The perm says its possible to do both, so its a false choice to be choosing between plan and counterplan. An artificial construct of a debate round. It says nothing about whether it would be a good idea to do both, merely that it is an option. Because it is an option, the only way you can win the net benefit debate is if plan is worse than status quo because either plan or plan+counterplan is vote aff...and counterplan is plan+counterplan. And if you argue that means I can't perm, that's proof of abuse for my theory position on a PIC being bad because it steals all offense from aff and would neg would never lose if they just had to add something awesome to plan then say it couldn't be permed. To respond to the specific arguments:
Most successful debaters here actually don't do that. They run DAs on just the plan without the other part, therefore you have DA with plan by itself and advantage with the whole CP. Beating the idea that you even can "perm" such a CP becomes easy at that point, in my opinion.
And running DAs specific to plan is the correct strategy, but it isn't benefited by a plan-plus CP. Either those DAs outweigh the advantages or they don't. If they do, you would win whether you ran the CP or not, so its pointless. If they don't, the perm works because it says the plan doesn't need to be the best option to win the round, it simply needs to be beneficial without blocking better options. It doesn't matter that CP is better than plan, because that's the point of a perm; to say that the judge shouldn't vote for a non-competitive option that happens to be better than plan.
I think you're trying to get to a net-benefits competitiveness, but that falls apart with a plan-plus CP because perm=CP (by definition) so the perm solves back for any DAs you run. Thus, the perm has the same net-benefit as the CP, meaning CP isn't a reason to vote neg. If you say the perm doesn't work, you're back into the theory position.
We have a lot of success arguing "perms make no sense" when they're of the variety you mention. When a permutation is used a PROOF of non-competitiveness (e.g. we defeated the DAs neg gives to our plan alone, therefore CP elements are just add-ons that don't function as a reason to not pass my plan...). So you're going to have to fight each of the proposals on the grounds "only works," assuming a CP was even run and the argument wasn't merely made outright.
I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. The perm shows the false choice being presented, and would actually be run the same as any other perm, the justification is just a bit different. The second sentence seems incomplete, and the last one doesn't seem to quite fit as completing it, so I'm not entirely sure what you're saying happens when a perm argues based on defeating neg DAs. The perm should be made in either case, and just argue there are 2 scenarios, and just admit they lose either way if DAs outweigh case, so the perm and cp are both irrelevant, but the perm functions if the DAs don't outweigh case. For net-benefits competitiveness to work, the DAs must exist in the perm, which will never happen with plan-plus
Come to Puget Sound Debate Camp!debatecamp.pssda.net