Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'perm'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Debate
    • Help Me...
    • Novice Center
    • Culture
    • Other Forms of Debate
    • Virtual Debates and Online Videos
    • Workshops, Institutes, and Camps
  • Specific Arguments
    • Immigration
    • Disadvantages and Counterplans
    • Critiques
    • Theory and Framework
  • Evidence
    • Evazon
    • Evidence Trading
  • Community
    • Current Events
    • Thoughts and Ideas
    • Non-Debate Debates
    • World Culture
  • Regional
    • National Circuit
    • Pacific
    • Mountain
    • Southwest
    • Great Plains
    • Great Lakes
    • Northeast
    • Mid Atlantic
    • South
    • Kansas
    • Missouri
    • Texas
  • Respecting the Elders
    • College
    • Judging
    • Coaching
  • The Site
    • Feedback
    • Discuss the Articles
    • Main Page Polls
  • Archive
    • Topic Archive

Categories

  • Thursday Files
  • Affirmatives
  • Case Negatives
  • Counterplans
  • Critiques
  • Disadvantages
  • Impacts
  • Theory
  • Topicality
  • LD and Public Forum

Calendars

  • Tournament of Champions

Blogs

There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.

Product Groups

There are no results to display.

Categories

  • Debate Resources
  • Coach Resources
  • Blogs
  • Videos
  • Tournaments & Results
  • Administrative Organizations

Categories

  • Announcements

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Website URL


Skype


Google Chat/Jabber


AIM


MSN


ICQ


Yahoo


Name


School


Biography


Location


Interests


Occupation

Found 13 results

  1. 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
  2. So I run neg against a local team and they always run the perm - methodological pluralism. The specific tag is "Perm – methodological pluralism combines multiple schools of thought to reclaim IR as emancipatory praxis and avoid endless political violence." How do you answer this? Can you say they sever out of advocating for their own plan text? I specifically ran cap and security k against this team, both times losing on this perm. Anything will help!!
  3. I know a perm is like a do both, do the plan then all non-competitive parts of the CP/ALT. But what IS a Perm? how does it interact with the Alt or CP and net benefits? How do you create a good perm and defend it? How do you defeat a perm? (Lol, I normally just drop the perm and lose on it ) Also, what is a severance perm and what are the different types of perms?
  4. EDIT: someone sent me a file, thx anyway
  5. I know what a juxtaposition perm is. I know how to run it, but does anyone have answers against it? If so, what's the logic behind the answers?
  6. EDIT: someone sent me a file, thx anyway
  7. Okay, so there's this team on my circuit that reads an argument that goes like this: -Philosophy is inaccessible to the common person -People don't understand philosophy -Narratives like the Matrix that engage pop culture are best for public engagement And sometimes there is a permutation that is "Create a narrative based on the Matrix to explain the kritik". (It's based off the book The Matrix and Philosophy) Thus my question: what are some ways you all would answer this argument?
  8. I was reading over the Pirates Aff that is on Openev, and saw that it has several cards that 'perm the neg', What does this mean and when would I use them
  9. One of my debater buds told me it was severing out of the timeframe because they don't pass at the same time and also made the Alt and plan noncompetitive, but I wouldn't qualify him as a reliable source.
  10. Could someone please explain how the Zizek 89 card functions as a standard perm against K's? If you don't know I am talking about this piece of evidence- Thanks for any help! The kritik alone fails – criticizing the plan head-on pushes the alternative aside – only the perm solves Zizek 89, Senior Researcher in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Ljubljana, Slovenia, Codirector of the Center for Humanities at Birkbeck College, University of London, and Distinguished Fashion Expert for Abercrombie and Fitch Quarterly, ’89 (Slavoj, Autumn, “Looking Awry” October, Vol 50 p 30-55, JSTOR) By means of a metaphor of the way anamorphosis functions in painting, Bushy tries to convince the queen that her sorrow has no foundation, that its reasons are null, but the crucial point is the way his metaphor splits, redoubles itself, i.e., the way he entangles himself in contradiction. First ("sorrow's eye, glazed with blinding tears, / Divides one thing entire to many objects"), he refers to the simple, commonsense opposition between a thing as it is "in itself," in reality, and its "shadows," reflections in our eyes, subjective impressions multiplied because of our anxieties and sorrows. When we are worried, a small difficulty assumes giant proportions; we see the thing as far worse than it really is. The metaphor at work here is that of a glass surface sharpened, cut in such a way that it reflects a multitude of images; instead of the tiny substance, we see its "twenty shadows." In the following verses, however, things become complicated. At first sight it seems that Shakespeare only illustrates the fact that "sorrow's eye . . . divides one thing entire to many objects" with a metaphor from the domain of painting ("Like perspectives, which rightly gaz'd upon/Show nothing but confusion; ey'd awry/Distinguish form"), but what he really accomplishes is a radical change of terrain. From the metaphor of a sharpened glass surface he passes to the metaphor of anamorphosis, the logic of which is quite different. A detail of a picture that "rightly gaz'd," i.e., from a straightforward, frontal view, appears a blurred spot, assumes clear, distinct shapes once we look at it "awry," from aside. The verses which apply this metaphor back to the queen's anxiety and sorrow are thus profoundly ambivalent: "so your sweet majesty, / Looking awry upon your lord's departure, / Finds shapes of grief more than himself to wail; / Which, look'd on as it is, is nought but shadows / Of what is not." That is to say, if we take the comparison between the queen's look and the anamorphic look literally, we would be obliged to state that precisely by "looking awry," i.e., from aside, she sees the thing in its clear and distinct form, in opposition to the "straightforward," frontal view which sees only an indistinct confusion (and, incidentally, the further development of the drama fully justifies the queen's most sinister presentiments), But, of course, Bushy did not "want to say" this. His intention was to say quite the opposite: by means of an imperceptible subreption, he returned to the first metaphor (that of a sharpened glass) and "wanted to say" that, because her view is distorted by sorrow and anxiety, the queen sees causes for alarm where a closer, matter-of-fact look attests that there is next to nothing in it. What we have here are thus two realities, two "substances." On the level of the first metaphor, we have the commonsense reality as "substance with twenty shadows," as a thing split into twenty reflections by our subjective view; in short, as a substantial "reality" distorted by our subjective perspective (inflated by our anxiety, etc.). If we look at a thing straight on, from a matter-of-fact perspective, we see it "as it really is," while the look puzzled by our desires and anxieties ("looking awry") gives us a distorted, blurred image of the thing. On the level of the second metaphor (anamorphosis), however, the relation is exactly the opposite: if we look at a thing straight on, i.e., from a matter-of-fact, disinterested, "objective" perspective, we see nothing but a formless spot. The object assumes clear and distinctive features only if we look at it "from aside," i.e., with an "interested" look, with a look supported, permeated, and "distorted" by a desire. This is precisely the Lacanian objet petit a, the object-cause of desire, an object which is, in a way, posited by the desire itself. The paradox of desire is that it posits retroactively its own cause, i.e., an object that can be perceived only by the look "distorted" by desire, an object that does not exist for an "objective" look. In other words, the objet petit a is always, by definition, perceived in a distorted way, because, outside this distortion, "in itself," it does not exist, i.e., because it is nothing but the embodiment, the materialization of this distortion, of this surplus of confusion and perturbation introduced by desire into so-called "objective reality." Objet petit a is "objectively" nothing, it is nothing at all, nothing of the desire itself which, viewed from a certain perspective, assumes the shape of "something." It is, as is formulated in an extremely precise manner by the queen in her response to Bushy, her "something grief" begot by "nothing" ("For nothing hath begot my something grief "). Desire "takes off" when "something" (its object-cause) embodies, gives positive existence to its "nothing," to its void. This "something" is the anamorphic object, a pure semblance that we can perceive clearly only by "looking awry." It is precisely (and only) the logic of desire that belies the notorious wisdom that "nothing comes from nothing." In the movement of desire, "something comes from nothing." It is true that the object-cause of desire is a pure semblance, but this does not prevent it from triggering off a whole chain of consequences which regulate our "material," "effective" life and deeds.
  11. I'm new to policy, and I'm wondering what is functionally different between a plan-inclusive counterplan made in the 1NC and a perm do both to the CP made in the 2AC. For example, if the Aff plan is arguing for the plan to be enacted by the federal government and the CP is that it should be enacted by the private sector, then, if the Aff runs a perm do both in the 2AC, how would that be different from a PIC in the 1NC that says that both the private sector and federal government should enact it? I guess I'm asking what makes a PIC competitive.
  12. One of my debater buds told me it was severing out of the timeframe because they don't pass at the same time and also made the Alt and plan noncompetitive, but I wouldn't qualify him as a reliable source.
  13. danhep

    Wilderson Aff?

    How does Wilderson work on the aff? I'm thinking of running some sort of race k on the aff (LD - Jury nullification topic).
×
×
  • Create New...