Tags: intrinsicness, conditionality, intrinsic, theory,

Stefan Bauschard  November 18, 2009 Politics File

One argument that is starting to make a comeback, at least in college debate, is intrinsicness.

Intrinsicness is simply the idea that a given disadvantage is not an intrinsic reason to vote against the affirmative plan and that action can be taken to avoid the disadvantage while adopting the plan at the same time.  The argument is most frequently made against a politics disadvantage because the judge could both vote for the affirmative plan and the agenda impact -- the judge could, for example, vote increase federal support for broadband AND pass health care reform.

Intrinsicness arguments fell out of favor because affirmative teams persuaded judges that it was unfair for the plan to essentially be a moving target and change throughout the debate.  Of course, this was at a time when conditionality was widely considered to be illigitimate.

Now, with the widespread acceptance of conditionality it is easier to win these arguments and tension between negative theory arguments in defense of conditionality make this debate easy for the affirmative to win.

How to execute --

In the 2AC, make a basic intrinsicness argument against the disadvantage (something like -- do both: pass the plan and health care reform).  On the counterplan flow (if it is conditional) make a couple of basic conditionality bad arguments.

Since most teams do not win debates on conditionality good, they will address the intrinsicness argument with a couple of brief claims about why it is illigitimate -- they'll say it's a moving target and destroys the focus of the debate.

Then, they'll move on to the conditionality flow where they'll make many different arguments in defense of conditionality (they'll spend more time here because some teams actually win debates on conditionality bad).

Most likely, they'll trott out their stock arguments in defense of conditionality:

It's real world -- policy makers consider more than one policy option and jettison the ones they don't like;

It promotes critical thinking -- it's harder to debate in multiple worlds;

It's reciprocal -- the Aff gets the plan and the perm and we get the counterplan and the status quo;

Best policy option -- the judge should choose the best policy option at the end of the debate.

As long as they make these arguments in defense of conditionality, you are golden!

In the 1AR, start on the conditionality flow and concede -- one at a time -- the arguments as to why conditionality is good.  Then go to the DA flow, extend the intrinsicness argument and say --

Concede all of their arguments on the conditionality theory flow …the conditional counterplan is legitimate, which means our intrinsicness answer is legitimate

• Real world – Congress would take two actions instead of one if the 2^nd action was needed to solve a problem created by the first action
• Best policy option – The best policy option would be to do both
• Critical thinking – They’d have to think harder if they were forced to go for a DA that was intrinsic to the plan
• Conditionality legitimate –  yes, it’s harder and requires more smarts to argue in more than one world – now they have to meet the challenge – argue in the world of the intrinsicness answer and in the world of the plan; if they can’t, I guess they aren’t so smart
• Double-bind --  Either they lose to their own moving target arguments because the counterplan is conditional OR we get the intrinsicness argument.
• No abuse --
• (a) It’s the same actor --  Congress would do both the plan and pass the climate change legislation. (b) Intrinsicness arguments should be limited to where the actor is the same; this models real-world policy making and still allows plenty of negative ground
• © It’s less abusive than the CP. Their CP has multiple different actors doing multiple different things that they would never do. Our intrinsicness argument has the same actor do two real world things it may likely do.
• (d) Reciprocity. The negative can run counterplans against non-intrinsic affirmative advantages
• (e) Many examples of intrinsic disadvantages – federalism, spending, geopolitical arguments
• (f) It’s not unpredictable – it’s their own DA! They should be prepared for intrinsicness arguments against DAs they choose to run
• (g) Non-topicality irrelevant – tests of intrinsicness, just like permutations, do not have to be topical. If tests had to be topical the affirmative could never permute a non-topical counterplan.

The impact is that their DA is not intrinsic and it goes away. The affirmative can advocate doing the plan and adopting a cap & trade system/passing health care reform. There is not net-benefit to the counterplan – vote for the permutation to do both.

Game over. You win!