1. The Perm is severance
A. They sever out of the unconditional enforcement of the plan because Brazil might say no or make minor adjustments.
B. The sever out of the immediacy of the plan because consultation takes time, fiat is immediate.
C. Voter for fairness and education
1. Moving Target: It allows them to spike out of our offense by removing parts of the plan that link, it is the same as affirmative conditionality.
2. Ground: It kills our CP and Kritik ground because they can remove parts of the plan to make everything not competitive.
2. Timeframe Perms Illegitimate: The perm delays consultation until after the implementation of the plan. Perm is a moving target because they can delay the plan to co-opt our offense and get out of disads which hurts negative ground.
3. No solvency – Brazil will see that the plan has been enacted first and that the consultation is just a ruse
AT: Perm: Plan + Consult On Other Issues
The perm is intrinsic
A. It adds consultation on random policies. The 1NC text was exclusive to the plan.
B. Moving Target: Reject the perm because it allows them to shift their advocacy to spike out of our offense. A stable plan text is key to neg ground because it is the first place to look for strategies.
C. Ground: It allows the Aff to co-opt net benefits by adding new planks to plan.
D. Voter for fairness and education
AT: Perm: Plan + Non-Binding Consultation
The perm is intrinsic
A. Neither the plan nor the counterplan advocate non-binding consultation.
B. Reject the perm because they can co-opt our offense by adding planks to the plan
C. Moving Target: We can’t predict their advocacy. Stable plan texts are key to negative strategy.
D. Voter for Fairness and education
AT: Perm do the CP
Severs out of certainty of the USFG – that’s a voting issue
Ground: the perm is a check of the competitiveness not an advocacy. So we can slightly change the plan to check the competitiveness.
Education: in real world politics politicians make amendments to their plan to help gain support or fix problems. We will be the future policy makers so we should practice working like them.
Fairness: The negative can read K’s and CP’s that have nothing to do with the plan except a similar funding or an advantage. The severance perm is key to checking any abusive negative CP, PIC or Vague K
Reject the Perm not the team: Voting a team down based on a theory mistake is less educational than voting on argumentation if there is abuse drop it from the flow
Potential abuse isn’t a voter: the negative needs to prove abuse; if we are debating this then there is no abuse because it isn’t Abuse its potential abuse
Voting issue for fairness and education
AT: Consult CPs bad
Consult CPs are good
a. Better discussion to consultation mechanisms and diplomatic knowledge
b. Tests desirability in which the plan is passed
Real world- Countries engage in consultation process on international plans
Research – Forces research beyond the topic countries
Predictability- Lit base checks
Neg Ground – Forces immediate enactment and governmental action, which is the lynchpin of all neg disads- their interpretation allows aff severance
Aff Ground - Aff leverages ground on immediacy and certainty
Can’t use back-files – Evidence of the CP must be specific to plan and squo
Fairness- Checks aff on sand-bagging
Aff side bias - The aff has first and last speech and unlimited prep time
Counter Interpretation - Consult CP should have a mechanism which it uses; net benefits check abuse arguments
Defaulting to theoretical reasonability best for debate- only have to win that the CP just doesn’t destroy it
Reject the Argument not the Team
AT: Lie Perm
1. The perm fails: government action invariably involves leaks which will expose the true intentions of consultation – transparency builds international cooperation.
Finel & Lord 02 – *Professor of Military Strategy and Operations at the U.S. National War College and past Executive Director of the Security Studies Program and the Center for Peace and Security Studies at Georgetown University from 2002-2004 and **Vice-President and Director of studies at the Center for a New American Security and Foreign Policy Studies Program fellow at the Brookings Institute. (Bernard I. Finel and Kristin M. Lord, Power and Security in the Age of Transparency, p. 101. DS)
In fact, a government that tolerates a free press pays a price by exposing itself to exploitation by states with private information. The press has some ability to expose leaders to potential punishment by the voters or the courts for lies told in office. These inherent costs of democratic government may, under some circumstances, be sufficient to distinguish the promises of democracies as more credible than the promises of nondemocracies."' As Keohane put it, Some governments maintain secrecy more zealously than others. American officials, for example, often lament that the U.S. government leaks information “like a sieve” and claim that this openness puts the United States at a disadvantage Surely there are disadvantages to openness.... But some reflection on the problem of making agreements in world politics suggests that there are advantages for the open government that cannot be duplicated by countries with more tightly closed bureaucracies. Governments that cannot provide detailed and reliable information about their intentions-for instance, because their decision-making processes are closed to the outside world and their officials are prevented from developing frank informal relationships with their foreign counterparts-may well be unable convincingly to persuade their potential partners of their commitment to the contemplated arrangement.”
2. Double-bind: Either the plan and CP are enacted simultaneously, meaning the perm links to the net benefit, or the plan is adopted after the CP which is a timeframe permutation and illegitimate
A. They make all the counterplans non-competitive and counterplans are key to negative ground.
B. They justify future fiat which shreds negative uniqueness ground for Das.
C. Voting issue for Fairness and Education
A. Perm magnifies the link to the net benefit – if Brazil finds out the US in engaging in non-genuine consultation they will be more angered than the plan without consultation.
B. Counterplan solves 100% of case – any risk the perm links to the net benefit means a neg win.