Skip to content
December 30, 2013 / compassioninpolitics

Should I make bad theory arguments against the permutation–how to answer the perm and how NOT to answer the permuation

Perm is testing opportunity cost (ie key to best policy making and ultimately best decision-making)

The idea of both/and is (aka the perm) is fundamental to solving problems and to creating better solutions.

Beat the perm straight up (unless its super shady for other reasons). There is a DA to the permutation. That is the way you win this types of debates period.

1) Agent CPs. Aff agent = bad type-disads (USFG action bad, specifically now). Aff solvency mechanism is bad or the aff action crushes its own solvency mechanism. (sometimes tradeoff type disads). USFG action on this issue = bad.
2) PICs. Whatever the pic avoids is super bad.
3) Process arguments. My guess is you aren’t cutting these. Plus these are mostly shady anyway (aka theoretically suspect and you have to be able to roll on theory to run these arguments)

Not to mention the bias (and I don’t think this bias is necessarily a bad one, BTW) you are heading against is HUGE. Almost the only hope of this argument winning or somehow working out is for the other team to flat out drop it. If thats what your strategy requires…..you must return to the drawing board (or the cutting floor or both).

—————————————————————————–

Do you want to win debates?

Do you want teams to worry about your arguments rather than being able to blow them off? Well then–hopefully the following advice will help:

Beating the perm on substance–it doesn’t solve or makes the problem work versus “I just think its a cop-out” when theres not tangible debate impact to being a cop-out. Even if you had
a debate impact you would have to relate it to the K impacts, the case impacts, or education and theory type arguments.

This isn’t all that hard.
1) Think it though. Think about the assumptions of the argument. Think about the interactivity of the two arguments.
2) Look for cards that explain that “each and every” is key or otherwise answer the permutation.3
3) Every one of your link arguments should be a reason that the perm doesn’t solve.
4) Go find a decent perm block from another K and adapt it
5) Watch great debater answer the permuation.

Oh….one more thing….do you want judges to not like your argument and give you low speaks or do you want to get higher speaks and win debates?

Make substantive arguments on this issue.
1) Read evidence
2) Explain the interactivity

I would re-iterate this:

“Perm is testing opportunity cost (ie key to best policy making and ultimately best decision-making)

The idea of both/and is (aka the perm) is fundamental to solving problems and to creating better solutions.

Beat the perm straight up (unless its super shady for other reasons). There is a DA to the permutation. That is the way you win this types of debates period.

1) Agent CPs. Aff agent = bad type-disads (USFG action bad, specifically now). Aff solvency mechanism is bad or the aff action crushes its own solvency mechanism. (sometimes tradeoff type disads). USFG action on this issue = bad.
2) PICs. Whatever the pic avoids is super bad.
3) Process arguments. My guess is you aren’t cutting these. Plus these are mostly shady anyway (aka theoretically suspect and you have to be able to roll on theory to run these arguments)

Not to mention the bias (and I don’t think this bias is necessarily a bad one, BTW) you are heading against is HUGE. Almost the only hope of this argument winning or somehow working out is for the other team to flat out drop it. If thats what your strategy requires…..you must return to the drawing board (or the cutting floor or both).”

—————————————————————————

I apologize much of the last response was based on the K…..and not the counterplan…..although it still applies. Most of it you just insert counterplan where I said critique.

And when I say go find a frontline….I mean look in the files of quality camps…..not just backfiles. Quality camps. (aka Open Evidence Project files or other backfiles from quality camps)

Guess what…..when you run a counterplan without a net benefit…..that is the cop-out. Thats what the perm proves–there is no forced choice…..there is no opportunity cost.
You can have your cake and eat it too with the perm.

Almost every example you can think of makes sense:
1) I want to go to get food
2) You want to go to get a movie

Without a disadvantage to getting food (money spent and the loss of entertainment or educational value of the movie—-or the food at the restaurant I want to go to isn’t nutrious)–then you can do both. It makes the most sense. Its win-win for everybody.

Given that I would suggest you focus your valuable speech time on arguments that can win debates and that matter–not arguments that are built on unsubstantiated labels and overall bad models for decision-making. Running DAs to perms make sense and works in winning actual debates…..your method if it has an record of success pretty much only has to do with luck. This isn’t just my opinion–its the opinion of the majority of the debate community (or the quality part of the judging pool).

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: