Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Ralmar

  • Rank
  1. 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.
  2. 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
  • Create New...