love the idea and vid, a few issues though: 1) lack of clear definition for what is "comprehensive" or "generalized" usually requires a judge gut-check/reasonability argument to win a "yes neg counterplans" argument, which honestly can just be beaten back by "their standard is infinitely regressive and arbitrary with no brightline to test advocacies without devolving into a theory debate, most objective interp is defend the status quo or converse of the rez" 2) really weird questions about the burden of rejoinder. no, there is no burden of rejoinder in pf, right? it's functionally impossible insofar as the aff can go first, but an intrinsicness argument like you mention would sever the disads and require them (technically) to rejoin the aff rather than resolution, unless its literally just an intrinsicness test and basically framed as a "non-intrinsic disads are drop the argument" shell rather than a perm. lowkey thought about this especially with advantage counterplans and intrinsicness tests of aff advantages (like how people read riders, ukraine, or polcap on aff), but i think 100% the biggest issue is going to be judge adaptation. pf is already moving faster than the judging is in a lot of aspects (disclosure norms, disads like riders, even some impact calc stuff), so i think its gonna be really hard to get people to follow onto this one. but hey, ppl are disclosing all ev now so you never know. cant wait for eval, indexicals, kant, skep, determinism, and 1ar restart shells to really make their way into pf. spec rvi conditions and must read a standard (framework) will be fun. i think this could be an example (long) 2AC shell - inserted some extra reading material at the bottom. perm text: the united states should substantially reduce military support for taiwan without _______ (e.g. redirecting aid elsewhere). treat the perm as an intrinsicness test of the disad --- if it's not intrinsic to the rez we get to delete it: a) nsda rules - we get some general specification and reclarification to test link uniqueness to the aff as an "advocacy" which justifies specific neg rejoinder burdens b) logic - if it's not a reason the resolution is bad but a general reason why something like government action or fiscal re-allocation is bad, it doesn't necessarily prove the resolution uniquely false and therefore isn't a reason to negate c) eduaction - non-intrinsic disads that are irrelevant to the core topic controversy or not a necessary disadvantage are illogical because its not a reason not to do the aff. that outweighs - fairness is just an internal link to education and it doesn't matter if it's unfair if it doesn't spill up into real-world skills or topic-specific education. *insert card about intrinsicness and education from link below* d) aff ground - anything else forces us to defend every sub-component of any action, which means disads can become infinitely regressive linking all the way to the USFG planning something or using too much floor time to pass a bill. *insert general aff flex argument* e) reciprocity - aff ground lost to intrinsicness via riders or politics should be reciprocal with neg ground on disads, key to equal playing ground www.studocu.com/en-us/document/gonzaga-university/debate-participation/rehabilitating-intrinsicness-by-ta-mckinney/30788219 comm.franklin.uga.edu/news/stories/2009/theory-intrinsicness hackingdebate.wordpress.com/tag/intrinsicness/
which section of the manual says the aff gets intrinsic perms? i know it says the neg gets generalized reasonable cps but i dont remember it saying the aff gets severance. Can you send it so i can cut it so i dont lose from this? TYSM your vids are the best
“Generalized practical solutions” is a term that applies to both the aff and the neg. It can be used on the neg to generate functionally watered down versions of CPs and especially advantage CPs and it can be used on the aff to generate intrinsic perms. The intrinsic perm in PF is not severance: a good way to think about it is this: it’s not that the aff can pick consequences of the resolution it doesn’t want to defend, but that the neg can’t force the aff to defend specifically unfavorable implementations, like giving all of the arms sales from Taiwan to Saudi Arabia, since this is clearly not an intrinsic feature of the resolution. The line is blurry, but I think it’s reasonably intuitive.
Yes I would say so. Obviously whether or not this is a legitimate strategy (e.g. is this actually a “general practical solution”? Do the NSDA rules even matter? Etc etc) is still up for debate but based on my interpretation of the rules I would say go for it
what part of this video discusses a permutation of any kind?
love the idea and vid, a few issues though: 1) lack of clear definition for what is "comprehensive" or "generalized" usually requires a judge gut-check/reasonability argument to win a "yes neg counterplans" argument, which honestly can just be beaten back by "their standard is infinitely regressive and arbitrary with no brightline to test advocacies without devolving into a theory debate, most objective interp is defend the status quo or converse of the rez" 2) really weird questions about the burden of rejoinder. no, there is no burden of rejoinder in pf, right? it's functionally impossible insofar as the aff can go first, but an intrinsicness argument like you mention would sever the disads and require them (technically) to rejoin the aff rather than resolution, unless its literally just an intrinsicness test and basically framed as a "non-intrinsic disads are drop the argument" shell rather than a perm.
lowkey thought about this especially with advantage counterplans and intrinsicness tests of aff advantages (like how people read riders, ukraine, or polcap on aff), but i think 100% the biggest issue is going to be judge adaptation. pf is already moving faster than the judging is in a lot of aspects (disclosure norms, disads like riders, even some impact calc stuff), so i think its gonna be really hard to get people to follow onto this one. but hey, ppl are disclosing all ev now so you never know. cant wait for eval, indexicals, kant, skep, determinism, and 1ar restart shells to really make their way into pf. spec rvi conditions and must read a standard (framework) will be fun.
i think this could be an example (long) 2AC shell - inserted some extra reading material at the bottom.
perm text: the united states should substantially reduce military support for taiwan without _______ (e.g. redirecting aid elsewhere). treat the perm as an intrinsicness test of the disad --- if it's not intrinsic to the rez we get to delete it:
a) nsda rules - we get some general specification and reclarification to test link uniqueness to the aff as an "advocacy" which justifies specific neg rejoinder burdens
b) logic - if it's not a reason the resolution is bad but a general reason why something like government action or fiscal re-allocation is bad, it doesn't necessarily prove the resolution uniquely false and therefore isn't a reason to negate
c) eduaction - non-intrinsic disads that are irrelevant to the core topic controversy or not a necessary disadvantage are illogical because its not a reason not to do the aff. that outweighs - fairness is just an internal link to education and it doesn't matter if it's unfair if it doesn't spill up into real-world skills or topic-specific education. *insert card about intrinsicness and education from link below*
d) aff ground - anything else forces us to defend every sub-component of any action, which means disads can become infinitely regressive linking all the way to the USFG planning something or using too much floor time to pass a bill. *insert general aff flex argument*
e) reciprocity - aff ground lost to intrinsicness via riders or politics should be reciprocal with neg ground on disads, key to equal playing ground
www.studocu.com/en-us/document/gonzaga-university/debate-participation/rehabilitating-intrinsicness-by-ta-mckinney/30788219
comm.franklin.uga.edu/news/stories/2009/theory-intrinsicness
hackingdebate.wordpress.com/tag/intrinsicness/
which section of the manual says the aff gets intrinsic perms? i know it says the neg gets generalized reasonable cps but i dont remember it saying the aff gets severance. Can you send it so i can cut it so i dont lose from this? TYSM your vids are the best
“Generalized practical solutions” is a term that applies to both the aff and the neg. It can be used on the neg to generate functionally watered down versions of CPs and especially advantage CPs and it can be used on the aff to generate intrinsic perms. The intrinsic perm in PF is not severance: a good way to think about it is this: it’s not that the aff can pick consequences of the resolution it doesn’t want to defend, but that the neg can’t force the aff to defend specifically unfavorable implementations, like giving all of the arms sales from Taiwan to Saudi Arabia, since this is clearly not an intrinsic feature of the resolution. The line is blurry, but I think it’s reasonably intuitive.
@@machays This is so interesting! Does that mean i as the aff on taiwan can say that we wont send troops or aid to somewhere that is bad like israel?
Yes I would say so. Obviously whether or not this is a legitimate strategy (e.g. is this actually a “general practical solution”? Do the NSDA rules even matter? Etc etc) is still up for debate but based on my interpretation of the rules I would say go for it