1,166
edits
Difference between revisions of "Disadvantages"
m
→Answering the Link and Internal Link
m (Reverted edits by Zsiegel (talk) to last revision by CheeseMeese) Tag: Rollback |
|||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
No link: this argument would say that the plan does not actually cause the effect the DA says it does (e.g. the plan does not hurt the economy). | No link: this argument would say that the plan does not actually cause the effect the DA says it does (e.g. the plan does not hurt the economy). | ||
[[Link Turns]]: this argument would say that the plan does the opposite of the link (e.g. the plan helps the economy). This argument must be paired with a non-unique argument to be offensive, otherwise there’s no impact the link turn --- if the economy is doing well already (uniqueness), it doesn’t matter if it gets even better (link turn). | [[Policy#Link Turns|Link Turns]]: this argument would say that the plan does the opposite of the link (e.g. the plan helps the economy). This argument must be paired with a non-unique argument to be offensive, otherwise there’s no impact the link turn --- if the economy is doing well already (uniqueness), it doesn’t matter if it gets even better (link turn). | ||
====Answering the Impact==== | ====Answering the Impact==== | ||
[[Impact Defense]]: this argument says that the negative’s impact will either not happen or is overhyped (e.g. economic collapse does not cause war). | [[Policy#Impact Defense|Impact Defense]]: this argument says that the negative’s impact will either not happen or is overhyped (e.g. economic collapse does not cause war). | ||
[[Impact Turns]]: impact turns say that the impact to the disadvantage is actually good (e.g. economic collapse is good --- it doesn’t cause war, but it does prevent climate change). | [[Policy#Impact Turns|Impact Turns]]: impact turns say that the impact to the disadvantage is actually good (e.g. economic collapse is good --- it doesn’t cause war, but it does prevent climate change). | ||
This is extremely important: you can NOT make a link turn and an impact turn in the same speech. This is called a “double turn” because what you end up arguing becomes offense for the neg: | This is extremely important: you can NOT make a link turn and an impact turn in the same speech. This is called a “double turn” because what you end up arguing becomes offense for the neg: | ||
| 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 [[Link Turns|link turn]] or an [[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 [[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: | ||
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. | ||