It’s been a while since I did a throwdown, and this is an issue that I have been thinking about for some time. I am going to defend intrinsicness in one specific instance, not in the abstract say it vs any da.
The instance I am thinking of is this: The neg reads a CP that is arguably plan inclusive, perhaps the easiest example to conceptualize is an agent counterplan. In addition to having another agent do the plan, they also have a line in the CP that seeks to spike out of the better literature based answers to that CP.
1AC- End drone strikes
1NC: Court end drone strikes, court also rule this won’t effect deference
2AC: Deference DA
2NC: We fiated out of the deference DA
It seems here that if the negative is also going for a politics DA, reciprocity demands that the affirmative be able to non intrinsic that da. I will leave flushing out warrants etc till the response post, so lets assume the example above occurred and the 2AC says the following:
“you can do the plan and pass start, intrinsicness is legitimate in instances where the negative uses fiat to moot our literature based offense vs their counterplan. Reciprocity and ground demand that we be given a theoretical argument to level the playing field- this is analogous to their cp spike”
So post in the comments negative responses you can think of to this line of argument, or any thoughts/ideas you have on it