Ask Jim about Debate
|
Breaking Down Barriers: Ask Jim about Debate |
You can submit questions too, just email Jim at hansonjb@whitman.edu
A Disad is made up of the following:
I. LINKS: The plan causes a problem (eg The plan causes the deficit to increase)
2. IMPACTS: The problem will be harmful (eg increased deficit would be harmful)
Now, what happens when we develop the disad a little more? We will need internal links to do this as noted below:
1. The plan causes a higher deficit (link--or "external link"--the plan causes a problem)
2. Higher deficits cause interest rate increase (an "internal link"--the problem causes another problem)
3. Interest rate increase will destroy the US economy (an "internal link"--this problem causes a problem)
4. Destroying the US economy will cause war (an impact--the problem causes harm)
by "external link"--I mean its a link reaching outside of the disad to the plan
by "internal link"--I mean its a link connecting arguments inside of the disad
So, you need an internal link anytime you need to connect more than one thing in a disadvantage--when you need to argue:
1. the plan causes a problem (external link)
2. the problem causes another problem (internal link)
3. this problem causes harms (impacts)
If you have a disadvantage that goes through two links to get to the impacts, you must have an internal link or the affirmative can easily defeat the disadvantage by saying that you don't have an internal link.
The bad side to a disadvantage needing an internal link is that it will require the negative debater to prove this internal link (an additional argument you would not need to prove if you didn't have to include an internal link). The good side to a disadvantage with an internal link is that you can link the affirmative plan (via the two links) to impacts that the affirmative may not have predicted and throw them off.
If you have a disadvantage that doesn't need an internal link, you have a stronger disadvantage because it is much more closely linked to the plan. For example, here's a disad with no internal link and no need for one:
I. Prisons Bad
The affirmative increases prison sentences for juvenile criminals which will be harmful because of how bad prisons are.
A. The affirmative increases prison sentences (links with no internal links needed)
1. They say it in their case and in their plan
2. "Get tough" approaches increase prison stays
B. Increased prison sentences are harmful
1. Prisons dehumanize
2. Prisons are already overcrowded
3. Prison stays risk AIDS and TB spread
Notice that this disadvantage is much more direct than the deficit-interest rates disadvantage I wrote about in my earlier email. The bad side of a disadvantage requiring no internal links is that the affirmative is likely to be more prepared because they can predict arguments that are so closely linked to their case.
So, which kind of disadvantage should you use? Both--you'll need both to beat cases.
Thanks to Andy for
asking this question.
Jim