Intrinsicness(Perms)

An intrinsic permutation (sometimes called an intrinsicness permutation) is a permutation which includes at least one mandate found in neither the plan nor the counter plan.

For example, if the case is "The United States should send peacekeepers to Darfur", and the counter plan is "Japan should send peacekeepers to Darfur", if the perm is "The United States and Japan should send a cooperative peacekeeping mission to Darfur" it is intrinsic -- "cooperation" was specified in neither the plan text nor the counterplan text. However, a perm that just advocated both countries to independently send in troops to Darfur would not be intrinsic.

Often, people will make an intrinsic perm to a counter plan (as mentioned above), in response to a criticism (critique or K), or a disadvantage. For example, if the opposition were to run a capitalism criticism, the government could respond with "Permutation: we will pass plan and then have the government hand out pamphlets on why consumerism is bad." This permutation is adding new plan text to the government's advocacy.

Intrinsic perms are widely considered to be illegitimate. Some of the reasons why follow:


 * An intrinsic perm is an advocacy shift, and advocacy shifts are bad, as the first and most important burden of an advocate is to have a stable advocacy.
 * Intrinsic perms allow the affirmative to avoid any negative argumentation against the case by allowing them to write new turns to the disadvantages after they have already been revealed (for example, "We'll do plan and counterplan and also balance the budget" to avoid a spending DA).
 * Intrinsicness perms moot the entirety of the LOC, because they allow the affirmative to run an entirely new plan that avoids all the disadvantages to the old one.

Intrinsicness perms are abusive in terms of both time skew (since the LOC is useless) and strategy skew (since the LOC has to reveal his argumentative strategy for the round, which is then mooted).