Shree’s ballot is encouraging in that he identifies great things happening in CX, but remember that those need to get translated into answers in speeches because it’s only the speeches that count. Think of CX as the cop part of Law and Order. They often figure out who the real killer is, but if the lawyer part doesn’t get a conviction, who cares? CX can help your speeches (and great CX can skyrocket your individual speaker points), but you need the speeches to win.
In the Beyer debate it looks like you were arguing a Thorium CP and they proved Thorium could be used in their SMRs. This is where preparing a little debate theory would be helpful. If you could answer that perm by saying it was “severance” and/or “intrinsic”
CPs are only valid if they compete directly with the plan. That can happen if the CP and plan are literally opposites (build SMR/ban SMRs) which is called “mutually exclusive” or if there’s a “net benefit,” an advantage gained or disadvantage avoided by the CP alone. Thus, the Aff can beat the CP theoretically if they show that the CP doesn’t compete. If you can “do both” and it’s better than doing the CP alone the Aff wins. These are the perms.
Now some perms are illegitimate because they don’t REALLY test competition. For example, when the Aff says, “build SMRs” they are implicitly assuming they’ll be Uranium SMRs because that’s the status quo fuel. In the original Aff they don’t say Thorium. That means if the SQ wasn’t going to use Thorium and your CP does, it’s kind of unfair for them to run in during their 2AC and say, “oh…sure, we could use Thorium so the CP doesn’t compete.” You could answer this perm by saying, “This is a severance perm because the original plan text called for SMRs and without any other claim they are bound to defend that they will turn out being Uranium [insert card or maybe just stick them with a CX answer].” The perm doesn’t test competition because it requires them taking away the implied part of plan that was Uranium…so it’s no longer really a comparison of plan and CP to determine competition.” It’s also maybe “intrinsic” because if the judge doesn’t buy the severance argument, the perm is arguably ADDING something to the plan that wasn’t there before (in this case…we’ll make them use Thorium). That’s an unfair test because it’s no longer pitting the real plan against the CP.