1
edit
Difference between revisions of "Disadvantages"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
→Straight Turns: I changed an inaccuracy about straight turns
m (→Straight Turns: I changed an inaccuracy about straight turns) |
|||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
You end up arguing that: the economy is doing badly now (non-unique) ---> the plan helps the economy (link turn) ---> economic growth is bad (impact turn) | You end up arguing that: the economy is doing badly now (non-unique) ---> the plan helps the economy (link turn) ---> economic growth is bad (impact turn) | ||
====Straight Turns==== | ====Straight Turns==== | ||
Straight turns are the most strategic response to a DA, but they’re a little tricky. A straight turn consists of reading EITHER (but not both!) a [[Policy#Link Turns|link turn]] or an [[Policy#Impact Turns|impact turn]] on a DA, and no defense. Since link turns and impact turns provide offense on the DA, the negative cannot concede out of the disadvantage and go for a different argument in the 2NR, but instead must answer the straight turn. The most strategic 2N/ARs are ones that prioritize and win one or two arguments and explain why those arguments are the most important arguments in the round. This process of choosing one or two arguments to go for is called “collapsing” (since one is “collapsing” the round down to the most important issues). In order to do this, since most 1NCs contain multiple DAs, the negative will concede defense in the 2NR and just focus on one DA. While this might seem counter-intuitive, it becomes incredibly strategic. To illustrate this, here’s an example: | Straight turns are the most strategic response to a DA, but they’re a little tricky. A straight turn consists of reading EITHER (but not both!) a non-unique + [[Policy#Link Turns|link turn]] or an [[Policy#Impact Turns|impact turn]] on a DA, and no defense. Since link turns (when paired with non-unique claims) and impact turns provide offense on the DA, the negative cannot concede out of the disadvantage and go for a different argument in the 2NR, but instead must answer the straight turn. The most strategic 2N/ARs are ones that prioritize and win one or two arguments and explain why those arguments are the most important arguments in the round. This process of choosing one or two arguments to go for is called “collapsing” (since one is “collapsing” the round down to the most important issues). In order to do this, since most 1NCs contain multiple DAs, the negative will concede defense in the 2NR and just focus on one DA. While this might seem counter-intuitive, it becomes incredibly strategic. To illustrate this, here’s an example: | ||
1AC - Plan: states ought to eliminate their nuclear arsenals. Advantages about miscalculation and cyberattacks. | 1AC - Plan: states ought to eliminate their nuclear arsenals. Advantages about miscalculation and cyberattacks. | ||