18
edits
Difference between revisions of "Disadvantages"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→DAs
m (→Straight Turns: I changed an inaccuracy about straight turns) |
(→DAs) |
||
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
Now, if the 1AR only reads defense, say they read bioweapons won’t cause extinction and AI won’t cause extinction, the 2NR can concede one of them and spend 6 minutes answering the impact defense and weighing it versus case. Though it seems like heresy to concede an opponent’s argument, conceding that bioweapons don’t cause extinction doesn’t put the NEG at a strategic disadvantage because there’s no offensive ways for the affirmative to win from that, but it does give them more time to decisively win the Emerging Tech DA and explain why it’s the most important issue in the round. This is where a straight turn comes in. Instead of reading impact defense, if the 1AR had straight turned both disads, say by reading a non-unique + link turn on both, the 2NR becomes significantly harder. Since the affirmative has garnered offense on both DAs, the 2NR cannot concede out of one of them, and must split the 2NR by going for both disadvantages, forcing them to spend less time on each argument and greatly increasing the possibility of making a mistake, messing up time allocation, or conceding a crucial argument. | Now, if the 1AR only reads defense, say they read bioweapons won’t cause extinction and AI won’t cause extinction, the 2NR can concede one of them and spend 6 minutes answering the impact defense and weighing it versus case. Though it seems like heresy to concede an opponent’s argument, conceding that bioweapons don’t cause extinction doesn’t put the NEG at a strategic disadvantage because there’s no offensive ways for the affirmative to win from that, but it does give them more time to decisively win the Emerging Tech DA and explain why it’s the most important issue in the round. This is where a straight turn comes in. Instead of reading impact defense, if the 1AR had straight turned both disads, say by reading a non-unique + link turn on both, the 2NR becomes significantly harder. Since the affirmative has garnered offense on both DAs, the 2NR cannot concede out of one of them, and must split the 2NR by going for both disadvantages, forcing them to spend less time on each argument and greatly increasing the possibility of making a mistake, messing up time allocation, or conceding a crucial argument. | ||
===Types of Disadvantages=== | |||
====Topic Disadvantages==== | |||
Topic disadvantages are the most common type of disadvantage. What constitutes a "topic" disadvantage is somewhat arbitrary, but they are usually considered to be disadvantages where the link to the affirmative is intrinsic to the topic and cannot be read on a different topic. This is opposed to "Politics" disadvantages which are explained below. | |||
====Politics Disadvantages==== | |||
Politics disadvantages are a less common type of disadvantage. They claim that the affirmative will have some sort of political consequence. | |||
One example of a Politics disadvantage is an elections disadvantage (most often an elections disadvantage or a midterms disadvantage). These disadvantages claim that the affirmative will have a political consequence that results in a certain individual or party being elected. For instance, on the November-December 2024 topic, the negative may claim Trump will lose the election, a Wealth Tax would be politically disadvantageous for Democrats, and as a result, Trump would end up winning the election. The negative would then claim that Trump being elected would be disastrous for a number of reasons. | |||
Another example of a Politics disadvantage is an agenda politics disadvantage. These disadvantages claim that the affirmative will have a political consequence that results in a certain bill not being passed. For instance, on the November-December 2024 topic, the negative may claim that a bill that would raise the debt-ceiling will pass in Congress, passing a wealth tax would use up much of Joe Biden's political capital meaning that he could not raise the debt ceiling, and consequently, the bill that would raise the debt-ceiling would not be raised because of the lack of political capital. The negative would then claim that not raising the debt-ceiling would be disastrous for a number of reasons. | |||