DISADVANTAGES

What is a Disadvantage?  Disadvantages are offcase positions that the negative advances to prove that the costs of the plan outweigh its benefits  Disads typically make a CAUSAL claim: Plan -> X -> Y -> Bad  Disads must outweigh the “residual case” to be a reason to vote negative—you can “win” a disad and still lose the debate  Disads are often named after either the “link” or “impact” (Environment, Turbine Construction, etc.)

Structure of a Disadvantage  Disads have three main components  External link: argument (card) that connects the affirmative plan (or its effects) to the disadvantage  Internal link(s): arguments (cards) that connect the external link claim to the impact—can have multiple internal links  Impact: negative effect produced by the plan… we are obsessed with extinction  Global nuclear war  Extinction  “No Value to Life”

Structure [cont’d]  Each of these three components also includes AT LEAST an implicit uniqueness claim—an argument that either the causal connection (link) or consequence (impact) is not occurring in the status quo  Some folks also talk about “threshold” and “brink”—the amount of ‘push’ we need to trigger a causal chain/how close we are to triggering that chain

Why Use Disadvantages?  Disads reward hard work—they are an argument on which “being prepared” (having new uniqueness stories and updated blocks) can earn you wins  Disads provide a lot of argument diversity—even if the range of disads on a particular topic is narrow, they can be tweaked in a nearly infinite number of ways  Disads are generally pretty intuitive, EXCEPT for the terminal impact.  Disads can interact with the case impact, and TURN IT

One Important Thing to Remember  All disadvantages are LIES—if they were true, we would all be dead. Be HAPPY about this—life is beautiful!  This should not bother you—debate is about testing ideas in a competitive format, and if the aff cannot defeat a bad argument, that’s on them.  “Truthyness” on a disad is most important at the level of the external link—if you’re good on the link everything else can fall into place

How to Answer a Disadvantage  Have a STRATEGY for defeating the disad—you have three basic options  Link turn  Impact turn  Straight mitigation  Both link and impact turn strategies should include mitigation arguments EXCEPT under very specific circumstances

Link Turns  A “link turn” denies one or more of the causal connections in the disadvantage, arguing that the causal connection works in the OPPOSITE direction  Example: link says plan decreases hegemony, link turn says plan increases hegemony  A “link turn” is no better than a takeout UNLESS it is combined with a “link uniqueness” claim

Impact Turns  Impact turns claim that the “bad” of the disadvantage impact is actually “good”  Example: disad says plan causes nuclear war, and nuclear war is bad—impact turn says nuclear war is good!  Many people call lower-level internal link turns “impact turns”— this is not entirely accurate, but is a widely accepted naming practice  Example: Disad says plan decreases hegemony, hegemony is good—impact turns says hegemony is bad  Disads can be “straight turned”—either reading ONLY unique link turns or impact turns (NOT BOTH!!!!), forcing the other team to go for the argument

Mitigation Arguments  Link (both External and Internal)  Link is not true  Link is exaggerated  Link is non-unique  Impact  Impact is not true  Impact is exaggerated  Impact is non-unique  All causal claims can have their thresholds/brinks attacked

Strategic Considerations for Disads  Number: you want to put pressure on the aff, but you do not want to either spread yourself out or contradict yourself— generally, 2-4 disads are plenty, and if you’re relatively inexperienced, fewer is better than more  Case: disads MUST be accompanied by case takeouts and/or “turns the case” claims—it is almost impossible for you to win otherwise  Impacts: should be diverse, able to turn the case, and able to OUTWEIGH the case—a disad that does not outweigh the aff is pretty much worthless  Types: disads should only minimally interact with one another—otherwise, you can run into dangerous cross- applications… avoid duplication in link and impact claims  Disads + Counterplans = Macaroni + Cheese: good alone, excellent in combination

Oceans Disadvantages  Agenda Politics  Budget  Deficit Spending Bad  Tradeoff  Energy Prices / Tradeoffs  Environment DA  Federalism  Midterm Elections