Content-Manager, Administrators
18
edits
Difference between revisions of "Policy"
→Answering the Affirmative
Amanaker17 (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
====Impact Defense==== | ====Impact Defense==== | ||
Impact defense is one of the most intuitive ways to answer an advantage: it just says that the affirmative’s impact will either not happen, or is irrelevant. For example, a common affirmative argument is to say that disease impacts are existential. Impact defense would say that disease does not cause extinction for a, b, c reasons. Impact defense is extremely common and can be strategic when hitting an argument that you don’t have prep on, but often does not have high strategic value for two reasons. Firstly, impact defense is very generic; for example, an advantage about something causing a US-Russia war which then goes nuclear has a specific warrant about what triggers the war, escalation, etc., --- a generic card that says “diplomacy checks” might apply and have some value, but the affirmative will likely be able to leverage the specificity of their warrants against the generic card. Secondly, impact defense reduces the impact from 100% (extinction) to 99.9%. A 2A/NR on “disease doesn’t kill like . . . everybody. . . just millions!” isn’t exactly scintillating stuff. | |||
====Link Defense==== | ====Link Defense==== | ||
Link defense explains that the advantage’s warrants are incorrect. A typical [[==Advantages|advantage==]] relies on a link chain that says A ---> B ---> C. Link defense would say that A and/or B and/or C is incorrect or wrong. For example, if the AFF proposes a plan that the United States federal government should implement a jobs guarantee with an advantage saying that the economy is doing badly now, but the plan helps the economy, link defense would say that the plan does not help the economy. | |||
====Solvency Deficits==== | ====Solvency Deficits==== | ||
Solvency is the ability of the affirmative to rectify the harms it talks about. A solvency deficit is a part of the affirmative that the plan does not solve for. Winning a solvency deficit means that the affirmative does not gain any offense from case because voting aff does not change the problems they have outlined. | |||
====Turns==== | ====Turns==== | ||
A turn is a highly strategic argument. A turn functions as offense, saying that the opposite of what the affirmative says is true. There are two types: impact turns and link turns. | |||
=====Impact Turns===== | =====Impact Turns===== | ||
Impact turns say that an impact the affirmative categorizes as bad is actually good. These arguments are typically counter-intuitive and more often than not, false from an objective standpoint. However, due to the technical aspect of debate and the presumption that what is true in a debate round is determined by the arguments made by the debaters in round, these arguments become viable and very strategic. There are two parts to the impact turn: defense and offense. Since the impact turn is advocating for offense against an impact, it needs to mitigate the affirmative’s characterization of the impact (defense), as well as provide reasons why the impact is good (offense). For example, climate change bad impacts are extremely common, as is the climate change good. This turn would say 1. climate change is not existential, the impacts are overblown, we are able to adapt to its effects, etc., and 2. climate change is good --- there are a variety of different arguments for this, but common ones include: CO2 is necessary for agricultural productivity, lack of food causes food wars which go nuclear, or an impending ice age is coming now, but warming now staves it off. Common impact turns include the following: | |||
US Hegemony Bad: a common impact argument is that US hegemony upholds a stable world order, prevents conflict, and provides peace and stability. A very common impact turn says that US hegemony actually leads to conflict. | |||
Democracy Bad: a common impact argument is that democratic systems are the only way to prevent a litany of existential threats such as climate change, pandemics, or terrorism, or relies on democratic peace theory, saying that democracies lead to less conflict. The impact turn would say that democratic systems do not actually create the structures necessary to prevent these, but instead that democracy is independently bad by fueling conflict, terrorism, or climate change. | |||
=====Link Turns===== | =====Link Turns===== | ||
Link turns, similar to impact turns, generate offense. However, they are made up of two parts: non-unique and the link turn. An [[==Advantages|advantage==]] must be “unique,” just meaning that whatever they talk about is not currently happening in the status quo. For example, if the affirmative has an advantage about rescuing the economy with an impact about economic collapse being bad, they must have a “uniqueness” claim that the economy is doing well now. Thus, a “non-unique” argument would contest what’s going on in the status quo, staying with the example from above, it would say the economy is doing poorly now. Though it might seem impossible to have a debate about an objective fact --- the economy cannot be both good and bad at the same time --- these arguments can rely on different criteria for evaluating the health of the economy, e.g. are stocks a good indicator? Is investor confidence? Consumer confidence? GDP? The link turn then says that the affirmative’s link is the opposite. So, instead of the plan helping the economy, it actually hurts it. The negative’s argument becomes: the economy is doing well, but the plan hurts the economy, thus triggering the affirmative’s impact. It can be illustrated by the following diagram: | |||
AFF: the economy is doing poorly ---> the plan helps the economy ---> strong economy is good | |||
↗ | |||
NEG: the economy is doing well ---> the plan hurts the economy | |||
Though the non-unique seems extraneous, it is integral to the utility of the link turn. Absent a non-unique, the link turn does not matter because it does not change the status quo. For example, if the negative does not win that the economy is doing well instead of poorly, it does not matter whether the plan hurts the economy instead of helping it because it is already doing badly. | |||