449:
and presumes the debate theory of Fiat could be settled anyway. However, Politics disadvantages typically will say that a plan will pass through
Congress, thus causing a shift in the "political capital" of either the president, or a political party, which will affect the ability of the affected group to pass other bills. The Impact is typically referred to as a "Double-Whammy": they are busy not solving something, resources are ineffectively applied, now there is a two-headed hydra problem, viz. once the same money (or resources) is spent frivolously, not only did the government not solve south-of-the-border immigration concerns but now there is less money for solving homelessness of thousands U.S. nationals. An example of a politics disadvantage (typically in high school debate, assuming "politics" is synonymous with the personalities of the leadership) would be: Uniqueness: Immigration Reform will pass in the status quo. Link: Plan decreases the President's political capital, perhaps with a specific link that increasing civil liberties would be a flip-flop for President Obama. Thus, Obama has no political capital to pass his Immigration Reform. Impact elections cycles. For example, in a presidential election, it might argue that a certain Presidential candidate or his or her opponent is currently weak (or strong), but the affirmative plan will cause him or her to gain (or lose) popularity, and that either his or her election is undesirable or the election of his or her opponent is undesirable. A midterms version could focus on particular races or the general balance of the Congress; an example of a single-race midterms disadvantage would be that the reelection of Senator
793:
funding through federal sources by using congress; the negative runs a courts counterplan that repels the hyde amendment and runs a politics disadvantage that says the plan will drain the political capital of the president which causes a certain bill not to be passed; the affirmative would claim that the "perm shields the link" because congress would claim that the courts made them repeal the hyde amendment, therefore no political capital would be lost.
238:
477:
debate should be a simulation of the debate before
Congress and thus the president has already exerted political capital, meaning there is no disadvantage. Argument from Intrinsicness is there is no reason that Congress can't pass both the plan and the bill, meaning they are not competitive. The Political DA, as misunderstood as politicians' political capital, has no warrant in traditional Fiat theory.
33:
738:
This would make the disadvantage a reason why the plan is desirable, as it would strengthen the US military and prevent a nuclear war. In this case, the affirmative could not read an impact takeout; if they did, the negative could kick the disadvantage by arguing that even if the plan strengthens the
711:
A straight link turn requires a uniqueness takeout, a link takeout, and a link turn. This allows the affirmative to argue that the disadvantage will occur in the status quo (takeout) and that the plan will prevent it from occurring (turn), turning the disadvantage into an advantage to doing the plan.
591:
Impact uniqueness is a variant of "non-unique" arguments. To prove that an impact is non-unique the affirmative must show that the link has already happened in the past but the impact didn't happen. Debate coach James Kellam writes that impact uniqueness is an underused but highly effective argument.
448:
A political disadvantage is unique in the way that it links to an
Affirmative plan. Rather than linking to the specific plan action, it links to the idea that the plan does not exist in a vacuum but is exposed to political costs, measures, tactics, the overall political milieu--with no regard to Fiat
353:
The impact is the result of the policy action that make it undesirable. These results are at the end of the chain of reasoning of your DA (starts with your link with internal links spanning over the Brink with
Uniqueness and lead to the Impact), then continuing along with the example, an impact would
698:
Since turns are reasons why the affirmative's plan is actively beneficial (as opposed to takeouts, which only argue that it is not harmful), the negative must take extra care once one has been read. In particular, if the negative wishes to stop extending a disadvantage but the affirmative has read a
439:
A brink disadvantage is a special type of linear disadvantage which claims that the affirmative will aggravate the problem in the status quo to the extent that it passes a brink, at which time the impact happens all at once. The negative team claims that in the status quo, we are near the brink, but
702:
A straight turn is an affirmative strategy that prevents the negative from kicking their disadvantage. It requires the affirmative to read a turn while forgoing all arguments that the negative could use to kick out of it, forcing the negative to continue extending it. The two main forms of straight
689:
A double-turn occurs when a team reads both a link turn and an impact turn against the same disadvantage. Double-turns should be avoided as they are equivalent to refuting one's own plan. For example, arguing both that the plan would increase US military power and that nuclear conflict is desirable
361:
Internal links are often undesirable things by themselves, and could be considered impacts. The worst of the consequences, or the final one in the chain of events, is usually given the label of "impact". For example, nuclear war is probably worse than economic collapse, so nuclear war is given the
768:
The affirmative could then argue that a strong US military in the status quo will result in nuclear war and thus that the plan should be passed to prevent the war from occurring. Notably, the affirmative cannot make any further takeouts without compromising the straight impact turn; otherwise, the
476:
that preclude the politics disadvantage. Its use in any given debate round is entirely dependent on how well the affirmative argues that the judge should accept the model, a somewhat time-consuming process. Examples of these fiat arguments include Vote No and
Intrinsicness. Vote No argues that the
335:
For the disadvantage to have relevance in the round, the negative team must show that the affirmative plan causes the disadvantage that is claimed. If the DA stated that the plan takes money from the government, and the affirmative team shows that the plan does not increase governmental spending,
322:
For example, the negative team argues that the affirmative plan will result in nuclear proliferation, it would also argue that the status quo will avoid nuclear proliferation. If the
Affirmative claims that nuclear proliferation is already occurring, the negative team could argue that adoption of
788:
A disadvantage can also be answered by no longer doing a part of the plan that causes the aff to link into the disadvantage. This is often referred to as a severance perm, because by making this claim the affirmative does all parts of the plan except the part that links to the disadvantage, thus
747:
A straight impact turn requires an impact takeout and an impact turn. This allows the affirmative to argue that although the plan does cause the disadvantage to occur, the disadvantage is beneficial and thus a reason why the plan should be enacted. (The impact takeout in this case plays a similar
792:
Also if the negative runs a
Counterplan in addition to the Disadvantage (which commonly occurs) the affirmative can make a permutation and say that the combination of the counterplan and plan shields the link to the disadvantage. For example: the plan repeals the Hyde Amendment to allow abortion
468:
In some sections of the country, politics disadvantages are frowned upon because they link to virtually every affirmative plan, destroying the on case debate and focusing solely on the disadvantage. Supporters say the politics disadvantages are "real world" and provide education on how bills are
712:(The takeout is used to prevent the negative from arguing that the plan causes the disadvantage more effectively than it prevents it.) The affirmative should not make any internal link or impact arguments, as this would allow the negative to concede those takeouts and negate the turn.
422:
A linear disadvantage does not have uniqueness. The negative concedes that the status quo has a problem but insists the plan increases that problem's severity. A commonly accepted theory holds that a sufficiently philosophical linear disadvantage with an alternative becomes a
582:
Using the example above, a no-internal-link could either be that failure to pass the deal will not reduce
American influence on the Indian subcontinent, or that reduction of American influence on the Indian subcontinent will not lead to nuclear war between India and Pakistan.
344:
The internal link connects the link to the impact, or, it shows the steps the link causes to get to the impact. Not all DA's use an internal link but some have multiple internals. The internal link in our example would be that government spending leads to economic collapse.
680:
Sometimes, impact turns function at levels above the final ("terminal") impact. The argument is then sometimes called an internal link turn. For example, the argument that a weak US military prevents nuclear conflict could be considered an impact or internal link turn.
508:
The "non-unique" argument says that the impact will happen or is happening in the status quo, regardless of the passage of the plan. The links and impacts (and thus the entire disadvantage) become largely irrelevant since the status quo is no different from the plan.
302:
A disadvantage usually has four key elements. These four elements are not always necessary depending on the type of disadvantage run, and some are often combined into a single piece of evidence. A Unique Link card, for example, will include both a description of the
699:
turn to it, they must find a way to negate the turn so the affirmative can no longer use it as an advantage to their plan. This process is known as "kicking." Kicking a disadvantage involves conceding an affirmative takeout that applies to the turn.
365:
The nuclear war impact is the terminal (i.e. final) impact in virtually every disadvantage today. While it appears outlandish to outsiders and even to some debaters now, it originated in the 1980s during the height of the
427:. There is also much controversy over kritiks being linear disadvantages, due to the fact that most kritik argue the affirmative plan over a discursive level, while a disadvantage argues the affirmative's actions.
748:
role to the link takeout in a straight link turn.) The affirmative should not make any uniqueness, link, or internal link arguments, since those arguments would allow the negative to kick their disadvantage.
430:
Non-kritikal linear disadvantages frequently face attacks from the
Affirmative on debate theory; the theory that linear disadvantages are abusive (i.e. unfair) to the affirmative team has much popularity.
789:
severing out of part of their own plan. This argument is also rarely made, due to the theory arguments it brings up on the affirmative changing its plan in the round in order to avoid the disadvantage.
358:. The Impact is the edge of the sword of your DA and is usually a significantly bad event caused by inertia evident through the internal links inside the link off over the brink and uniquely so.
690:
would be a double-turn. In this case, the negative team could concede both arguments, arguing that since the plan prevents a desirable event from occurring, it should not be passed.
781:, i.e. that the link does not make clear when the impact will happen or even that the impact will happen solely based on what the affirmative plan causes. Or the aff may claim that
327:
increase in nuclear proliferation. If the plan causes no net change in the rate of nuclear proliferation, the disadvantage is not unique to the plan, and therefore not relevant.
785:; that conditions in the status quo are so far away from the threshold that the impact will not happen. This second answer is rarely made because it is a strategic gamble.
397:
Other terminal impacts might include severe human rights abuses, such as near universal slavery or loss of individuality. These types of impacts are usually argued under a
769:
negative would be able to kick the disadvantage by conceding that the US military is weak already (uniqueness) or that the plan does not weaken the US military (link).
677:
An impact turn is an argument that the impact is desirable. In the example presented above, the argument that nuclear conflict is beneficial would be an impact turn.
630:
In this case, the argument that OPEC flooded the market last year with cheap oil and there was no nuclear war would be considered an impact uniqueness takeout.
1066:
579:"No internal link" is a similar argument to "no link." It states that either the link or the previous internal link does not lead to another internal link.
966:
1018:
899:
265:
394:), or uncontrolled undiscovered uncurable disease. Most debate coaches use the nuclear war argument as a way of training young policy debaters.
871:
116:
935:
458:
462:
174:
996:
388:
or the extinction of all life on Earth; the most common mechanisms for these are cataclysmic climatic change (in the style of
153:
54:
290:) is an argument that a team brings up against a policy action that is being considered. A disadvantage is also used in the
97:
1037:
849:
527:
The United States-India nuclear deal is likely to pass now, but just barely. It requires extensive expenditure of limited
291:
50:
457:, and plan prevents Akaka from winning; a "balance of Congress" disadvantage might hold that the plan is a credit to the
69:
643:
A link turn is an argument that the passage of the plan would prevent the disadvantage's impact rather than causing it.
1059:
1052:
571:
In this case, the argument that the plan does not use political capital would be classified as a "no link" argument.
76:
1086:
227:
169:
146:
43:
258:
21:
958:
181:
83:
751:
For example, the affirmative could use the following straight impact turn to answer the disadvantage above:
891:
1131:
715:
For example, the affirmative could use the following straight link turn to answer the disadvantage above:
414:
A traditional DA follows the structure above. Traditional DA's can include or exclude the internal link.
390:
251:
241:
65:
372:
362:"impact" label, even though economic collapse (the internal link) could itself be viewed as an impact.
491:
473:
207:
186:
626:
Russian and/or
Canadian economic collapse causes global economic collapse, resulting in nuclear war.
544:
1075:
802:
1031:
528:
553:
Reduction of American influence on the Indian subcontinent will lead to nuclear war between
385:
669:
In this case, the argument that the plan increases US military power would be a link turn.
315:
Uniqueness shows why the impacts have not occurred yet or to a substantial extent and will
377:
355:
222:
90:
319:
occur with the adoption of either the affirmative's plan or the negative's counterplan.
567:: India-Pakistan nuclear war will spiral out of control into a global nuclear conflict.
367:
927:
1125:
1112:
537:
The plan uses political capital that would otherwise be used for passage of the deal.
398:
279:
132:
17:
489:, which simply seek to refute a claim made by the negative in the disadvantage, and
307:
and the plan's effect on it. A traditional threshold DA has a structure as follows:
988:
450:
202:
495:, which argue that the situation is somehow the reverse of the negative's claim.
1096:
461:, who would increase their grip on Congress and allow extensive drilling in the
454:
217:
32:
841:
381:
304:
614:
Decreased oil consumption will OPEC will flood the market with cheap oil.
558:
739:
US military, doing so does not affect the probability of a nuclear war.
485:
Disadvantage responses can generally be classified into two categories:
517:
The "no link" argument claims that the plan does not cause the impact.
1101:
1044:
424:
777:
In answering the Link, an affirmative might argue that the link has
764:: A strong US military increases the likelihood of nuclear conflict.
554:
1048:
543:
Failure to pass the deal will reduce American influence on the
380:. Barring nuclear war, the terminal impact usually ends up as
26:
620:
Cheap oil influx destroys the Russian and Canadian economies.
440:
the affirmative team's plan will push us "over the edge."
703:
turns are straight link turns and straight impact turns.
872:"1. Disadvantages - the Art of Debate - an Intro to LD"
472:
Other debate theorists have often reshaped models of
401:
framework or as a turn to a human rights advantage.
758:
A weak US military does not cause nuclear conflict.
336:then the DA would be considered to have "no link".
57:. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
370:movement, specifically after the publication of
608:Expansion of ethanol decreases oil consumption.
1060:
665:A weak US military leads to nuclear conflict.
259:
8:
1026:, archived from the original on 13 May 2022
659:The plan would decreases US military power.
1067:
1053:
1045:
892:"Elements of Policy Debate: Disadvantages"
266:
252:
128:
728:The plan does not weaken the US military.
117:Learn how and when to remove this message
814:
194:
161:
138:
131:
1029:
999:from the original on 19 February 2024
734:The plan strengthens the US military.
602:American oil consumption is high now.
7:
938:from the original on 12 January 2024
926:Stafford, Victoria (16 March 2024).
921:
919:
917:
902:from the original on 12 January 2024
885:
883:
881:
852:from the original on 12 January 2024
836:
834:
832:
830:
828:
826:
824:
822:
820:
818:
354:be that economic collapse may cause
55:adding citations to reliable sources
890:Kellams, James (4 September 2017).
969:from the original on 16 March 2024
957:Kellams, James (25 October 2011).
14:
469:passed and politics in general.
237:
236:
31:
463:Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
42:needs additional citations for
783:uniqueness overwhelms the link
653:The US military is strong now.
154:Inter-collegiate policy debate
1:
959:"Uniqueness in Disadvantages"
292:Lincoln-Douglas debate format
1020:Politics, Politics, Politics
722:The US military is weak now.
323:the plan would result in a
1148:
694:Kicking and straight turns
147:Policy debate competitions
15:
1110:
1082:
1036:: CS1 maint: unfit URL (
1017:Cheshier, David (2003),
842:"Debating Disadvantages"
16:Not to be confused with
391:The Day After Tomorrow
373:The Fate of the Earth
286:(here abbreviated as
743:Straight impact turn
51:improve this article
545:Indian subcontinent
1076:Off-case arguments
707:Straight link turn
1119:
1118:
848:. 16 March 2024.
587:Impact uniqueness
529:political capital
276:
275:
127:
126:
119:
101:
1139:
1069:
1062:
1055:
1046:
1041:
1035:
1027:
1025:
1009:
1008:
1006:
1004:
995:. 25 July 2022.
993:Vancouver Debate
985:
979:
978:
976:
974:
954:
948:
947:
945:
943:
923:
912:
911:
909:
907:
887:
876:
875:
868:
862:
861:
859:
857:
838:
575:No internal link
386:human extinction
268:
261:
254:
240:
239:
129:
122:
115:
111:
108:
102:
100:
59:
35:
27:
1147:
1146:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1115:
1106:
1078:
1073:
1028:
1023:
1016:
1013:
1012:
1002:
1000:
987:
986:
982:
972:
970:
963:Everyday Debate
956:
955:
951:
941:
939:
932:The Debate Guru
928:"Disadvantages"
925:
924:
915:
905:
903:
896:Everyday Debate
889:
888:
879:
870:
869:
865:
855:
853:
840:
839:
816:
811:
799:
775:
745:
709:
696:
687:
675:
641:
636:
589:
577:
515:
506:
501:
483:
453:is critical to
446:
437:
420:
412:
407:
384:anyway, either
378:Jonathan Schell
351:
342:
333:
313:
300:
272:
223:Impact calculus
123:
112:
106:
103:
60:
58:
48:
36:
25:
12:
11:
5:
1145:
1143:
1135:
1134:
1124:
1123:
1117:
1116:
1111:
1108:
1107:
1105:
1104:
1099:
1094:
1089:
1083:
1080:
1079:
1074:
1072:
1071:
1064:
1057:
1049:
1043:
1042:
1011:
1010:
980:
949:
913:
877:
863:
813:
812:
810:
807:
806:
805:
798:
795:
774:
771:
766:
765:
759:
744:
741:
736:
735:
729:
723:
708:
705:
695:
692:
686:
683:
674:
671:
667:
666:
660:
654:
640:
637:
635:
632:
628:
627:
621:
618:Internal Link:
615:
612:Internal Link:
609:
603:
588:
585:
576:
573:
569:
568:
562:
551:Internal Link:
548:
541:Internal Link:
538:
532:
514:
511:
505:
502:
500:
497:
482:
479:
445:
442:
436:
433:
419:
416:
411:
408:
406:
403:
368:nuclear freeze
350:
347:
341:
338:
332:
331:External links
329:
312:
309:
299:
296:
274:
273:
271:
270:
263:
256:
248:
245:
244:
233:
232:
231:
230:
225:
220:
215:
210:
205:
197:
196:
195:Argument types
192:
191:
190:
189:
184:
178:
177:
172:
164:
163:
159:
158:
157:
156:
150:
149:
141:
140:
136:
135:
125:
124:
66:"Disadvantage"
39:
37:
30:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1144:
1133:
1132:Policy debate
1130:
1129:
1127:
1114:
1113:Policy debate
1109:
1103:
1100:
1098:
1095:
1093:
1090:
1088:
1085:
1084:
1081:
1077:
1070:
1065:
1063:
1058:
1056:
1051:
1050:
1047:
1039:
1033:
1022:
1021:
1015:
1014:
998:
994:
990:
989:"Double Turn"
984:
981:
968:
964:
960:
953:
950:
937:
933:
929:
922:
920:
918:
914:
901:
897:
893:
886:
884:
882:
878:
873:
867:
864:
851:
847:
843:
837:
835:
833:
831:
829:
827:
825:
823:
821:
819:
815:
808:
804:
801:
800:
796:
794:
790:
786:
784:
780:
772:
770:
763:
760:
757:
754:
753:
752:
749:
742:
740:
733:
730:
727:
724:
721:
718:
717:
716:
713:
706:
704:
700:
693:
691:
684:
682:
678:
672:
670:
664:
661:
658:
655:
652:
649:
648:
647:
646:For example:
644:
638:
633:
631:
625:
622:
619:
616:
613:
610:
607:
604:
601:
598:
597:
596:
595:For example:
593:
586:
584:
580:
574:
572:
566:
563:
560:
556:
552:
549:
546:
542:
539:
536:
533:
530:
526:
523:
522:
521:
518:
512:
510:
503:
498:
496:
494:
493:
488:
480:
478:
475:
470:
466:
464:
460:
456:
452:
443:
441:
434:
432:
428:
426:
417:
415:
409:
404:
402:
400:
399:deontological
395:
393:
392:
387:
383:
379:
375:
374:
369:
363:
359:
357:
348:
346:
340:Internal link
339:
337:
330:
328:
326:
320:
318:
310:
308:
306:
297:
295:
293:
289:
285:
281:
280:policy debate
269:
264:
262:
257:
255:
250:
249:
247:
246:
243:
242:Policy debate
235:
234:
229:
226:
224:
221:
219:
216:
214:
211:
209:
206:
204:
201:
200:
199:
198:
193:
188:
185:
183:
180:
179:
176:
173:
171:
168:
167:
166:
165:
160:
155:
152:
151:
148:
145:
144:
143:
142:
137:
134:
133:Policy debate
130:
121:
118:
110:
107:February 2010
99:
96:
92:
89:
85:
82:
78:
75:
71:
68: –
67:
63:
62:Find sources:
56:
52:
46:
45:
40:This article
38:
34:
29:
28:
23:
19:
18:Disadvantaged
1092:Disadvantage
1091:
1019:
1001:. Retrieved
992:
983:
971:. Retrieved
962:
952:
940:. Retrieved
931:
904:. Retrieved
895:
866:
854:. Retrieved
845:
791:
787:
782:
779:no threshold
778:
776:
767:
761:
755:
750:
746:
737:
731:
725:
719:
714:
710:
701:
697:
688:
679:
676:
668:
662:
656:
650:
645:
642:
629:
623:
617:
611:
605:
599:
594:
590:
581:
578:
570:
564:
550:
540:
534:
524:
520:An example:
519:
516:
507:
490:
486:
484:
471:
467:
451:Daniel Akaka
447:
438:
429:
421:
413:
396:
389:
371:
364:
360:
352:
343:
334:
324:
321:
316:
314:
301:
287:
284:disadvantage
283:
277:
213:Disadvantage
212:
203:Stock issues
139:Organization
113:
104:
94:
87:
80:
73:
61:
49:Please help
44:verification
41:
1097:Counterplan
762:Impact turn
720:Not unique:
651:Uniqueness:
600:Uniqueness:
525:Uniqueness:
459:Republicans
455:free speech
410:Traditional
356:nuclear war
218:Counterplan
1087:Topicality
809:References
756:No impact:
732:Link turn:
504:Non-unique
382:extinction
311:Uniqueness
305:status quo
228:Topicality
77:newspapers
803:Advantage
481:Responses
444:Political
298:Structure
170:Structure
1126:Category
1032:citation
1003:30 March
997:Archived
973:16 March
967:Archived
942:16 March
936:Archived
906:16 March
900:Archived
856:16 March
850:Archived
846:DebateUS
797:See also
726:No link:
559:Pakistan
499:Takeouts
487:takeouts
317:uniquely
182:Evidence
175:Glossary
22:drawback
663:Impact:
624:Impact:
513:No link
91:scholar
1102:Kritik
685:Double
673:Impact
565:Impact
425:kritik
418:Linear
349:Impact
325:unique
162:Format
93:
86:
79:
72:
64:
1024:(PDF)
773:Other
657:Link:
634:Turns
606:Link:
555:India
535:Link:
492:turns
435:Brink
405:Types
98:JSTOR
84:books
1038:link
1005:2024
975:2024
944:2024
908:2024
858:2024
639:Link
557:and
474:fiat
282:, a
208:Case
187:Flow
70:news
376:by
278:In
53:by
20:or
1128::
1034:}}
1030:{{
991:.
965:.
961:.
934:.
930:.
916:^
898:.
894:.
880:^
844:.
817:^
465:.
294:.
288:DA
1068:e
1061:t
1054:v
1040:)
1007:.
977:.
946:.
910:.
874:.
860:.
561:.
547:.
531:.
267:e
260:t
253:v
120:)
114:(
109:)
105:(
95:·
88:·
81:·
74:·
47:.
24:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
