and mpx, its basically the same as saying "ok they're right, the da links to our case and our case will cause the mpx to happen" they might as well say "we concede on the DA" and they would then automatically lose the round on said DA!!!!!!!

 

like i said, the ONLY way i can see it feasible to "perm" a DA and still win the round is to turn the mpx and claim them as advantages. that's the only way it would work out in the aff team's favor.

 

so don't say you're "perming" it. just turn the damn mpx.

 

</rant>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what if i want to perm the uniqueness? That's not very nice. Now, go write your answers to the perm on the disad block. GO!

 

this would seem to work more as a uniqueness overwhelms the link type of argument. the argument, at least how i would see is that, lets say we're still running elections, and the U was that bush is losing in the SQ, you would say perm the uniqueness, bush is winning and will win. i think this would work like saying that the U is so strong that the link doesnt matter. maybe im wrong though. IMO, the only possible way to perm a DA would be to say, "pass plan and pass X act or policy with the plan". but then that is itrinsic an shit. once again, this should never be tried.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok, back into the mess.

 

here's the way i see things--

 

i agree with the idea that "perming uniqueness" already has a name. i think that to stay TRUE to the nature of a permutation, you have to prove that Two Distinct Worldviews are compatible...a disad being a representation of the status quo. the argument, "perm: do the plan and pass the legislation they say trades off with the plan" IS in fact impossible.

 

one of three things is true:

a) what some people are saying in this forum is true, and the links still apply, because the plan is, by nature, the imposition of a worldview unto the status quo

 

or B) if the permutation "solves the link" because what happens post plan is equal to the status quo, then the case isnt inherent

 

or c) if you're arbitrarily adding or subtracting things to your plan, this stops becoming a permutation and starts becoming flat out aff conditionality. no need to call it a perm like the ones youre using against actual worldviews

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
first, i think technically, it is POSSIBLE to perm a disad. You could just get rid of the link, like "do plan and pass bushs policy" or "do plan and make china happy". It is possible

 

second, it is one of the single most abusive things ever. The negative would literally never win. Since the perm would probably end up severing, and would be intrinsic, it means everything the neg runs, the aff can perm, and adjust the text to solve it all back. Id just run severance and intrinsic perms bad, and theres a major abuse story. The perm is do part of the plan, part of the disad, and a little something else. Very abusive.

in·trin·sic Pronunciation Key (n-trnzk, -sk)

adj.

1. Of or relating to the essential nature of a thing; inherent.

 

2. Anatomy. Situated within or belonging solely to the organ or body part on which it acts. Used of certain nerves and muscles.

 

Please run instrinsic perms bad on me. I'll whip out a bunch of non-intrinsic ones. Like do plan and cure AIDS.

Get your theory terms right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Belcher, I think it was used right. The word intrinsicness has nothing to do with what the word intrinsic means. Instrinsic is plan plus something that wasn't in a negative advocacy, so obviously most DA perms would be intrinsic not severance. You can be severance and intrinsic simulataneously. It's just like how conditional counterplans can be kicked whenever the negative is disposed to do so while dispositional counterplans can be kicked upon certain conditions. Just more terms to make the novices spend more on debate camps to learn the trade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if you could possibly perm a da(which i don't think is possible, I wouldn't ever try it) why would you want to when you can whip out like 3 link turns/non-uniq in the time it would to take explaining how you are perming the da, let alone the time you would have to use to defend it.

 

I say just try it and see what happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A perm is a test of competition. Does the arugment constitute an alternative to your plan that is exclusive from your plan. The perm is saying that since it's not exclusivce, it's not a reason to reject the aff. A DA links more directly and doesn't offer an alternative, thus it can't be permed.

This is right, but... If the DA isn't intrinsic to the plan (in other words it doesn't force choice) it can be "permed" although you wouldn't phrase it that way. An example is the intel trade off DA. Its link to the plan is time trade off. Obviously it is possible to support intel increase and the plan. The intinsicness arg. would be a test of competativeness.

 

*sorry i just realized that what i said has already been said

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dude ... just whine and say that your mpx outweigh. or put pre-fiat implications into your case.

 

would u like some cheese with that whine?

 

JUST DONT PERM A DA!! this thread should die.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JUST DONT PERM A DA!! this thread should die.

A EFFING MEN. I really wanted to say that but i didn't want to be seen as the bitter theory elitist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A EFFING MEN. I really wanted to say that but i didn't want to be seen as the bitter theory elitist.

 

we dont allow gendered language in this thread. but seriously, i hope this thread goes straight to hell...same with anyone who tries to perm a DA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Belcher, I think it was used right. The word intrinsicness has nothing to do with what the word intrinsic means. Instrinsic is plan plus something that wasn't in a negative advocacy, so obviously most DA perms would be intrinsic not severance. You can be severance and intrinsic simulataneously. It's just like how conditional counterplans can be kicked whenever the negative is disposed to do so while dispositional counterplans can be kicked upon certain conditions. Just more terms to make the novices spend more on debate camps to learn the trade.

I'm saying the term is 'a non-intrinsic perm'. Meaning it brings in something that wasn't intrinsic to either advocacy. An intrinsic perm would be one that was intrinsic to the advocacies, or basically, a legitimate perm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just phrase the agrument as a standard "not intrinsic" response.

word.

 

(quoting just in case some of you missed it the first few times it was posted by people.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
we dont allow gendered language in this thread. but seriously, i hope this thread goes straight to hell...same with anyone who tries to perm a DA.

all i said was amen with effing in the middle.

 

awomyn then? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perm -- pass social security reform (or applicable 'tix scenario) and then do plan. Fiat solves back political capital loss. We'll debate abuse.

 

Now can someone explain to me exactly why I can't do that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you can perm a disad. but dont phrase it like a perm. say something like there is no reason the social security reform act cant be passed as a rider to the plan. don't claim any advantages off the perm just say that the disad is comp. sure this isnt intrinsic to the plan but if you really want to perm a disad then you can defend intricness permutations.

 

now, if you actually want to claim advantages that is where you will be stepping into really bad theory ground. you would prolly have to defend object fiat, intricness perms, and a crap load of other abuse. + you'll prolly still have to debate them on the disad because most judges wont by the perm anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the perm is either a non-intrinsic or an alternate causality arguement that they misworded.

 

I don't see a DA being permed but some are non-intrinsic or have alternate causalities that do make them effectively "go away"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perm -- pass social security reform (or applicable 'tix scenario) and then do plan. Fiat solves back political capital loss. We'll debate abuse.

 

Now can someone explain to me exactly why I can't do that?

I didn't say you couldn't do it, I said it wouldn't be a perm. What you are referring to is a straight-up non-intrinsic answer, and I see no benefit to calling it a perm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps you could "perm" a DA if it were the Net-Benifit on a counterplan. E.G. A courts Cp having the courts pass plans so bush does not lose PC for X policy, one may be able to say a as a perm to the CP pass plan and the net benifit(being a policy not passed because of plan).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the ppl that say it wouldn't be a perm, you could call it a "test of cooptation" and then claim that with the "test of cooptation" you're only allowed to be intrinsic and not severence, this way you still have the original advocacy and you're testing the ability of the plan to avoid the disad, in a way, the uniqueness perm mentioned above is like this...the point is though, either 1) you hit a good team, and they beat you on the theory, or 2) you hit a shitty team, that you could've beaten without the perm and the effort you put into the theory.

 

And if you're going to "perm" a disad, might as well perm solvency arguments while you're at it :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And if you're going to "perm" a disad, might as well perm solvency arguments while you're at it :rolleyes:

Don't give them any ideas! I've heard enough inane arguments in rounds!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perm -- pass social security reform (or applicable 'tix scenario) and then do plan. Fiat solves back political capital loss. We'll debate abuse.

 

Now can someone explain to me exactly why I can't do that?

 

That argument is just a fancy way of saying "do plan later." Immediacy and set policy mandates are decent standards for affirmative fiat. Even setting some limits on this (must do the plan within the current Congressional session, for instance,) you're gutting lots of possible and legitimate negative arguments. Good debates usually have things like disads.

 

Please run instrinsic perms bad on me. I'll whip out a bunch of non-intrinsic ones. Like do plan and cure AIDS.

Get your theory terms right.=

 

Think of the relationship between the plan and the disad logically:

 

Plan: help the UN

Disad: Intel bill good, with a political capital link

 

Plan: A[plan]

Disad A[plan] -> B[killcap] -> C[!intel]

Perm: A[plan] + !C[!intel]

 

You're adding something that's not in the original argument - the opposite of C. In order to add the opposite of C, you'd have to add the opposite of A - don't do the plan. You're also confusing a consequence for a cause. The consequence of doing the plan is the failure of the intel bill - not the other way around. That's why you're adding something - you could argue that they implicitly demand that the intel bill passes, but i mean, if this is true, why can't the negative just counterplan away all of your advantages and then read solvency arguments? Even if the perm is logically true, that's because the neg is losing uniqueness or the link. The argument is still the same as an intrinsicness perm on a counterplan. I mean, if you permute to do the plan and pass the intel bill, you're doing nothing but jacking them of an impact. If they have solid uniqueness evidence and a link, just debate the argument and don't do anything silly. You'll probably end up with something stupid like them permuting to just pass the intel bill, then reading another disad impact.

 

Example:

 

Plan: increase assistance to Sudan

advantages: genocide (militias in Sudan), EU-US relations (war in Europe), heg (war with Russia)

 

counterplan: the militias in Sudan will cease the genocide. Europe and the US will not go to war. Russia and the US will not go to war.

enormous theory dump

 

case:

the UN sucks

 

When you permute the counterplan, they'll counterpermute. When you read new advantages, they permute (do the counterplan and whatever the internal link to the advantage is). The net benefit to all this stuff is UN bad.

 

If I knew a team frequently permed disads, and I had a judge who wouldn't punish my speaker points, why not. Defend a reason why the aff should have the unique ability to permute arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disclaimer: I did think this post through :P but I'm mostly testing an idea. Don't hold me to this post as though it were some unconditional advocacy; I'm interested to see what people think.

 

I think the difference between "Do plan and make China happy" is:

 

1) This would be "object fiat." The aff's perm argument claims that China should do something that is completely not real world and utopian.

 

2) Perm would still probably link to disad. China might become "happy" magically as part of the permutation but the plan would still decrease relations, making the negative's policy option (or status quo since some refuse to think of it as a policy option) the best.

 

Do plan and pass ANWR is different because the disad is *almost* a unique opportunity cost disad '

 

A. SQ is taking advantage of opportunity to pass ANWR.

B. Plan hurts capital taking away that opportunity.

C. We should pass ANWR because we need the oil.

 

Neg says: USFG should pass ANWR. They don't advocate it like a counterplan, nor would they have a text that actually says "USFG should do ANWR", but I think the similarity is enough to make the perm on politics at least reasonably legit.

 

I don't there's reason why it has to be labeled as "an intrinsicness" argument instead of perm. The perm is a test of competiveness... if the disad is not intrinsic then it's arguably not competitive.

 

To anyone who replies to this with: "OMG DON'T PERM A DISAD YOU CAN'T DO IT!": Bite me.

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...