Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
pretzellogic91

I forsee massive uniqueness problems...

Recommended Posts

With the exception of radical ideas/kritikal affs, how are most cases/disads going to be unique this year??

 

(Maybe this is a total novice question, sorry if it is. But I see this being a big issue about the poverty topic)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i suppose it would depend on the nature of your disad links. i have no idea what amount of social services from the fg exist now, but considering that disads win plenty of debates on the alternative energy topic despite massive status quo ae incentives, i wouldn't worry too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like Haz said, after the stimulus bill that included large alternative energy funds last fall, there were uniqueness problems for a lot of DAs. It just encouraged perception-based DAs, time-sensitive DAs, or DAs that are specific enough to the aff not to link to other alternative energy projects. Its not like people just stopped winning on DAs after the stimulus passed.

 

Also, having current social services works to make some affs non-inherent just as much as they hurt uniqueness on DAs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those uniqueness issues also push negs to put more emphasis on:

 

1) counterplans to generate uniqueness

2) critiques

3) case turns and solvency debate so that any risk of a disad would merit a neg. ballot.

4) running disads that turn the case (which means more link = more risk of case turn)

 

Uniqueness isn't as important if your counterplan solves 90, 95, or 99% of the case harms.

 

Also, some judges evaluate issue specific uniqueness--so even though Bush didn't have political capital overall--he had political capital on the issue in the impact scenario. This way if you have specific, top level uniqueness--you can make that more important than other forms of uniqueness.

 

On a side note: I'm curious how more linear disads like social control will work out. I hate seeing debates come down to uniqueness arguments vs. each and every violation = neg ballot arguments.

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

best thing: frame DA's as K's if you have uniquiness issues.

 

and if they try running K bad crap, just say our arguements are valid in real world blah blah blah just because its framed like a K doesn't mean its crazy/psychopathic/unrealistic.

 

so yea. and for the alternative you can reject (you solve for all impacts caused by various da''s/k's) or alternative. i tend ot have interchangable alternatives last year, since the topic could eb different.

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
best thing: frame DA's as K's if you have uniquiness issues.

 

and if they try running K bad crap, just say our arguements are valid in real world blah blah blah just because its framed like a K doesn't mean its crazy/psychopathic/unrealistic.

 

so yea. and for the alternative you can reject (you solve for all impacts caused by various da''s/k's) or alternative. i tend ot have interchangable alternatives last year, since the topic could eb different.

 

Don't do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
best thing: frame DA's as K's if you have uniquiness issues.

 

and if they try running K bad crap, just say our arguements are valid in real world blah blah blah just because its framed like a K doesn't mean its crazy/psychopathic/unrealistic.

 

so yea. and for the alternative you can reject (you solve for all impacts caused by various da''s/k's) or alternative. i tend ot have interchangable alternatives last year, since the topic could eb different.

 

can you give an example of changing a DA to a K????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think that uniqueness is, under a proper interpretation of the resolution, inevitable. The topic is framed that "social services" are increased, meaning that there needs to be a larger amount of social services. This excludes social services that are avaliable in the status quo, because the topic is not framed as increasing the amount of people getting social services, but rather the increase of social services itself. This allows federal initiatives that have never occured in the status quo. While difficult to get specific links to (unless the links are based on specific states or other governments), it makes for really specific and quality debate. If specific links do proliferate, it allows for better than the typical "Alternative Energy" or "Nuclear Energy" links and whatnot from this year that barely touch on the specifics of the plan.

 

Specific links might be more of an issue, but it's overcome on many topics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...