Embedded Files
Uniqueness, Link, Internal link, Impact - Disadvantages
Uniqueness, Link, Internal link, Impact - Disadvantages
Disadvantages are the simplest arguments in debate, along with advantages. They are the most fundamental, foundational argument - we are fine now but the plan does something bad. Each disadvantage has four components, and these four components are present in every debate argument, whether it be a disadvantage about the environmental implications of a plan to an argument about the hyperreal. These components, brought together, create the foundation of every debate argument in Policy Debate. The aforementioned four components are uniqueness, link, internal links and impacts, which are explained below.
Uniqueness
Uniqueness
This is an argument about the status quo, i.e. what is happening now. Uniqueness arguments can argue that the status quo is good and bad - the “direction” of uniqueness depends on the argument you are trying to make. Here’s an example in terms of Russia Relations:
The uniqueness claim here is about the status quo, saying that relations between US and Russia are either getting better/are good or already bad/getting worse.
There are two uses for uniqueness arguments on either side:
Uniqueness in favor - on the affirmative, you want to be arguing the status quo can’t solve a problem that your plan can. For example, evidence that says US-Russia relations are bad, and creating a plan that bolsters relations between the two allows you to argue why US-Russia relations are good. Conversely, on the negative, if you want to argue that a select affirmative makes US-Russia relations worse, as a disadvantage, you would need evidence saying US-Russia relations are improving or high now, and that the plan destroys them.
Uniqueness against / Non-Unique - on the affirmative, if you are facing a disadvantage that says US-Russia relations are high now but the plan destroys them, an effective way to challenge this disadvantage is to argue US-Russia relations are already bad or are getting worse. By winning that the disadvantage will happen anyway, you have taken out any risk of the link to the affirmative. Similarly, on the negative, if you are facing an affirmative that wants to solve US-Russia relations, and the affirmative is arguing they are low now, you can read cards saying US-Russia relations are high now which means the aff is Non-Unique (i.e. there is no reason to prefer the affirmative because the problem is already being solved).
Uniqueness arguments should be the first argument in a disadvantage - your claim about the status quo should frame the rest of the disadvantage and the risk of it. Winning uniqueness on your side is extremely important to maintain high risk of impacts.
Link
Link
Links are the piece of the puzzle that says something creates a change from our uniqueness evidence to trigger the internal link/impact scenarios. For example, for a US-Russia relations disadvantage, as established above, uniqueness would be something like US-Russia relations are high now. The link below would be an argument about why the plan decks US-Russia relations, which overturns our uniqueness argument. Links are fairly simple; They create a change in the status quo uniqueness.
Internal Link - Optional
Internal Link - Optional
Internal links are similar to links, however, they are distinct in that the internal link is a result of the link, and not a result of the plan directly. For example, if we’re making the argument that US-Russia relations are decked by the plan, an internal link would be something like “US-Rssia relations create an increase in terrorism”. That is a consequence of the link, which usually links to a bigger impact. Here is an example:
Impact
Impact
The impact is what happens if the links and internal links are triggered - this is fairly simple - it’s the reason the disadvantage matters and isn’t an FYI. Following the example from earlier, US-Russia relations are good to solve terrorism, which has the impact of nuclear war due to bad actors escalating. Here is a card to show to the right:
There are also impacts that go directly from the link to the impact. For example, an argument about why decking US-Russia relations sparks nuclear war:
Full Shell
Full Shell
Now that you know the four components, here is the full disadvantage from above:
US-Russia relations are stable now and rising.
The plan destroys US-Russia relations.
US-Russia relations are key to managing terrorism.
Mismanagement of terrorism leads to nuclear war and extinction.
This is the general basis of every disadvantage. There will be different types of links, uniqueness, impacts, and internal links - some disadvantages may even lack one of those components, or have one card cover it all - but each disadvantage will have uniqueness, link and an impact.
Exercises
Exercises
Now that you know each of the four components, try answering a few questions below:
Which argument is a UNIQUENESS claim:
a. Development destroys the environment
b. Development is increasing now
c. Development leads to extinction
Answer: B
2. Which argument is a LINK claim:
a. Development is rising now.
b. Development is falling.
c. Development destroys US-China co-operation.
Answer: C
3. Which argument is a NON-UNIQUENESS claim:
a. Aff is wrong - development is increasing now
b. The aff’s development risks catastrophic side effects
c. The disadvantage is wrong - development has no side effect
Answer: A (Non-Uniqueness means it is directly responding to the other side’s uniqueness argument - this would be an argument versus a case that says development is declining now)
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse