Jump to content
ZachFein

Uniqueness And Link Relationship

Recommended Posts

I've heard both Uniqueness controls the Link and the Link controls Uniqueness, but can someone explain how you would really spin this in a round if say you thought you were losing uniqueness to your DA but thought you had the link nailed? Or something along those lines? Please and thank you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whenever I go for link controls the direction of uniqueness the argument goes something like this (made so that it can apply to both aff and neg):

 

"Link controls direction of uniqueness - uniqueness is always uncertain because it's just a predictor of what's going to happen in the future. However, if we win the link that means the plan massively shifts it in the opposite direction, and greatly increases the probability that the impacts (will/won't) happen, meaning that even if there's a slight chance of (non-uniqueness/uniqueness) right now the plan is strong enough to make it certain and there's only a risk the plan (triggers/solves) the impact"

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whenever I go for link controls the direction of uniqueness the argument goes something like this (made so that it can apply to both aff and neg):

 

"Link controls direction of uniqueness - uniqueness is always uncertain because it's just a predictor of what's going to happen in the future. However, if we win the link that means the plan massively shifts it in the opposite direction, and greatly increases the probability that the impacts (will/won't) happen, meaning that even if there's a slight chance of (non-uniqueness/uniqueness) right now the plan is strong enough to make it certain and there's only a risk the plan (triggers/solves) the impact"

That argument makes no sense. Links are also predictions of what will happen in the future. Nothing within it explains how a link controls uniqueness, it just asserts it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uniqueness controls the direction of the link is the following....

 

If the economy is high now....there is no impact to making it higher (aka the link turn).  Therefore, supposed link turns then are really just defensive link outs.  (ie there is only a risk of a LINK.....not a risk of a LINK TURN......because they aren't link turns anymore)

 

(This allows them to set up try or die--in terms of the DA--I think......I may be wrong.

A global try or die claim about the overall debate.....versus a disad based try or die.)

 

It has some (arguably) embedded assumptions--that affs should probably reflect on and exploit:

1. You are winning the uniqueness pretty hard core

2. On a more general level--that there is literally no impact to increasing it (or massively less than the link generates in terms of momentum downward).

3. They are winning the link pretty hard core (without mitigation).  The aff can't say "we're winning full risk of our link turns....and massively mitigation on their links"

 

I think most of the time this sorts out into a (neg) timeframe of perception link versus (aff) systemic impact of economy and credibility of overall story.  This does seem like a rather last ditch effort however.......unless you are running add-ons or impact turns (because it cuts heavily against your potentially link turn offense).

 

* Obviously my example is specific to the economy.  Relations and political capital are obvious other applications.

 

The other option for the aft is to concede.....and say uniqueness swamps the link.  A theoretically defensive argument....but may screw a bit with 2NRs.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That argument makes no sense. Links are also predictions of what will happen in the future. Nothing within it explains how a link controls uniqueness, it just asserts it.

The argument is that if the link is strong it drastically changes the probability. 

 

Also this is why uq controls link is a much better argument than link controls uq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The argument is that if the link is strong it drastically changes the probability.

Why is that claim true? Do you not understand the difference between claim and warrant?

 

I agree that uniqueness controls the link, but it doesn't make any sense at all the other way around. You can't just reverse a claim and then act like it's a true counterargument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is that claim true? Do you not understand the difference between claim and warrant?

 

I agree that uniqueness controls the link, but it doesn't make any sense at all the other way around. You can't just reverse a claim and then act like it's a true counterargument.

I think (at least on the PTX da), you would be saying, UQ on these events is so close, that if we win the link, we still have a probability of the impact. (I don't know what I'm saying)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is that claim true? Do you not understand the difference between claim and warrant?

 

I agree that uniqueness controls the link, but it doesn't make any sense at all the other way around. You can't just reverse a claim and then act like it's a true counterargument.

That's not what I'm doing. What I'm trying to do is help the OP, who asked how to argue that link controls the direction of uniqueness.

Nowhere in anything I said did I "reverse a claim and act like it's a true counterargument" and I definitely understand the difference between claim and warrant. I gave a brief summary of the argument for that side in order to try to help the OP. Frankly I don't care enough to continue this "argument" with you so I'm going to stop now. If you want to continue, go ahead.

 

If someone wants to provide a better answer to the OP's question that would be awesome. 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think (at least on the PTX da), you would be saying, UQ on these events is so close, that if we win the link, we still have a probability of the impact. (I don't know what I'm saying)

That... is a probability argument, not one about the link controlling uniqueness. I get that you're just summarizing though. Novices b crazy.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That argument makes no sense. Links are also predictions of what will happen in the future. Nothing within it explains how a link controls uniqueness, it just asserts it.

 Not really. It's a fairly common argument - and his/her explanation is pretty decent. It's not so much "link controls uniqueness" as "link outweighs uniqueness". It's a really smart argument to make in close elections/politics debates where uniqueness is somewhat indeterminate. It's really just saying "the race is so close that the election could go either way, but the plan is SO unpopular that it guarantees an Obama loss, whereas in the status quo he might still win." AKA, there's a chance Obama might win now, even if its not a 100% chance, but (assuming you win the link) the plan tanks that.

 

The opposite of this claim (Uniqueness controls the direction of the link) is actually a very stupid argument. The link determines the direction of the link. If the neg proves with 100% certainty that X will pass now, it's irrelevant unless they prove some sort of causal connection between the plan and X not passing. It's not a disad unless you win a link, which is why trumping up the importance of the link via args like "link outweighs uniqueness" is strategic, especially when you're trying to make it easier for the judge to resolve a disad debate when both sides have read a slew of good uniqueness cards.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  It's not so much "link controls uniqueness" as "link outweighs uniqueness".

So, a completely different argument, in other words? I don't have any issue with a team arguing that it's more difficult to assess uniqueness arguments than link ones. But that's not what the words used imply.

 

The opposite of this claim (Uniqueness controls the direction of the link) is actually a very stupid argument. The link determines the direction of the link. If the neg proves with 100% certainty that X will pass now, it's irrelevant unless they prove some sort of causal connection between the plan and X not passing. It's not a disad unless you win a link, which is why trumping up the importance of the link via args like "link outweighs uniqueness" is strategic, especially when you're trying to make it easier for the judge to resolve a disad debate when both sides have read a slew of good uniqueness cards.

 

Not really. A DA is a series of conditional arguments, if the first of these is taken out or mitigated it has much more impact than if a later part of the chain is attacked. Uniqueness really does control the link and really is more important, it's just that the uniqueness debate usually isn't so clear cut that you'll automatically win the entire DA through it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, a completely different argument, in other words?

 

 

Not really. A DA is a series of conditional arguments, if the first of these is taken out or mitigated it has much more impact than if a later part of the chain is attacked.

 

It's the same concept - just a different "tag" for the same argument.

 

Your second argument makes no sense to Chunkry. Simply because the uniqueness claim is the first sub-argument introduced by the neg on a disad it's more important than the 2nd or 3rd sub-argument? What if the link is read first then the uniqueness argument second?

 

No, the link is definitely more important because it establishes the chain of causality between the plan and whatever the impact is. Uniqueness is less relevant as long as the argument is a mitigater like "it's unlikely that SKFTA will pass/SKFTA won't pass" rather than a 100% terminal take-out like "SKFTA has already passed" (which is obviously rarely the case). Uniqueness is simply a component of the link. Uniqueness is always between zero and one hundred percent, and thus somewhat indeterminate. Uniqueness is just an observation about the status quo --- the link is the deciding factor.

 

Err, but disads are stupid in a chaotic non-linear multiversal world.

 

Good tidings

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Chunkry disagrees, I should probably reconsider. I am.

I'm not trying to be unreasonable here, but I still think I disagree. I agree that uniqueness is a component of the link argument, but that's a reason that the link argument is weaker because the more complex that a chain of reasoning is the less likely it is to be true. Uniqueness must outweigh the link because the link can't act upon something that doesn't exist. As you progress through the series of conditional arguments that is a DA the number of potential flaws can only accumulate. Link arguments are more complex than uniqueness ones because they both describe states of affairs and describe the way those interact, while uniqueness only does the former. There are at least two points of failure for link arguments but only one for uniqueness. Internal links have even more possible failures because they describe multiple states of affairs and ways that those can interact.

Here's another argument that's in my head. If the uniqueness has been been proven to be weak the probability that the other parts of the DA are false has consequently been proven to be stronger because otherwise we would be seeing those impacts in the status quo. If there is no uniqueness at the beginning of the DA, then there is no uniqueness on the later parts either. I feel as though this argument is related to the above one, although articulating how is too difficult for me.

Here's a rewritten version of some of your other objections. I don't see a difference when I flip the words around.
 

 No, the uniqueness is definitely more important because it establishes the chain of causality between the plan and whatever the impact is. 

The link is less relevant as long as the argument is a mitigater like "it's unlikely that plan will hurt PC/plan won't hurt PC" rather than a 100% terminal take-out
The link is always between zero and one hundred percent, and thus somewhat indeterminate. The link is just an observation about possible causes --- uniqueness is the deciding factor.


At the same time as I disagree with you, I'm unable to make the math come out right when I try to write down what I'm thinking, so my assumptions might be off. Actually, I'm more inclined to doubt my assumptions, it's just that I'm having a difficulty shaking them. Something feels wrong with my reasoning, but I can't pin it down.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Chunkry disagrees, I should probably reconsider. I am.

 

I'm not trying to be unreasonable here, but I still think I disagree. I agree that uniqueness is a component of the link argument, but that's a reason that the link argument is weaker because the more complex that a chain of reasoning is the less likely it is to be true. Uniqueness must outweigh the link because the link can't act upon something that doesn't exist. As you progress through the series of conditional arguments that is a DA the number of potential flaws can only accumulate. Link arguments are more complex than uniqueness ones because they both describe states of affairs and describe the way those interact, while uniqueness only does the former. There are at least two points of failure for link arguments but only one for uniqueness. Internal links have even more possible failures because they describe multiple states of affairs and ways that those can interact.

 

Here's another argument that's in my head. If the uniqueness has been been proven to be weak the probability that the other parts of the DA are false has consequently been proven to be stronger because otherwise we would be seeing those impacts in the status quo. If there is no uniqueness at the beginning of the DA, then there is no uniqueness on the later parts either. I feel as though this argument is related to the above one, although articulating how is too difficult for me.

 

Here's a rewritten version of some of your other objections. I don't see a difference when I flip the words around.

 

At the same time as I disagree with you, I'm unable to make the math come out right when I try to write down what I'm thinking, so my assumptions might be off. Actually, I'm more inclined to doubt my assumptions, it's just that I'm having a difficulty shaking them. Something feels wrong with my reasoning, but I can't pin it down.

 

 

 

When you say "Uniqueness must outweigh the link because the link can't act upon something that doesn't exist" I think this assumes that the aff wins a terminal, 100%, game over uniqueness take out to the disad. Which rarely happens. Your argument assumes the aff wins economic collapse already happened, Romney won the election, healthcare didn't pass, or a similar argument. Uniqueness debates are rarely this decisive; they're shades of grey, rather than black and white.

 

I agree that link arguments are complex, and maybe even easier to mitigate, but that doesn't mean that they are less important.

 

You then say: "If the uniqueness has been been proven to be weak the probability that the other parts of the DA are false has consequently been proven to be stronger because otherwise we would be seeing those impacts in the status quo", which again, assumes a total uniqueness takeout, since you are just making the argument that if the disad is totally non-unique then the impact is empirically denied (aka, the economy has already collapsed and we haven't seen war).

 

Again, uniqueness is rarely this decisive. The utility of "link controls uniqueness" is that it allows the negative to downplay the importance of uniqueness (which is often strategic in a big debate, with tons of good uniqueness cards on both sides. Sometimes you might not have time to hash out in great detail why Immigration Reform is going pass and also extend the rest of the disad, a counterplan, case, and answer conditionality in the 2NR) in favor of emphasizing the link debate.

 

Uniqueness is at the end of the day, not possible to predict with 100% certainty, unless it is indeed just a question of whether or not something is factually true; has Obama won the election, has immigration passed, etc. It's just a statement about the status quo. It doesn't really mean much unless you win a link, which is why "link controls uniqueness" is a good arg in some instances.

 

Uniqueness is important, and if the aff decisively wins uniqueness, then they probably win the debate (even with the above framing I described), but the point of this arg is to make uniqueness less relevant and emphasize the link debate so that the judge doesn't have to call 10,000 uniqueness cards that make contradictory, mutually exclusive claims and have to decide the round based on pure evidence quality, which might put the neg in a bad place.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

When you say "Uniqueness must outweigh the link because the link can't act upon something that doesn't exist" I think this assumes that the aff wins a terminal, 100%, game over uniqueness take out to the disad. Which rarely happens. Your argument assumes the aff wins economic collapse already happened, Romney won the election, healthcare didn't pass, or a similar argument. Uniqueness debates are rarely this decisive; they're shades of grey, rather than black and white.

 

I agree that link arguments are complex, and maybe even easier to mitigate, but that doesn't mean that they are less important.

 

You then say: "If the uniqueness has been been proven to be weak the probability that the other parts of the DA are false has consequently been proven to be stronger because otherwise we would be seeing those impacts in the status quo", which again, assumes a total uniqueness takeout, since you are just making the argument that if the disad is totally non-unique then the impact is empirically denied (aka, the economy has already collapsed and we haven't seen war).

 

I think some of my reasoning wrong but not for the reasons you describe (if my argument is true in extreme cases it should be just true to a lesser degree in others). I think I was viewing the link arguments as though they necessarily assumed a certain set of conditions about the world (uniqueness). However that's often not true. For example, the causal claim that spending money is bad for political capital makes sense regardless of whether or not Obama currently has political capital. This was my mistake.

Despite that mistake, I think my conclusion was correct for a different reason. Your analysis didn't address my point that "if the uniqueness has been proven to be weak the probability that the other parts of the DA are false has consequently been proven stronger because otherwise we would be seeing those impacts in the status quo". That's an argument that I do feel is correct, although it's different than the one that I initially set out to defend. I think that to the extent that there is weak uniqueness the link uniqueness of the rest of the DA is thrown into jeopardy or it's implied that the DA misunderstands reality. Because the negative describes a causal chain of events if one part of the chain has already occurred then the rest should also and if it has not then there is something wrong with the DA. There's no way to maintain link uniqueness if it's already been proven that you lack basic uniqueness. I think that this reasoning is legitimate unlike some of the other parts of what I was thinking, and that it proves uniqueness outweighs the link.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite that mistake, I think my conclusion was correct for a different reason. Your analysis didn't address my point that "if the uniqueness has been proven to be weak the probability that the other parts of the DA are false has consequently been proven stronger because otherwise we would be seeing those impacts in the status quo".

 

Not necessarily- whether or not immigration reform is going to pass in the future has no bearing on whether or not the impact scenario is true or false. Certain arguments (like economy bad now arguments against an econ DA), but that's a component of the link or impact (i.e. link uniqueness or impact uniqueness) more than it is a component of issue-specific uniqueness. And it's in politics debates where "uniqueness controls link" args are made most commonly.

 

That being said, both arguments are usually just vapid catchphrases that only have utility as tiebreakers at the margins of close debates (like the elections scenario Jake set up). Link and uniqueness arguments are true independently of the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not necessarily- whether or not immigration reform is going to pass in the future has no bearing on whether or not the impact scenario is true or false. Certain arguments (like economy bad now arguments against an econ DA), but that's a component of the link or impact (i.e. link uniqueness or impact uniqueness) more than it is a component of issue-specific uniqueness. And it's in politics debates where "uniqueness controls link" args are made most commonly.

I think it has more utility in some cases than others but still applies in all of them. To use the example of a politics DA, if we see that there is transportation spending in the status quo then the DA is thrown in jeopardy because either the impacts are inevitable because Obama no longer has political capital or the impacts won't happen because the causal chain described by the negative is logically flawed. It's less applicable because we can't observe the impact scenario directly, but it's applicable to the extent that any of the arguments described in the DA can be observed. Uniqueness amounts to an empirical denial of the legitimacy of the link (and sometimes impact) claim as well as a reason that the plan doesn't make anything worse than the status quo, therefore uniqueness is a stronger argument than a link.

 

Insofar as link or internal link level or impact level uniqueness can be proven to exist, we can use the existence of that specific uniqueness along with the nonexistence of basic uniqueness to prove that the causal claims made by one team are wrong. Politics DAs describe things that haven't happened yet and use a thing that is difficult to objectively measure or prove the existence of, which makes it harder to use this principle in their context, but the basic reasoning still applies in all cases because claims about states of affairs are necessary components of all parts of the DA, even if they're more difficult to directly attack in some cases than in others.

 

To rephrase one final time: a politics DA implicitly includes many claims about what the current state of Washington is, what the current state of a bill is and what the bill will be when finished, how Obama is perceived in Congress, etc., and all of those things can be assessed. If one of those things is true while there is no uniqueness then not only is the status quo just as bad as the world of the affirmative but also the chain of reasoning that the negative uses has been indicted (If spending is high but political capital is too then it's less likely there's a link between them, for example.) Conversely, if one of those things isn't true then the negative lacks link or impact level uniqueness. There's a double bind established that is exactly as strong as the nonuniqueness arguments made in the debate, which means that uniqueness arguments are more useful overall since they can attack multiple parts of a DA at once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what Chaos (xiiiii) is refering to.....well in part of his answer......

Lets say you run an economy disad....and in the 2ac thhe aff says econ growth bad (they impact turn)......one of the many responses you make to their 2ac argument (de-development effectively) would be that the status quo uniqueness of the economy high.  That "proves" the impact turns are false (or undermines their truth value significantly). 

 

However......I think you have to combine this with the long timeframe argument.  Just because the impacts in our face or occuring

exactly now....doens't mean they won't happen in the future.

 

* In the core example, you're using uniqueness to prove your overall argument makes more sense & is more probable or credible.

This theoretically could happen in any context.  For instance, using case trends/harms to interact in different ways with disads.

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...