1,166
edits
Difference between revisions of "Permissibility Triggers"
Permissibility Triggers (view source)
Revision as of 20:56, 18 January 2022
, 20:56, 18 January 2022no edit summary
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Overview == | == Overview == | ||
Permissibility triggers are arguments that claim a framework would deem all actions [[Presumption and Permissibility#Permissibility|permissible]]. That is, a framework that triggers permissibility would be unable to provide an active obligation for or prohibition against taking any action. | Permissibility triggers are arguments that claim a framework would deem all actions [[Presumption and Permissibility#Permissibility|permissible]]. That is, a framework that triggers permissibility would be unable to provide an active obligation for or prohibition against taking any action. Permissibility triggers can be strategic if a debater feels they are behind on the contention-level offense, as a debater could trigger permissibility to force the judge to vote on permissibility rather than the contention-level offense. Additionally, debaters can read many permissibility triggers against the justification of their opponent's framework, where even one going conceded could present major problems for the opponent. | ||
Most permissibility triggers are in the form of a calculation indict ("calc indict") that claims a framework fails to guide action. Calc indicts will be a reason why a framework's standard fails or is impossible to achieve. Notably, for a permissibility trigger to be relevant in the round, the standard being used in the round must fail, but that must not be a reason to use the other debater's framework's standard. | Most permissibility triggers are in the form of a calculation indict ("calc indict") that claims a framework fails to guide action. Calc indicts will be a reason why a framework's standard fails or is impossible to achieve. Notably, for a permissibility trigger to be relevant in the round, the standard being used in the round must fail, but that must not be a reason to use the other debater's framework's standard. | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
To avoid this issue, the debater running the permissibility trigger must concede the other premises of the framework (i.e. <math>A \rightarrow B</math>) so that only possible standard we could use in the round is <math>C</math>. Then, the debater triggering permissibility must claim that <math>C</math> itself fails. | To avoid this issue, the debater running the permissibility trigger must concede the other premises of the framework (i.e. <math>A \rightarrow B</math>) so that only possible standard we could use in the round is <math>C</math>. Then, the debater triggering permissibility must claim that <math>C</math> itself fails. | ||
== Example == | == Example == | ||
Utilitarianism triggers permissibility. | Utilitarianism triggers permissibility. | ||