Jump to content
theydb8r

Link Wall

Recommended Posts

The 1NC reads a single link (Politics- Plan is unpopular in general)

 

The 2AC might challenge the link (Plan is popular)

 

The 2NC/1NR will then read a link wall to answer the no link argument. Because the block has such a time advantage, it's strategical for the neg to read 2,3,4 cards against each given issue the 2AC argues about.

 

The link wall in the case of politics might say

 

1. Extend 1NC evidence, polls show that 75% of republicans are against the plan

2. John Boehner hates the plan, he's uniquely key to sway a bunch of other republicans

3. Even democrats are against the plan and will get mad at Obama

4. Oil companies hate the plan, they have a bunch of political clout

 

It's basically just multiple pieces of evidence with a lot of diverse warrants as to why the plan links. Beyond just reading more evidence for your side, it's good to include evidence that specifically disproves their evidence. If the 2AC reads a card from 1998 saying that congress likes investing in the drug war, you'll want to have a recent card saying that "Their evidence is outdated, opinions have changed. Everyone's against the drug war now". 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very good explanation above. I would just add a few things.

1) Some would say you should read the link wall even if there isn't a link press by the 2ac, because you need to make the link more persuasive regardless.

2) The link wall often requires some new internal link evidence as well.

3) In the ideal scenario, you have a similar uniqueness wall, and the warrants from your uniqueness and link walls match up. IE, for each link claim that you make, you can defend that that warrant is unique. This is particularly important when your link evidence talks about particular warrants being more key than others. 

EG, above, the 2nc #2 evidence may say or rely on some reasoning like "this large group of reps will follow boehner regardless of their individual preferences" or "boehner as speaker will block the bill if he doesn't like it". In that case, you absolutely must be able to win that boehner is on board with the disad scenario now; the warrant of that link, if non-unique, can swamp your other uniqueness warrants.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1) Some would say you should read the link wall even if there isn't a link press by the 2ac, because you need to make the link more persuasive regardless.

 

this is the opposite of true. reading more ev in the 2nc gives the 1ar license to read new ev -- because it would suggest that the 1nc link was not argumentatively sufficient, and thus the 2ac would be excused in not answering it.

 

tldr: don't read new ev against dropped args if you want the arg to stay dropped

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're writing from a technical standpoint, meanmedianmode is writing from a persuasive one. Depends on the judge.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're writing from a technical standpoint, meanmedianmode is writing from a persuasive one. Depends on the judge.

 

"Depends on the judge" is true of every post on this forum. However, diversity of opinions does not suggest indeterminacy -- there exists a fairly coherent set of argumentative norms and common understandings in US policy debate that let us, for example, explain that new evidence in the 1NR is okay, that 2 conditional advocacies are probably fine but 19 aren't, and so on. Likewise, reading new evidence lets the following speech answer it even if it was originally dropped.  For example:

1NC: Plan is unpopular, here are some GOP folks that hate it

2AC: oops dropped the link debate

2NC: Extend that some GOP folks hate it, also, here are some dems that hate it

1AR: Actually, those dems and a shitload of other people love it!

 

I'm pretty sure most people are taught at camp at some point in their "how to be a scrappy debater" lecture that you should try to trick the block into doing this if the 2ac screws up because it's a great way for the 1ar to bring the aff back in the game.

 

Competitive equity-wise, this norm is actually pretty important. Otherwise, the neg has an incentive to load the 1NC with blippy arguments, wait for the 2ac to drop one, and then give it a more robust and sufficient evidentiary treatment in the block. Holding the line on this means the neg has to make their args logically sufficient the first time around.

 

It's also entirely unproductive. Why are you reading more cards on a question that you've already won?

 

 

 

Re: "it's persuasive." So is a dropped argument. You physically cannot win more than 100% of a link. Why invest the time doing so?

 

Oh, also, it's not persuasive. If your judge didn't buy the arg the first time it came around, why do you think 3 more cards will sell them? Don't you think it hurts your credibility if you demonstrate to the judge that an argument needs further development even though the aff didn't refute it?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: "it's persuasive." So is a dropped argument. You physically cannot win more than 100% of a link. Why invest the time doing so?

 

Oh, also, it's not persuasive. If your judge didn't buy the arg the first time it came around, why do you think 3 more cards will sell them? Don't you think it hurts your credibility if you demonstrate to the judge that an argument needs further development even though the aff didn't refute it?

 

This reasoning makes sense if your judge automatically gives a dropped argument full weight. However, there's reason to think that some judges won't do that. In addition, hammering home the link to an extreme degree can increase the overall persuasiveness of the DA beyond what it necessarily should. It's not rational, but an extremely strong link argument might allow you to get away with a somewhat weak uniqueness or impact argument. That's how human psychology works.

 

I don't disagree with the other stuff you wrote but I don't think it's relevant to my point.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1NC          2AC          Block

Link        No Link        Link

             Link Turn      Link

                                Link

                                Link

                                Link

                                Link

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James, I could have said "Others would say extending the original dropped warrant is sufficient." I felt it was implied by "some" and by not disagreeing with the prior response, but we should certainly be as specific and precise as possible in this forum, so thank you for correcting the omission. I wouldn't necessarily advise this myself, but the Duck often included that scenario in his Talk, so it is advice with a substantial pedigree.

I agree that the strategic implications you raise are valid disadvantages to the idea, although I don't reach your conclusion as decisively. Even without 'allowing responses to a dropped argument', there are ways the 1ac could weaken the link, so strengthening it may still be desirable. 

Re: "it's persuasive." So is a dropped argument. You physically cannot win more than 100% of a link. Why invest the time doing so?

 

Oh, also, it's not persuasive. If your judge didn't buy the arg the first time it came around, why do you think 3 more cards will sell them? Don't you think it hurts your credibility if you demonstrate to the judge that an argument needs further development even though the aff didn't refute it?

I don't put much stock in this model of credibility; in fact, I think you are talking about "face" rather than credibility. 

 

This reasoning makes sense if your judge automatically gives a dropped argument full weight. However, there's reason to think that some judges won't do that. In addition, hammering home the link to an extreme degree can increase the overall persuasiveness of the DA beyond what it necessarily should. It's not rational, but an extremely strong link argument might allow you to get away with a somewhat weak uniqueness or impact argument. That's how human psychology works.

I don't disagree with the other stuff you wrote but I don't think it's relevant to my point.

I will expand this post later when I have more time.

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...