Jump to content
debatefool

Uniqnuess overwhelms the link and Brink

Recommended Posts

If I was to say Uniqnuess overwhelms the link and uniqnuess overwhelms the link, wouldn't i be contradicting my self because when you say uniqnuess overhelms the link your'e say the statis quo is so strong that even if the plan was passed it would prevent the link from happpening, where as in uniqnuess overwhelms the brink your'e saying that na matter what kind of thing will be passed (priimarily things that your'e dealing with ) will be passed, and it will cause the impact to happen anyway so who cares. Am i correct, and which if im not, can you tell me how im incorrect and if they actually do contradict.

Edited by bdebate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I was to say Uniqnuess overwhelms the link and uniqnuess overwhelms the link, wouldn't i be contradicting my self because when you say uniqnuess overhelms the link your'e say the statis quo is so strong that even if the plan was passed it would prevent the link from happpening, where as in uniqnuess overwhelms the brink your'e saying that na matter what kind of thing will be passed (priimarily things that your'e dealing with ) will be passed, and it will cause the impact to happen anyway so who cares. Am i correct, and which if im not, can you tell me how im incorrect and if they actually do contradict.

 

Using basic grammar is probably a prerequisite to participating in a speech-based activity. You might want to practice a bit.

 

But anyways, I think that what you try to say is "uq overwhelms the brink" is basically impact inevitable (i.e. we've passed the brink). Correct me if I'm wrong. If your args are terminal ! inev, and uq overwhelms the link, it's not contradictory. I suppose if you're saying an i/l is inev, and uq overwhelms the link it could be contradictory, but you can phrase it as a double bind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what does we controll uniquness mean

 

This means that you definitively win the direction of uniqueness. For instance on a politics DA you might want to win that the South Korea FTA is passing now. If the other team concedes that you control uniqueness--which can have several implications.

 

For instance if you control uniqueness it means the link can only go in one direction. A link turn requires the affirmative to win uniqueness, so if you control uniqueness the affirmative cannot win link offense to the DA, this probably helps you set up a try or die type framework--where only voting negative can possibly avoid the DA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This means that you definitively win the direction of uniqueness. For instance on a politics DA you might want to win that the South Korea FTA is passing now. If the other team concedes that you control uniqueness--which can have several implications.

 

For instance if you control uniqueness it means the link can only go in one direction. A link turn requires the affirmative to win uniqueness, so if you control uniqueness the affirmative cannot win link offense to the DA, this probably helps you set up a try or die type framework--where only voting negative can possibly avoid the DA.

 

The only thing I would add to this is:

 

Controlling uniqueness is clutch in a debate where you have a CP that solves the entirety of the aff (typically, an agent CP). In these debates, controlling uniqueness and winning your CP solves the aff is game over for the affirmative because there is no risk of them having offense anywhere, whereas you have a risk of your disadvantage.

 

The other thing I would add is that there are cases where 'too much uniqueness' is a killer. Winning a high magnitude of uniqueness means that, to prove you have a unique internal link, you have to win a high magnitude of a link. Especially on disads where uniqueness is lop-sided in your favor at the time, it's better to read the less conclusive uniqueness because this evidence often supports the thesis of your internal link (e.g. doing x link is enough to trigger the impact). This is the difference, using SKFTA as an example, between reading a card that says "God himself couldn't stop this treaty from getting passed" and "While there's momentum that makes passage very very very very very very freaking likely, political fights could still derail."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
can their be situations where controlling Uniqnuess affects the link (and this is when youre Aff.)

 

Unsure about your question. I'm assuming you're asking if controlling uniqueness means your links is more/less relevant.

 

On the aff, controlling uniqueness is a double-edged sword. While, on the one hand, it really is a try-or-die framework (x is guaranteed to happen now - the impact is extinction - try or die - x being guaranteed means its inevitable with the way the squo is), that massively ups the degree of a link you have to win. It also ups the degree of the internal link you have to win. The link debate would say "we do something that is the opposite of the reason the squo --> bad things" and the internal link debate would say "what the plan does is sufficient for that, and not just a general direction." So, sometimes controlling uniqueness to too high of a degree means that you've just been reading a solvency takeout to yourself. This is often why uniqueness debates are framed in terms of the internal link (e.g. x happens now, but only because of y. We completely change y."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice. so what does controlling the uniqnuess on the negative insure. Does it basicly guarantee that the uniqnuess is there and now the disad will happen unless the link (or internal link or impact debate is won by the aff) is midigated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nice. so what does controlling the uniqnuess on the negative insure. Does it basicly guarantee that the uniqnuess is there and now the disad will happen unless the link (or internal link or impact debate is won by the aff) is midigated

 

I think you are getting the idea I would change one thing controlling uniqueness guarantees a RISK of the DA. What I mean is even if they mitigate the link or internal link there will still be .01% chance the DA could happen, there is ONLY a risk of offense which is what makes this a good strategic argument. But your description is essentially correct controlling uniqueness guarantees the DA will happen it is now just matter of what risk of a link there is (from 100% to .000001%).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...