Purpose Of
Disadvantages:
A good negative team will always deliver two or three well
developed disadvantages - also called DAs. This is necessary
because many judges will ignore other stock issues and ask the
question, "What will it hurt to try the Affirmative's
plan?" If the negative delivers no harms to implementing the
plan, the judge may respond, "We might as well give it a
try." Many negative debaters have left a round assured of a
win only to find out they hadn't.
Disadvantage Attacks (arguing that bad things will occur if
the Affirmative's plan is implemented) may take one of three
forms:
- a single piece of evidence that
is tagged and accompanied by a short explanation,
- a single piece of information and
brief assertion (claim) within a complex argument, and
- a fully developed disadvantage
argument.
Return to top
Return to main directory
Disadvantage
Format:
The format for a fully developed Disadvantage includes:
- Tagline:
Title of argument
- Link:
How is the DA linked (tied) to the affirmative's plan?
- Brink:
That we are on the brink of disaster anf the Affirmativ'es plan
will push us over the edge.
- Impact:
What bad things will happen?
- Timeframe:
The impact will occur within a time period to cause us concern
(soon).
Return to top
Return to main directory
Disadvantage
Strategies:
- Shot Gun Blasts:
The first form is used in a negative strategy called shot
gunning where the negative throws out a multitude of
moderately developed attacks hoping to overwhelm the
affirmative. Shotgun attacks that make it through the 2AC
can be developed further in the 2NC.
- Mixed Mode: The
second form is used in conjunction with other stock
issues to formulate a series of case specific arguments
which moves to weaken the affirmative's position. Because
of the complex nature of this attack, Affirmatives will
have a difficult time picking the attack apart. This D.A.
form is best deployed in the 1NC as a part of a broad,
overall disassembling of the Affirmative's case.
- Developed DAs: The
third form is used as an individual voting issue and is
used to deliver a final blow to a weakened affirmative
case. Because of time constraints, a DA should be only
briefly introduced in the 1NC using either of the two
first forms. If after the 2AC the DA continues to look
promising, the 2NC can develop it fully and emphasize its
impact in the 2NR.
Return to top
Return to main directory
Disadvantages
Standards:
Negative disadvantages are very serious, but even though the
negative may spend up to four minutes developing a disadvantage,
it may take only a few seconds to dispose of one. The Affirmative
need only establish one of the following attacks in order to
eliminate a DA:
- DA Is Not Unique:
The impact could occur for any number of reasons not
associated with the Affirmative. Give examples of other
policies or conditions that could initiate the impact.
The negative bears a burden to prove that the plan is
solely responsible for occurrence of the D.A impact.
- No Link: The
negative fails to establish a link between the impact and
the Affirmative. If the impact does occur, it will occur
independent of implementing the Affirmative's plan. The
negative fails to prove that the affirmative will really
cause the problem.
- No Brink: The
negative fails to establish a brink or point of onset.
When will the danger occur? We are in no danger of
experiencing the impact. The affirmative is far from the
straw that will break the camel's back. The negative
fails to prove that we are in immediate danger.
- No Impact: The
negative fails to demonstrate a clear, harmful impact. If
the impact does occur, it may not be as severe or as
widespread as the negative indicates. The negative fails
to prove that the impact will be severe or harmful.
- No Timeframe: The
impact may or may not occur...
- Affirmative Will Prevent
the Impact: The affirmative will not only not
cause the impact but will work to prevent it from
occurring. In all actuality, it is possible that the
opposite of what the negative claims will happen. (This
is called turning an impact. If you can turn a negative
impact into an advantage you will be "killing two
birds with one stone" - very powerful.)
Return to top
Return to main directory
Minimizing
An Impact:
If a debater cannot eliminate an impact because the DA is real
and well presented, then he must lessen the impact by providing
evidence that it won't be that bad. Additionally, the Affirmative
must demonstrate that the benefits (advantages) are worth the
cost. (For example, if it costs $1 million to implement the plan,
the affirmative may try to show that it would, in return, save
$10 million.)
Return to top
Return to main directory
Pointing
Out A Failure To Present A DA:
If the negative fails to present any disadvantages in either
1NC or 2NC, the 2AR will strongly point out that there are no
reasons why the plan should not at least be tried -
implementation will have no negative impacts. In a tight round,
this alone should be enough to win an affirmative ballot.
Return to top
Return to main directory
