Author: Matt Liu, University of Wyoming director of debate This section is going to provide a brief primer on permutations, perm theory, and perm jargon. Perm strategy will be discussed more in depth with specific examples in the next section, “Types of Counterplans.” Counterplans need to be competitive; they need to be mutually exclusive with the aff's plan. If doing the plan and the counterplan at the same time would obviate the advantage of the counterplan, it’s not a winner. The name of the affirmative argument that challenges the mutually exclusivity of the counterplan is the permutation, or perm. When the affirmative perms a counterplan, they are generally arguing that doing both the plan and the counterplan resolves the net benefit to the counterplan. To win, the neg needs to win that the counterplan alone is best. If the plan + the counterplan is as good as the counterplan, that’s not a reason to vote neg. Keep reading to learn more about perms... One way to think of counterplans is as opportunity cost disads to the aff. In other words, the plan forgoes the opportunity to solve the problem in a better way. The perm tests the competition of the counterplan by exploring whether the CP is really an opportunity cost DA. If doing both is as good as the counterplan, then there was no opportunity cost.
Generally, perms are not advocacies. They are tests of competition. This is why perms don’t need to be topical. You’re not actually adding something to the plan, you’re exploring whether the counterplan is mutually exclusive – whether it’s an opportunity cost disad to the plan. It's also worth noting that most counterplans compete through their net benefits. That is, there is a DA that links to the plan, but does not link to the counterplan alone. So often the reason why a perm will fail is that by including all of the aff, it still does whatever part of the aff linked to the DA. If the aff and the perm link to the DA, and the counterplan doesn’t, the counterplan alone would seem to be the superior option. That’s how perms work in the abstract. Next, we’ll break down some perm jargon, and then in the next article we’ll explore applying perms to specific types of counterplans. The usefulness of perms will become far more clear when we talk about them with specific examples. Perm Theory In this section, I’ll discuss the main theory arguments usually made against permutations. I’ll be bringing back the legitimacy meter to give you a general idea of how most judges feel about these arguments (and how I feel about them). Remember, the legitimacy meter is just about the theoretical legitimacy of an argument. You can refer back to the “status of counterplans” article if you need the key for the legitimacy meter. A legitimate permutation is all of the plan, and all or part of the counterplan. If your perm includes all of the plan, and nothing more than the counterplan, it’s legit. In short: generally: 😎; me: 😎. A severance perm does less than the plan. If your plan ends arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, and your perm only ends arms sales to Saudi Arabia, your perm is severance. It does less than the plan, so it’s severance. Severance perms are not winners, there are almost no circumstances where they are theoretically viable. In short: generally: 😣; me: 😣. An intrinsic perm adds something found in neither the plan nor the counterplan. If the aff expands commercial nuclear power to solve warming (March PF topic) and the neg counterplans to geo-engineer to solve warming with a prolif DA to nuclear power expansion as a net benefit, an intrinsic perm would do the plan, geo-engineer, and develop new safety protocols to solve proliferation. The new safety protocols are in neither the plan nor the counterplan, so that part of the perm is intrinsic. A more common example is the timeframe perm: do the plan, then the counterplan. The timeframe perm is intrinsic because it adds the element of temporal sequencing. Intrinsic perms are also not winners. There are very few circumstances where they are theoretically viable. In short: generally: 😣; me: 😣. Another argument you might occasionally hear is multiple perms bad. Unlike the two perms above, which are aff arguments, this is an arg the neg would make: the aff made multiple perms, that’s bad because it’s a time skew (I guess), you should reject them. This argument is not a winner. Multiple perms are fine. They are just a test of competition, not advocacies (see above). There’s also no good time skew argument. Good perms will take time to beat when the counterplan’s competition is questionable, but that’s because you have a suspect counterplan, not because the perm is illegitimate. Silly perms will be easy to beat in milliseconds, so there’s no time tradeoff. In short: generally: 😣; me: 😣. Reject the Argument, Not the Team None of the above arguments rise to being a voting issue. I’m going to introduce an extremely important argument: reject the argument, not the team (or RANT for your flow shorthand). Reminder: a voting issue is a reason a team should lose the round. An argument can be illegitimate, but not a reason the team should lose. It’s just a reason that particular argument should be tossed out. When the defense wins an objection in court of law, the prosecutor doesn’t automatically lose the entire trial. They just can’t make that particular argument anymore. Rejecting a severance perm or intrinsic perm remedies all of the harms it created. The perm is bad because the perm itself is unfair, but it doesn’t affect the neg’s ability to debate on any other argument. Rejecting the perm remedies every reason why it was bad. This implicates how you kick out of arguments when there’s theory args against them. When you have a judge you know is familiar with theory, you don’t need to waste time justifying an illegit argument when you’re kicking it (reading your whole multiple perms good block, or a bunch of PICs good args), just go for reject the arg, not the team- that’s 2 seconds or less. Reject the argument not the team is a great (true) arg against almost every theoretical objection except topicality and conditionality, because those two theory arguments implicate other flows. An untopical aff affects your ability to debate the entire aff, you’ll have less prepared links for your DAs and so on. A conditional counterplan (according to the haters), affects your ability to debate every flow. So you can’t just reject those arguments, because the damage has already been done. But for everything else: RANT. In other words, bad perm = VI: generally: 😣; me: 😣. Everyone is pretty much on the same page that bad perms are bad, but they’re not voting issues, is what I’m saying here. Common Perms Perm do both is the most common perm by far. It’s virtually always legitimate, because it is all of the plan plus all of the counterplan. It’s the textbook definition of a legitimate perm. Perm do the counterplan (or pdcp for your flow shorthand) is the second most common perm. Most often deployed against process counterplans, perm do the counterplan is the argument that the counterplan is an example of how the plan could be done. I’m going to discuss this argument more in depth in the “types of counterplans” section of this article, which will go into more detail on process counterplans and how to beat them. One solid path to victory against process counterplans is perm do the counterplan. For an alternative take on how to beat process counterplans on substance, make sure to read Tyler Thur’s guest post. The next section, types of counterplans, will discuss perms and CP competition in the context of particular counterplans. We want to hear from you! Disagree with something we said? Have a question? Feel free to jump in in the comments, we'll be sure to respond! Do you have a topic you’d like us to address in a future post? Email us at [email protected] Go Pokes!
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
MissionWyoming Debate Roundup is dedicated to providing quality debate content to Wyoming and Rocky Mountain area high school debaters. We’re a resource for Wyoming debaters by Wyoming debate coaches. Categories
All
Archives
February 2024
|