Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
debatefool

Controlling Uniqnuess

Recommended Posts

In a disad debate, the best way to win the disad debate, from what i understand on the side of the affirmative, is to controll the uniqnuess. Now besides with Post dates and warrant arguments, what other ways can you control uniqnuess. (the other post got deleted because some moron began spamming stupid crap.)

Edited by bdebate
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree. I think the best way to defeat a disad is to control the direction of the link. Uniqueness debates are often difficult to resolve especially on politics disadvantages; well-written disadvantages are "barely" unique and recently updated because they want any action regarding military presence to be enough to trigger the link.

 

As such, your best bet to defeat a disad is to control the direction of the link; obviously the uniqueness debate helps in this regard, but rarely is uniqueness evidence conclusive; link turn evidence can often be extremely specific to your affirmative and thus provides a more reliable way to not only answer a disad but put pretty devastating offense. This isn't to say that uniqueness isn't important -- but using your no link/link turn evidence in a way that winning the uniqueness debate conclusively isn't necessary is more effective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In a disad debate, the best way to win the disad debate, from what i understand on the side of the affirmative, is to controll the uniqnuess. Now besides with Post dates and warrant arguments, what other ways can you control uniqnuess. (the other post got deleted because some moron began spamming stupid crap.)

 

Controlling uniqueness on the AFF definitely means the NEG cannot win offense which makes this sound like it would be a great strategy. The problem is that very rarely can you ever control uniqueness, usually both teams have enough cards so that there is doubt about uniqueness direction.

 

Because of the doubt over uniqueness you must combine a uniqueness press with other arguments to add up to a winning strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, controlling uniqueness on the affirmative doesn't mean much with a counterplan that solves the case in the debate (or a counterplan that solves most of the case & the part that it doesn't solve impact turned). Neg can still resort to any risk of DA = win. I don't know if this is the standard evaluation in most college & high school rounds--abscent debater framing or contextualizing.

 

And on politics...there is still the idea of issue specific uniqueness...even if you control the larger question of capital.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's important to win the uniqueness debate because it structurally determines the direction of the link.

 

If the aff wins that KORUS won't pass in the status quo, there is zero risk of negative offense because even if the plan drains Obamas political capital, it wasn't going to pass in the first place so you can't make it "not pass" twice as much. There's only the risk that the plan positively influences Obamas political capital.

 

Conversely, if the negative wins that KORUS will pass in the status quo, it means there's only the risk the plan could tank Obamas political capital.

 

It's important to conceptualize the debate as a whole and how one component (UQ debate) can determine the direction of the other parts of the debate.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Controlling uniqueness on the AFF definitely means the NEG cannot win offense which makes this sound like it would be a great strategy. The problem is that very rarely can you ever control uniqueness, usually both teams have enough cards so that there is doubt about uniqueness direction.

 

Because of the doubt over uniqueness you must combine a uniqueness press with other arguments to add up to a winning strategy.

I guess I agree if we define "controlling uniqueness" as absolute. If it is only mitigation, which I think you agree it most often is, then the Aff can be ahead on uniqueness but at the same time the Neg wins some offense. I completely agree that the best strategy is to combine it with other arguments such as link turns and take outs. If I only had time for a few key arguements, the direction and strength of the link is more important.
It's important to win the uniqueness debate because it structurally determines the direction of the link.

 

If the aff wins that KORUS won't pass in the status quo, there is zero risk of negative offense because even if the plan drains Obamas political capital, it wasn't going to pass in the first place so you can't make it "not pass" twice as much. There's only the risk that the plan positively influences Obamas political capital.

 

Conversely, if the negative wins that KORUS will pass in the status quo, it means there's only the risk the plan could tank Obamas political capital.

 

It's important to conceptualize the debate as a whole and how one component (UQ debate) can determine the direction of the other parts of the debate.

I disagree. Uniqueness structurally determines the strength of the link, not the direction. To your example, you say the Aff 100% wins that KORUS won't pass, and thus there is zero risk of the link. I agree, it has successfully mitigated the link. That doesn't mean though that Obama will get more political capital (a change in direction of the link). You have to have an additional argument to change the direction.

 

If the Neg wins KORUS will pass, but Aff wins the different argument on the direction of the link (Plan increases political capital) then the uniqueness doesn't matter. The new advantage is weak because the uniqueness, but the offense goes to the Aff. Thus, uniqueness does not determine direction and only affects the risk calculation of the impact.

 

I disagree. I think the best way to defeat a disad is to control the direction of the link. Uniqueness debates are often difficult to resolve especially on politics disadvantages; well-written disadvantages are "barely" unique and recently updated because they want any action regarding military presence to be enough to trigger the link.

 

As such, your best bet to defeat a disad is to control the direction of the link; obviously the uniqueness debate helps in this regard, but rarely is uniqueness evidence conclusive; link turn evidence can often be extremely specific to your affirmative and thus provides a more reliable way to not only answer a disad but put pretty devastating offense. This isn't to say that uniqueness isn't important -- but using your no link/link turn evidence in a way that winning the uniqueness debate conclusively isn't necessary is more effective.

100% agree. Control of the link is the most important strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Smart affirmatives who link turn successfully can combine that with nonuniques for 1AR addons.

 

Example:

 

1NC: Neg reads Korus

2AC: Obama's focused on energy legislation, plan helps PC, no risk of Korean war

Block: Concedes the impact takeout

1AR: climate legislation solves extinction, extinction outweighs

 

This will probably only work if the negative kicks out of politics, unless they suck.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Smart affirmatives who link turn successfully can combine that with nonuniques for 1AR addons.

 

Example:

 

1NC: Neg reads Korus

2AC: Obama's focused on energy legislation, plan helps PC, no risk of Korean war

Block: Concedes the impact takeout

1AR: climate legislation solves extinction, extinction outweighs

 

This will probably only work if the negative kicks out of politics, unless they suck.

 

I don't think this make much sense and/or is really shady.

 

If Obama is focused on Energy Now and the plan helps him get PC, I guess the aff might access. But this really doesn't make sense.

 

If I was judging and this wasn't made amazingly clear in the 1AR/2AR, I would be pretty confused.

 

This reminds me of the thing on the 3NR

where it's like

1NC is START

START solves warming, prolif and terrorism

Tickell 8

 

2AC is a link turn on START and impact D on warming

 

Block concedes link turn and impact D and then says prolif good and terrorism good in the block.

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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...