Klhkj
Severance (perm) – a perm that doesn’t do 100% of what the plan advocates for
Good: justifies aff conditionality – the aff is allowed to kick out of any part of their plan that we read a disad to which means that we’re not debating the plan which is the focus of the debate, and this makes it a voter for fairness.
If the plan keeps changing, we will not be able to know what exactly what to argue. This also is a voter for fairness.
Because the perm isn’t doing 100% of what the plan advocates, that means that the aff can no link to any negative position. This kills neg ground because we aren’t to cover the affirmative plan that keeps changing.
Bad: in the world of contionality, the neg is allowed to kick out of whatever they want, so the aff should be able to kick out of part of their plan
Forces the neg to think more critically and efficiently, which makes the neg flexible
Allows for better debate because if the neg is allowed to conditionally advocate a cp or k, it forces the aff to think more strategically, then the neg can think more strategically as well if we are allowed to kick out a part of our plan, allowing for better debate.
Intrinsic (perm): a mandate that is in neither the plan or counter plan
Bad: kills neg ground. The aff can say they solve for the plan and counter plan as well as something else, like a disad, which means they can just make turns on that disad or whatever it may be that is instrinsic. This is a voter for fairness.
Instable advocacy makes for unfair debate. Stable advocacy is key to fair debates because arguments are easier to preempt.
The aff is able to create new advantages, that can beat neg disads which kills ground and is a voter for fairness and also education because the new advantage can be nonresolutional killing our education of the topic.
Good: intrinsicness is not good….
But I’ll try to think of how it is anyway
Forces the neg to run more case specific arguments because instrinsicness checks the neg for
Good: justifies aff conditionality – the aff is allowed to kick out of any part of their plan that we read a disad to which means that we’re not debating the plan which is the focus of the debate, and this makes it a voter for fairness.
If the plan keeps changing, we will not be able to know what exactly what to argue. This also is a voter for fairness.
Because the perm isn’t doing 100% of what the plan advocates, that means that the aff can no link to any negative position. This kills neg ground because we aren’t to cover the affirmative plan that keeps changing.
Bad: in the world of contionality, the neg is allowed to kick out of whatever they want, so the aff should be able to kick out of part of their plan
Forces the neg to think more critically and efficiently, which makes the neg flexible
Allows for better debate because if the neg is allowed to conditionally advocate a cp or k, it forces the aff to think more strategically, then the neg can think more strategically as well if we are allowed to kick out a part of our plan, allowing for better debate.
Intrinsic (perm): a mandate that is in neither the plan or counter plan
Bad: kills neg ground. The aff can say they solve for the plan and counter plan as well as something else, like a disad, which means they can just make turns on that disad or whatever it may be that is instrinsic. This is a voter for fairness.
Instable advocacy makes for unfair debate. Stable advocacy is key to fair debates because arguments are easier to preempt.
The aff is able to create new advantages, that can beat neg disads which kills ground and is a voter for fairness and also education because the new advantage can be nonresolutional killing our education of the topic.
Good: intrinsicness is not good….
But I’ll try to think of how it is anyway
Forces the neg to run more case specific arguments because instrinsicness checks the neg for