I view the topic as an organic whole, not as individually defined terms. Consequently, jettisoned topicality arguments justify new answers and cross-applications. Please make clear these conditions on initial presentation. It is your job to pursue these issues. Permutations are overused by the affirmative and counter-permutations are underused by the negative.
Intrinsicness permutations are legitimate when they check extracompetitive counterplans.
It is up to you to debate the implications of topical counterplans and plans that mutate. Do not merely assume that I will adopt a permutation without your discussing the implications. My inclination is to accept counterplans adopting the affirmative with the exception of a particular plan mandate as long as it is that mandate that forces the competition. This is because the implication level is not given enough explanation, the negative does not properly locate the judge's role, or the affirmative argues effectively for a paradigm. If you permute, you should at least show some propensity to do the permutation and solvency for it.