In competitive debate, permissibility is a theoretical justification used when a debater cannot prove their side is affirmatively better but can show that it is not worse than the alternative. The argument generally runs: if the resolution and its negation are indistinguishable in their consequences, obligations, or truth value, then choosing either is permitted — and the side carrying the burden of proof should lose, or conversely, the side without an offensive reason against the action should win.
Permissibility is most prominent in Lincoln-Douglas (LD) debate, where it interacts heavily with presumption. The two are often paired: presumption tells the judge which side to default to in the absence of offense, while permissibility tells the judge that an action is allowed because no reason prohibits it. Debaters typically deploy permissibility in three contexts:
- Skepticism arguments, where a debater claims morality does not exist or cannot be known, so no action can be deemed impermissible.
- Tricks debate, where a-priori arguments assert that the resolution is tautologically permissible.
- Plan/counterplan rounds, where the negative argues the affirmative plan and the status quo are functionally identical, so adopting the plan is merely permitted rather than required.
The direction permissibility "flows" — i.e., which side it benefits — depends on the resolution's wording. Resolutions phrased as "ought" or "is justified" are commonly read as requiring a proactive reason to act, so permissibility flows negative (no obligation, so reject). Resolutions phrased as "is permissible" obviously flow affirmative. Debaters contest this framing as a threshold issue.
Critics argue permissibility encourages evasive, non-substantive debating and rewards technical maneuvering over engagement with the topic. Defenders counter that it enforces logical rigor about burdens of proof and prevents judges from intervening with their own ethical priors. Many circuit judges now disclose paradigms specifying whether they will vote on permissibility triggers.
Example
In a 2019 Tournament of Champions LD round on whether predatory pricing ought to be banned, the negative won on permissibility by arguing that under moral skepticism, neither banning nor permitting predatory pricing could be shown to be wrong, so the affirmative failed its burden.
Frequently asked questions
It depends on the resolution. For 'ought' or 'is justified' resolutions, permissibility usually flows negative because the affirmative bears the burden to show action is required. For 'is permissible' resolutions, it flows affirmative.
Keep learning