Textbooks

Introduction to Policy Debate

Printer Friendly Version

This free online textbook is available to all. No log-in is required to view any of the chapters and sections.

Thanks to generous contributions from Bill Smelko, William Smelko, and Rebecca (Gray) Jordan, we have been able to radically expand the available content.

In debate, disadvantages have a number of different parts. Although these parts make the disadvantage appear more of a difficult argument than what has just been discussed, the different parts will actually assist you with both understanding different types of arguments generally and with constructing and answering disadvantages.

Link.  The link is the part of the argument that ties the negative disadvantage to what the affirmative is arguing.  For example, a link to a spending disadvantage argues that the affirmative’s plan will spend money.  Disadvantages can have more than one link. In this instance, different links would focus on different reasons that the affirmative plan spends money.  The more the affirmative plan spends, the stronger the disadvantage link.

Internal link.  The internal link connects one link to another link or one link to an impact.  For example, if the negative argues that the plan spends money, an argument that spending money causes a recession is one internal link and an argument that a recession will turn into a depression is another internal link. Disadvantages can have multiple internal links, though negatives will strive to limit of internal links necessary to reach the impact. Disadvantages with many internal links are less persuasive because even one of the internal links fails to happen, there is a break in the disadvantage chain, and the entire disadvantage is beaten.

Impact. The impact is similar to a harm claim, though the term impact is usually used in the context of the disadvantage.  The disadvantage is the final, end problem that results.  For example, if the negative’s disadvantage argues that the affirmative’s plan undermines the economy, the impact is the final result – an economic decline may cause poverty or even trigger a war.

Uniqueness.  The uniqueness to the disadvantage is usually presented first, but since it is the hardest part of the disadvantage to understand, it is discussed last.  Uniqueness refers to the part of the disadvantage that argues that the disadvantage will not occur absent the adoption of the affirmative plan.  There are three types of uniqueness arguments, though the negative will likely only present a general uniqueness claim in the first negative constructive.

 Link uniqueness.  Link uniqueness establishes that the link will not happen now.  In the instance of the spending disadvantage, the negative will argue that the government will not commit to new spending in the in the present world (status quo).

Internal link uniqueness.  Internal link uniqueness argues that the internal link will not happen now.  For example, if the internal link is that a recession will cause a depression, an internal link uniqueness claim is that we are not having a recession now.

            Impact uniqueness.  Impact uniqueness establishes that the impact will not happen now.  If the impact is “depression causes war,” the negative would argue that we are not in a depression now and that we are not in a major war now.

Disadvantages are first presented in the 1NC as off-case positions.  The basic shell should contain the link, internal link, impact, and uniqueness arguments.  Sometimes debaters will forget to demonstrate support for one of the parts. It is the job of the affirmative team to point out that the other necessary parts of the disadvantage have not been proven.

It is essential that the negative win every part of the disadvantage.  If one part of the disadvantage falls the entire disadvantage falls.

Video Lectures