a question on perms

[anon debater]

a question on perms

is perm always a test of competition, or is it an advocacy?

it seems that in the policy community perm is solely a test of competition, but is this a hard and fast rule of parli also?

if someone could help me out on this I'd really appreciate it.

[andrewthepirate]

The question of "is it always a test of competition in parli" seems to ask if people always argue it as a test. If that is your question, I would say that most of the time people present a perm as a test of competition, but I have seen people argue it as an advocacy, mostly in junior or new open rounds. Since parli typically takes a lot of its theory from policy, most open debaters and judges would tell you that a perm should be a test of competition, but it doesn't always look that way in rounds featuring debaters without policy backgrounds who just learned a fancy way to make counterplans go away.

[Jotto]

Im pretty sure that Tech OP beat SIU CD at NPDA two years ago (the year that Tech OP won it) on the arguement that a perm "ought" to be an advocacy....but thats the only time I know of where two great teams delt with a perm in any other fashion than as a test of comp.

[Chuck]

perms are always tests. back in the day the advocacy question was settled by the label. a perm was a test, a replan was advocacy. now everyone calls everything a perm. best to just ask in a question.

[NVHogan]

"Perm as a test" is very debatable. I seem to have been watching teams arguing that it ought to be an advocacy a lot more lately. Especially when teams put the theory in the shell. I know I have put the argument that it ought to be an advocacy in the shell, and have had teams drop that argument, giving me great opportunity to run a DA in the LOR speech, and not letting them kick the perm because they lost the test of competition debate. Like everything in debate, if you can make good arguments why your theory claim is legit, then I think most critics are willing to listen to it.

[GiantsFan]

Perm as advocacy fundamentally misunderstands the theoretical underpinning of the counterplan. Take this example:
Resolved: the USFG should...

A. Uniqueness - In the SQ, states can solve the harms.
B. Link - Aff plan precludes state action.
C. Impact - state action solves better.

Can we agree that this is a counterplan written as a disad? If so, is this advocacy? Am I bound to it? Additionally, aren't "perm" arguments just "no-link" answers in DA land?

[andrewthepirate]

Perm as advocacy fundamentally misunderstands the theoretical underpinning of the counterplan. Take this example:
Resolved: the USFG should...

A. Uniqueness - In the SQ, states can solve the harms.
B. Link - Aff plan precludes state action.
C. Impact - state action solves better.

Can we agree that this is a counterplan written as a disad? If so, is this advocacy? Am I bound to it? Additionally, aren't "perm" arguments just "no-link" answers in DA land?

:hearhear
Of course, I also take this to mean that opp teams can run multiple counter-plans. I don't see why not if they're to be looked at like disads.

[TheJuiceBox]

sperms are always tests of competition. you can't advocate what doesn't penetrate an egg.



if you extend that any further, you know why pro-antediluvian reproductive law activists have no argument.

[WillVT]

i think part of this discussion started because of a round between bryce, misa, jonathon and i. everyone in the round understands perms as a test of competition, but if a perm gets extended to kick the counterplan, do i still get a no link generated by the perm against the disad? i will give a simple example

plan: usfg should implement single payer healthcare by passing blah blah blah
cp: the 50 states should implement single payer healthcare by doing blah blah blah
net ben: politics with a link on obama action

perm: the usfg should implement single payer healthcare by passing blah blha blah and the 50 states should implement single payer healthcare by doing blah blah.
a. the perm solves the link to the disad because obama is shielded from political fallout since he looks like he is acting in line with, or because of the states. (we read these cards in policy frequently)
b. perm is legit, its literally just do both -- not intrinsic in any way


now, if the perm gets extended to kick the cp i think i should still get access to this no link argument if they choose to go for the disad. the reason is that the cp tests the opportunity cost of the plan with the disad. thus, my permutation says there is no opp-cost forgone with the plan, and is a no link to the disad. am i bat shit insane?
love will

[UberNovi]

Perm as advocacy fundamentally misunderstands the theoretical underpinning of the counterplan. Take this example:
Resolved: the USFG should...

A. Uniqueness - In the SQ, states can solve the harms.
B. Link - Aff plan precludes state action.
C. Impact - state action solves better.

Can we agree that this is a counterplan written as a disad? If so, is this advocacy? Am I bound to it? Additionally, aren't "perm" arguments just "no-link" answers in DA land?

I've heard this interpretation of counterplans quite often and it makes total sense to me except for one quip. Negative fiat creates clear difference between a counterplan and a disad, otherwise the aff could say to the disad - non unique the states will not solve the harms in the status quo. Am i way off base here?

[GiantsFan]

I've heard this interpretation of counterplans quite often and it makes total sense to me except for one quip. Negative fiat creates clear difference between a counterplan and a disad, otherwise the aff could say to the disad - non unique the states will not solve the harms in the status quo. Am i way off base here?

Unicorns aren't real, Santa Clause is a lie, and there is no such thing as fiat. Debating in imaginary worlds that don't exist is silly.

That being said, even if you do bring your magic wand to the debate (I hear you can find them on Sky Mall), why does the negative get to cast their spell onto the debate?

[boredguy8]

now, if the perm gets extended to kick the cp i think i should still get access to this no link argument if they choose to go for the disad. the reason is that the cp tests the opportunity cost of the plan with the disad. thus, my permutation says there is no opp-cost forgone with the plan, and is a no link to the disad. am i bat shit insane?
love will
You get probabilistic access to the no link for the same reason you don't get to answer any other disad with 'but a potential CP could answer back the DA'.

Neg fiat just removes questions of probability when discussing the opportunity cost. There's about a bajillion threads on this on the old CEDA-L.

[boredguy8]

People debate counterfactual imaginary worlds that don't exist all the time. I fail to see how it's "silly".

[GiantsFan]

People debate counterfactual imaginary worlds that don't exist all the time. I fail to see how it's "silly".

Just use your imagination more...

[GiantsFan]

People debate counterfactual imaginary worlds that don't exist all the time. I fail to see how it's "silly".

OK - now seriously.

Joey, just because people do something silly all the time doesn't make it no silly. Isn't that just a more sophisticated version of the ad-populum fallacy?

[laneg]

"now, if the perm gets extended to kick the cp i think i should still get access to this no link argument if they choose to go for the disad. the reason is that the cp tests the opportunity cost of the plan with the disad. thus, my permutation says there is no opp-cost forgone with the plan, and is a no link to the disad. am i bat shit insane?
love will"

Hi Will -- No, you are not insane (although I don't see how the perm "kicks" the CP -- all it can do is demonstate that we should reject the CP), and you are not advocating the perm. The perm can do all of this and more, and still functions as a test of competitiveness. Because the perm is net-beneficial over the CP, it becomes a reason to reject the counterplan. As long as the counterplan is in the round, the perm is too -- and you are fine.

Your real question is, absent the counterplan, does the perm remain as a means of no linking the DA? Nope. The existence of the perm depends on the existence of the counterplan -- its sole purpose is to reject the counterplan. If the opp can kick the counterplan but prove the DA still uniquely links to the plan absent the perm, then you need another answer to get rid of the DA (like, maybe this is a pretty good reason why conditional counterplans are abusive).

[ultravires]

"now, if the perm gets extended to kick the cp i think i should still get access to this no link argument if they choose to go for the disad. the reason is that the cp tests the opportunity cost of the plan with the disad. thus, my permutation says there is no opp-cost forgone with the plan, and is a no link to the disad. am i bat shit insane?
love will"

Hi Will -- No, you are not insane (although I don't see how the perm "kicks" the CP -- all it can do is demonstate that we should reject the CP), and you are not advocating the perm. The perm can do all of this and more, and still functions as a test of competitiveness. Because the perm is net-beneficial over the CP, it becomes a reason to reject the counterplan. As long as the counterplan is in the round, the perm is too -- and you are fine.

Your real question is, absent the counterplan, does the perm remain as a means of no linking the DA? Nope. The existence of the perm depends on the existence of the counterplan -- its sole purpose is to reject the counterplan. If the opp can kick the counterplan but prove the DA still uniquely links to the plan absent the perm, then you need another answer to get rid of the DA (like, maybe this is a pretty good reason why conditional counterplans are abusive).

/thread 10 char

[boredguy8]

/thread 10 char

Gina has some pretty sick posts in the '97 thread in re Korcok's view of CP theory.

I think I was as excited to meet Gina as Ben was to meet Berube.

[laneg]

And negative fiat does not exist. The only question is whether or not to advocate the plan. The counterplan only serves as a reason to reject the plan, and the perm is only a reason to reject the counterplan.

[boredguy8]

OK - now seriously.

Joey, just because people do something silly all the time doesn't make it no silly. Isn't that just a more sophisticated version of the ad-populum fallacy?
My point is more that if journals like "Mind" are using imaginary worlds to examine questions of epistemology, ontology, and causality, perhaps we ought better acquaint ourselves with those tools. I'd also suggest that something being a core tool of both philosophy and every-day decision making suggests it's not silly absent some better reason to think it is silly. If there are such reasons, by all means...

[boredguy8]

And negative fiat does not exist. The only question is whether or not to advocate the plan. The counterplan only serves as a reason to reject the plan, and the perm is only a reason to reject the counterplan.
/swoon

As a big proponent of 'no neg fiat' I agree. But I think the 'fairness' camp won on this one, since demonstrating propensity for the opportunity cost isn't (usually, and especially in parli) all that easy.

[laneg]

My point is more that if journals like "Mind" are using imaginary worlds to examine questions of epistemology, ontology, and causality, perhaps we ought better acquaint ourselves with those tools. I'd also suggest that something being a core tool of both philosophy and every-day decision making suggests it's not silly absent some better reason to think it is silly. If there are such reasons, by all means...

Wow -- I can't believe anyone read those old school posts on opportunity costs -- I am honored. And I still believe debate misapplies the economic theory of opportunity costs to counterplans, but whatever.

I think it is cool to look at imaginary worlds, but they have to interact at the level of the plan or they aren't competitive.

[Chuck]

did someone say plan-plan?

[laneg]

/swoon

As a big proponent of 'no neg fiat' I agree. But I think the 'fairness' camp won on this one, since demonstrating propensity for the opportunity cost isn't (usually, and especially in parli) all that easy.


Which is exactly why CPs should never have been labeled opportunity costs to begin with -- the propensity argument is inherent to the theory of opportunity costs (all options have to be available to the policymaker or else it is not a true opportunity cost -- who wants to prove that?) If the whole goal is to minimize opportunity costs, then advocating the perm becomes a viable strategy. Is that what we really want?

[boredguy8]

If the whole goal is to minimize opportunity costs, then advocating the perm becomes a viable strategy. Is that what we really want?)
That's what Kyle Cheesewright wants :shake

[laneg]

did someone say plan-plan?

Only Matt Roskowski, as I recall. ;)

[laneg]

That's what Kyle Cheesewright wants :shake

next step: counterperming advocacy.

[nrobinson]

So, if the perm is only a test what do we do with a net-benefit to the perm argument? If you don't actually advocate the perm, does "perm solves better than CP alone" go away?

[laneg]

So, if the perm is only a test what do we do with a net-benefit to the perm argument? If you don't actually advocate the perm, does "perm solves better than CP alone" go away?

No -- competitiveness is measured through net benefits. If the perm is more net beneficial than the counterplan, the counterplan is no longer a competitive reason to reject the plan.

[anon debater]

wow. thank you everyone for your feedback. I'm really understanding counterplans in a new way.

look out for more questions from me :D this discussion was, and will probably continue to be, really helpful.

[boredguy8]

What does Kyle Kimball have to make jokes about if discussions get this serious?
Cuz serious often equals boring, and boring equals bad news bears.

[TheJuiceBox]

The problem is twofold. First, I'm not the world's best theory debater (or even 2nd best) so topical jokes are mostly out. Second, I lose interest when people I don't know write responses which are demonstrably not true.

C'mon, Kyle-you gotta help me pick up the slack.

[plush]

That's what Kyle Cheesewright wants :shake

so, i guess no one really defended the idea that perms need to be advocated. considering a lot of this jibberjaw comes from a place some folk used to call a home, and mixed with considerable help from friends like john poor and josh house and many more--i sorta thought someone should defend this, i think, dying idea. which is kinda sad, cause i think its some of debate at its neatest. please forgive typos on my part--i was never the best typist, and both my hands are numb since february. sorry this is sort of long, but it's kinda a slightly different view of debate, also i thought it was good practice at getting over some writer's block that's been, um, impacting other projects. oh, and i was a bad theory debater, so--yeah, don't expect much. it's sorta a long and informal debate brief.

perms should be advocated:

A) Framework

1)Reciprocity is good for debate:
it's a tacit rule of the game that's accepted as the norm. (kinda like the free parking thing in monopoly, or that gov's should have plans). it's a basic tenant of what most people consider "fair," and also it provides for a fun debate, b/c it seems to make sense that if each team has "reciprocal moves" each team stands a good chance of winning--that means people keep playing. imagine if the boxer from out of town always had to fight with her or his right arm tied behind his or her back. boxers would stop traveling between towns. we don't want that to happen to debate, so we should accept reciprocity. plus, women keep telling me it's really, really, really important (and i highly agree).

2)words have meaning and shape reality:
you cant escape interpretation. you wish you could, i wish you could, if you can, please help, i live in laramie, wy in the green house with the tan car. the way we speak about things colors the way we paint our reality. language also creates kinds of realities that are very important and exist only in language--ask married people, or more importantly, ask the many people who desperately want to get married but can't, because all we have are words, words, words... and these words say no marriage for homos :(


B)Perms Must Be Advocated

1)negs deserve fiat because aff gets a plan

a) negs deserve fiat b/c of reciprocity
we used to just throw down counterwarrant style, that that was not fun or education; it was a speed game, and kinda just lame. to stop that, we said--fuck that shit: affs are running plans. this shifted debate in tonsa ways: plans had to meet certain standards or the aff lost. the problem was, sometimes the resolution was, in fact, a good idea. this is especially the case in parli, where we don't have topic committees, topic papers, year long prep on a single (or even set of) resolutions, etc... that means if you can write a plan that meets the community norm standards, gov's can bank tonsa wins--cause, like: saving the environment is good, war is bad, human trafficking is appalling, slavery is nauseating, and i hear there's this shit about organ harvesting...
now, yeah, sometimes good neg debaters can catch an aff by saying it fails to meet some of the plan requirements, or that case is a bad idea--but cases can be crafty, small--or huge, large, and modular. my jr and sr year mostly what we did was collapse the economy on the gov and talked very quickly. i heard siu does this thing with heg--like thinking modularly with big stick ideas and the occasional talkity quickity. hmmm, wonder how that panned out? anyways. yeah, so negs can be in a sticky situation if they don't get access something special. something that isn't just case turns(which are very hard to come by--esp. in parli) or stock issues(try to prove inherency in parli) or disads (which are usually way less probable than case).
plus, holy shit, case could be critical, and i mean they could bring the motherfucking crazy. like the real crazy: Heidegger, Nietzsche, poetry---fuck, they might read slam poetry and talk about their orgasms for four minutes?! ahh! (btw, lbc, if you read slam poetry and talk about your orgasms for 4 minutes, at least send me an email letting me know--cause i think it'd be hilarious.)
so in two different ways case could access a kind of reality in language that the neg does not: they could talk about being the government and running a plan (a fine and fun idea) or they could talk about some alternative advocacy (a fine a fun idea). either way, they'll have to defend against stock issue attacks (though they'll do so different ways), turns, and disadvantages to their stable coherent advocacy (that is what i am willing to hang my hat on as what the gov must have. ie. as gov you could defend "the usfg should implement the kyoto protocal and that has advantages" or that "debate is a place for Heideggerian dwelling and that has advantages" --but, basically, it's just about having a stable coherent advocasy--i really don't want to have to defend critical affs or anything, i just think the also fit into this theoretical framework as well and that they're neat.) but the important thing is--they get to advocate something other than the status quo, which they spent a long time proving (and a lot of people think with a lot of good reasons--see above re: slavery, organs, trafficking, etc...).
it seems the neg needs to be able to advocate something. especially when the gov gets to cherry pick cases like in parli.

b) should implies should not.
the opps job, defacto, is to say that the resolution is *not* the case (parametrics, which are good b/c they avoid counterwarrants, and find a nice mix between educational depth and breadth while checking back super-rapid-fire example wars won by teams who can afford to compile that many examples--which would be bad for debate). gov "gets to fiat" (whatever that means) b/c of should, the neg should get to fiat b/c of the implied should not as, their job is to oppose the should. it's just a quirk of language we don't have a way to express the implied meaning in the context of the debate, but it's like "you understood" in the sentence "Go clean the basement."

2)These neg counterplans need reigned in rightquick.

a)the counterplan needs to be the only advocacy (unless you go for theory, or, like, they call someone a "bitch" mid round, ya know?)
the aff can't kick plan and go for the squo (wouldn't be reciprocal or stable at all). the perception of plan's attempt in congress will always give some sort of spending or politics or whatever link, plus there could be theory problems with plan. people "kick case" and go for disad turns or turns on a K or T (or "the ole disco") but, they are still advocating plan, just usually admitting that it doesn't solve or is a bad idea but doesn't get weighed first in this debate for some reason said earlier in that debate. (fyi, the c/p's must be your advocacy, but can also be defensive, like, they can just solve for advantage two--and be totally permutable, and that doesn't mean you lose, just that you don't have to worry about advantage two in the decision calculus if everyone agrees the c/p solves for it). plus in parli there isn't a second rebuttal to "see how neg selection plays out" that means you only get one coherent advocacy, opp: just like the gov--but you can choose: the squo or an advocacy but you get one of those, and as many hanky procedurals as you want (normally one or two is enough).

b)the opp advocacy needs to "compete" with the gov plan
by compete i mean it has to be advantageous over the plan. debate is all about the plan, and if you can prove plan is not the best way to solve the harms, you win--just like if you proved it didn't solve them and actually made them worse, plus slightly raised the risk of war with china. however, if we are only testing the cost of opportunities lost by doing the plan--playing a game of imagination within imagination--we're like the play within a play. we're even less real. we have even less meaning, less ontology. we're not *advocating* ending slavery or patriarchy or whatever; we're just a bunch of people, ya know, testin' out some of these crazy feminist ideas. opps could never win against any kind of critical aff if they don't get to advocate, further, i don't think they'd ever get to win in a policy debate framework unless opps provide the propensity that the opportunity of the counterplan will be lost by passing plan, and has a good chance of passing in the squo. namely, if you want to pretend a c/p is a d/a you need uniqueness--which is hard enough to find b/c these damned words. like, you don't just get to pretend to solve my harms. you either advocate that you do or you don't.

c) but if neg gets to fiat, they could fiat some mad good stuff not related to case, right?

right. like feeding the starving around the globe, ending slavery, stopping genocide, all the great shit the gov didn't solve for (this would be plan-plan, kinda--and it's kinda lame for the same reasons counterwarrants are lame). plus, the neg got to pick from one of two stable choices after seeing the other team's strat. they got to pick a stable advocacy from either the squo (yayfor presumption(!)) or an advocacy (boo for pretending to or actually doing shit), it doesn't seem reciprocal that the gov doesn't get to make a selection after some of the opp's strat is on the table


c) gov's deserve a valid permutation

a permutation is the reciprocity for the choice that the neg gets after seeing the gov strat. the gov can choose one stable and coherent strategy that provides the best world (a.k.a. competes) under some conditions:

1)the gov's plan must be stable and coherent you cannot add anything to the plan that is not in (all or part of) the text of the counter-advocacy (that would be intrinsic, non reciprocal, and would justify things like vague critical alternatives that solve case, or delay, or multiple counterplans--which would skew debate, b/c we don't have enough speeches to select down), and you cannot sever out of part of your plan (that would justify you severing out of disad links, that's bad news bears). adding on all or part of the counterplan doesn't effect the plan's topicality, so you're still good there, but it does change your advocacy--for the same reason the neg needs to be able to advocate something, the perm needs to be able to be advocated: language and being.

2) an example: imagine a young biola mr is going gov saying a single payer universal healthcare system is good and should be implemented by the usfg. a young csu ps would do it's thang-there is no state, merely people acting statist.... the mg includes a "do both-test the alt and do plan" perm or some such. lunchbox stands up: "do you advocate this?" "nope, it's just a test." in the mo-- a good portion of my speech would be spent extending framework and talking about the difference between testing ways to take down the state and advocating them. how even though it's a small difference, it's the only difference you can make in this round, with your ballot, cause plan isn't gonna happen--they get credit and advantages for the healthcare stuff, but if we prove the exploitive nature of the state makes life meaningless in a nuclear terror ridden dream come to life only to be slowly crushed while you watch it, and we say--we advocate fucking that shit, and you're all "let's *test* whether to fuck that shit." i think i know what side i want to be on.

i mean, i chose the teams and args cause they are familiar (though i don't think that round ever happened) and fairly safe, but imagine if it were a feminism debate, or an intersectionality debate and gov just wanted to, ya know, test some of that hippy-or-women-or-gay-or-poor-or-black-shit out while they did some "serious governmental bullshit." sounds like they don't, or never could if they aren't allowed to, advocate the perm (which is reciprocal and neither intrinsic, nor severance).

3)perms focus the debate providing a better debate
they allow debate to be about the resolution/plan more, b/c stuff not (and i use this like a normal person and not a debate nerd) intrinsically related to the topic to be mooted. if the topic is about healthcare, and you want to talk about why cap is bad and i just gave out single payer system? let's have a perm debate. you consulted congress on my healthcare plan, let's have a perm debate. you gave everyone my healthcare plan except those who didn't want it---fuck, okay--that competes clearly, we'll still try to perm it, and hope to win on straight turning the c/p---ya know, actually debating (just like the hanky theory and the crazy) instead of weighing outlandish impacts from advocacies that could easily happen at the same time and be beneficial


C) The alternatives to this view would be worse./a2 general other theory approaches that people might take that i don't think are answered obviously by my above comments

1)multiple advocacies (insert perms or c/ps and makes examples appropriate as want) are bad

a)not recip. gov doesn't get 9 plans. recip is good, above.
b)makes debate too shallow-never get the ed or skills from a more indepth policy discussion when there's so many policies, ed and skills learning are the justifications for debate at the departmental level
c)not enough speeches-at best they're parroting roger solt's thoroughbred theoryblocks and don't know it--godlove'em. but they don't apply here, there's no room for neg selection when there isn't an opp speech after the opp block (or, there's no room for aff selection of the perm after the neg block before the 2nr)
d)my strat's already skewed--i had to read this block, take this time, protect me now and later.

2)unstable advocacies are bad (condi or dispo cp's or perm's bad)

a)the moot entire speeches-they can cancel out entire strats and speeches at the whim of the member. c/app my little d from above. the damage is done
b) c/app b and c from above with d as the voter again, too much bredth from advocasies that change randomly in the round stops good debate, and can't be dealt with in this speech structure
c)dispo is condi- no matter what under one of those worlds you say you might kick the counterplan, that risk is from where we draw all are abuse claims, plus we advocate all our claims--this isn't recip.

3)"opportunity cost" is a bad framework for debate

A) it's played out, like a jheri curl--or a record--or philosophy, ua know, whichever floats your cliche.
we know a lot about this game, isn't time to just try to explore? try to expand pedagogy or thought or reach students and people at new levels? i'm not saying we can't have opp-cost rounds, but, like, why not try some other stuff? eh? not many people are getting new skills from this, and a lot of these skills are taught so many other places.

B)myopically using opp cost means we let our lenses glaze and not stay sharp for when opp cost is needed--it's classic fatigue, once i even got tired of reese's peanut butter cups. let me fucking repeat that. once i even got tired of reeses's peanut butter cups. it's the law of diminishing returns the more you use it, the less goodness you get from it, take off the opp cost glass --at least then e can really clean them

C) "opportunity/Cost" version of the world teach a questionable kind of ethic
umm, i could write a ton of the crazy right her capitalism this, tied to the patriarchy that,binary opposites harming and limitting thinking this other thing. blahblahblarhgittyblarhblarhg. i doubt the quick few underdeveloped critical turns at the bottom of all the theory will really convince anyone, but these arguments do exist, and i think they can and should be talked about--i just don't think i have the talking anymore.


-matthew

p.s. i think i'm the girl, but i want to be the magpie.
p.p.s. but debate is certainly a little nest--theory especially feels like one.

(http:///xkcd.com/625/)