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.

There are two different ways to turn a disadvantage. A disadvantage can either be link-turned or impact-turned. You CANNOT do both. If you do both, you are double-turning yourself.

Straight link turning

If you want to link turn a disadvantage, you need to win three arguments:  A link take out, a link turn, and a link non-uniqueness argument.  In the spending example, you need to win that you don’t spend money, that you save money, and that spending will increase without the plan.  Your basic story is that you stop over-spending, saving the economy.

It is worth noting that you do not necessarily have to win the original link answer.  What you do need to win, however, is that you save money on the net – that you save more than you spend. Making link answers will help support the size of your link turn.

If you want to straight link turn a disadvantage, you should not make any other arguments against the disadvantage.  If you make an internal link take out (recession doesn’t cause depression), you are not straight-turning the disadvantage because the negative can then concede that argument and say it doesn’t matter if you save money because there is no value to stopping an economic recession because it won’t cause a depression. Similarly, if you make an impact take-out to a depression, the negative can concede that, arguing that there is no value to saving money because an economic depression isn’t bad.

The key thing to remember is that when you straight link-turn a disadvantage you should not make any other arguments than those that are discussed in the sections below.

Straight Impact Turning

If you want to straight impact turn a disadvantage, you need to make an impact take-out and an impact turn. To continue the spending example, you could, for example, argue that economic decline doesn’t cause war but that economic growth will destroy the environment and threaten our survival.  You are impact turning the disadvantage because you are arguing that it is good that you destroy the economy.

Unlike the strategy for link turning, you do not want to make any non-uniqueness arguments when impact turning a disadvantage.  If you argued, for example, that the economy will collapse now, then there is no unique advantage to you collapsing the economy.  The negative could simply concede your “economic collapse now” argument to get out of the disadvantage you just turned.

Like the strategy for link turn, however, again you do not want to make any other arguments against the disadvantage.  If you make “no link” arguments, for example, claiming that you do not spend money (and subsequently hurt the economy), then the negative can grant this and say you can’t trigger the impact turn.

Why should you straight turn a disadvantage?

It is very trendy to “straight turn” disadvantages.  Debaters often get excited when teams run a disadvantage that they are prepared to straight-turn.

Straight-turning the disadvantage is a risky approach, however.  If you choose to straight turn the disadvantage you must necessarily decide to forego making other good arguments.  These parts of the disadvantage may be the weakest part of it.  Failing to attack those parts may be a gift for the negative.

Moreover, if you straight turn a disadvantage, you are going to force the negative to “go for it” – to extend it instead of may another disadvantage, another topicality argument, or another kritik strategy.  These other arguments may be weaker or you may simply be more prepared to defeat them. You may rather have the other team go for those arguments.  If you straight-turn the disadvantage, you are “forcing their hand,” making them debate about something they may even want to debate about.

There are times, however, when you want to straight turn – either link or impact turn – the disadvantage.

You can’t defend your affirmative case. Perhaps the negative has launched a devastating attack against your cause for which you are unprepared.  If you know that you will not be able to defend your case against their attack, you can straight-turn a disadvantage. This will give you another advantage that is not dependent on winning your original case.

You want to divert the other team.  Perhaps the other team has another solid disadvantage or counterplan for which you are unprepared. If you do not want them to go for it, try straight-turning a particular disadvantage that you’d rather have them go for. 

You can’t answer a counterplan. The other team may come up with a tricky counterplan that you are unprepared to debate.  The counterplan, however, is not enough. The other team will need to win that the counterplan is net-beneficial – that a particular disadvantage that links more to the plan than the counterplan is a reason to vote for the counterplan alone (see the section on counterplans for a greater explanation).  If you straight-link or impact turn that particular disadvantage, they will not be able to win that the counterplan is competitive.

Reduce the other team’s speed advantage.  Some teams are very, very fast. Or, at the very least, they are much faster talkers than you are.  They may present five or six different disadvantages in the 1NC.  If you straight turn all of their disadvantages, it will force them to try to extend all of them in the negative block.  This is very difficult and will upset their verbal quickness advantage.

It is very important that you only straight turn disadvantages when you think that you need to do so to win the debate.  If you do not need to straight-turn a disadvantage to win the debate, do not do so. Defeat the disadvantage as best as you can and use your advantages to outweigh the disadvantages.

Video Lectures