Although you are correct in stating that the round is fake, per se, this doesn't eliminate the important distinction between pre-and post-fiat arguments. the imaginary delineation between 'real' and 'fake' is a necessary construct stemming from the creation of the also imaginary world that the policy aspect of the debate round operates in. the 'fake' part of the round is the policy aspect, the 'real' part of the round is the activity and the...i want to say 'metaphysical' rules that enable that activity to exist and have educational value. this aspect of the debate round is real in the sense that the speeches, the c-x sessions, and the evidence is all 'real'. that aside...
Haven't seen you in forever, man. We should catch up.
Content-wise, I think that "the K" operates in a really mushy theoretical space because there is literally no reason that it must be in either a "pre-fiat" or "post-fiat" framework. Kritiks that draw from international relations literature, for example, generally have the impact of "turns case impacts" and that's all - if I win that the affirmative's realist methodology guarantees continued war and non-war violence, that's pretty "post-fiat."
The only kritiks that would impact to the existence and educational value of debate are the "dirty word" and "bad out-of-round" kinds of arguments that we get from project teams that are explicitly trying to change the debate community or its norms and practices.
I'm uncomfortable with the pre/post-fiat distinction in critical debate because it seems very oversimplified - just because ontological debate functions somewhat differently than policy debate doesn't mean that one necessarily comes before the other, and those impact comparisons really need to be made by debaters. I can understand use of "pre-fiat" for procedural arguments, but generally anything with a fairness or jurisdiction impact is given priority anyway.
And also, how would you even go about perming a k, say if it were a capitalism k on you?
There are many ways to perm a capitalism K. I'll describe a few, and explain how they work.
1. Perm - do the plan and the alt. Read evidence that your plan is, in fact, a subversion or rejection of the capitalism that the negative attacks. You're going to win this debate if they have generic links and you have specific perm evidence; on the other hand, you will probably lose if they have specific link evidence and you have generic perm evidence or analytical arguments only.
2. Perm - do the plan. Read evidence that the collapse of capitalism is caused by making its internal contradictions more and more glaring, which can only be done by willingly overextending capitalism. This works really well if the alternative talks about an ethical duty to resist capitalism but doesn't define what form that resistance would take (the evidence I'm thinking of is Zizek and Daly '04, which is a fairly common card in capitalism files).
3. Perm - do the plan and the alt. Read evidence that ethics precede political economy, or evidence that people should work within a flawed system for incrementally good change even if they know that the system is awful. This works best if your plan has some kind of ethical imperative in it.
4. Don't perm. Read a bunch of "capitalism good" evidence and just turn the K completely. Works best if you cut cards from people who actually write intelligently (so no Mises Institute or Cato - their idea of "capitalism" isn't anything like the real world anyway).