Disadvantages “Advanced” theory

Parts of a DA Uniqueness Link Impact

Uniqueness Uniqueness: means establishing that the negative consequence has yet to occur (similar to inherency). Phrased differently: The status quo in the area of the disadvantage. Example: An “economy DA” would be unique only if the economy were doing well or “high” now. Thus a disadvantage is only “unique” if it is not presently happening.

In case you still don’t get it You say, “wearing aviator glasses is SOO early 90s. If you keep wearing them you’re going to attract older women.” (AKA, the old-lady DA) I say, “I am already dating your mom.” Thus, the DA of “attracting older women” is non-unique. It would only be unique if older women are not attracted to me now.

Link Link: means establishing a causal relationship between the plan and something else. Phrased differently: the plan causes X. Example: the plan causes a collapse of business confidence.

Impact Impact: means the ultimate reason to avoid the negative consequence. Phrased differently: nuclear war and/or extinction. Example: economic decline causes global war.

The forgotten parts of a DA Internal link Example: collapse of business confidence *to* economic decline. It is possible to have several internal links

Answering DAs There are multiple ways or strategies for answering a DA. Defense – disproving or denying uniqueness, link, internal-link, or impact claims. Offense – link turn or impact turn.

Defense wins championships Non unique No link No internal-link No impact

Link turn 2 parts to a successful link turn Non unique Turn the link

Impact turn Also conflated with an “internal link turn.” Dangerous strategy and usually poor evidence. Time management.

Straight turn A link turn with no defensive arguments (like no link or no impact) An impact turn with no defensive arguments (like non-unique or no link)

What should a 2ac look like? Defense on all parts of the DA Question the link’s importance. If the plan makes Saudi Arabia mad, is it enough to change the entire dynamic of US-Saudi relations? If the plan decreases business confidence is that enough to overwhelm the entire US economy Smartest arguments win affirmative rounds! Think of what the 2AR needs to have to win that the case o/w the DA.

2AC Example 1. n/u – economy low 2. n/u – biz con low 3. n/u – the da is inevitable (extend case) 4. no link – plan is cost-neutral to business 5. link turn – RE increases investment/jobs 6. link turn – federal standard calms biz 7. no i/l – biz con not key to the economy 8. no impact – economy is resilient

Then how should the Neg win? Utilize the block – time management Don’t overextend pre-tournament prep – prepare like a 2ac on just a couple of Das IMPACT, IMPACT, IMPACT

Impacting a DA Terminal impact MUST be extinction The importance of time-frame What does “turn the case mean” No solvency, makes harms worse Do not FORCE an overview – avoid jargon in favor of reason and strategy Their evidence makes a short-term assumption. If you win your DA then their assumption was WRONG.

2NR on a DA Tell a story (important for every speech). Predict 2AR arguments Compare to case impacts Don’t be afraid to spend lots of time CLOSE THE DOOR! The 1ar was probably not good.

Kicking a DA Identify defense Beware of link turns Beware of add-on advantages Double-edge sword – the point is to get a time trade-off so this should be a quick process.

Topic Disadvantages

What are they Business confidence Federalism Spending Oil – Russia, Saudi, OPEC, Iraq, Nigeria Relations – russia, saudi arabia Refineries Japan/Europe soft power Agenda politics/Elections Case specific DAs – natural gas, military readiness, hegemony, etc.

The Politics DA Elections or agenda-politics Link theory (fiat theory) President gets credit Bill passes unanimously President pushes the plan

Elections links Credit/Blame links Voter turnout links Obama/McCain gets blame – shatters base or key group of voters Obama/McCain gets credit – increases base or key group of voters Voter turnout links If the plan is not popular with the public it becomes a voting issue. So, who is most likely to correct the problem? Lobby (issue) links Business lobby can influence the election Trade, oil, agriculture, Israel lobbies, etc.

Agenda Politics Links Winners-win Winners-lose Works for VERY popular plans Works for very UNpopular plans Winners-lose “Pushing” costs political capital Political capital is finite Olive-branch (concession) Losers-win Would the plan be passed as an “olive branch” Horse-trading (not as common anymore) “Political football” is useless

Useful Aff. Fiat Arguments Fiat takes out the link (no politics DAs) Least means necessary What is the most likely scenario for passing the plan? Explain why it is the best interpretation (research makes it predictable, educational, and most real-world) Use any of the negative links in your favor Since the legislation has not passed yet, odds are there is no evidence on what occurs politically when it does. Think of what would happen and use evidence to support your claims.

Winning the elections DA Read lots of uniqueness cards. USE THE BLOCK. Have a clear uniqueness story that establishes DIRECTION Make several link arguments. Make a fiat interpretation that is very favorable to your DA. Turns the case? If your DA is McCain BAD then think about ways he would functionally “roll back” the affirmative.

Winning Business Confidence Read warranted uniqueness cards. Emphasize a “brink” to economic collapse. Read uniqueness of every part of the DA Have a reason the DA may uniquely disrupt a “resilient” economy Read lots of link arguments. SHORT TERM LINKS DISPROVE LONG TERM LINK-TURNS. The DA turns the case!

Intrinsic “tests” Intrinsic means: belonging to a thing by its very nature. Moral relevance 2AC “tests” Strategically useful but not a real option Caution: don’t be “that team”

Answering intrinsic perms on a DA What does that justify for the negative? A dozen counterplans on each advantage to test whether or not they are intrinsic to the plan. What does it do to debate? It makes it impossible to predict every possible means of solving an impact so the negative is encouraged to read multiple bad arguments instead of just a few good ones. Even if you are prepared is it still unfair? YES, if you have evidence that the intrinsic permutation would not solve then you just get back to square one, so the time skew is RIDUNC.