You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reasons:

This IP address has been blocked from editing Wikipedia.
This does not affect your ability to read Wikipedia pages.
Most people who see this message have done nothing wrong. Some kinds of blocks restrict editing from specific service providers or telecom companies in response to recent abuse or vandalism, and can sometimes affect other users who are unrelated to that abuse. Review the information below for assistance if you do not believe that you have done anything wrong.

The IP address or range 3.230.0.0/16 has been blocked (disabled) by ‪Blablubbs‬ for the following reason(s):

The IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be a web host provider or colocation provider. To prevent abuse, web hosts and colocation providers may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
You will not be able to edit Wikipedia using a web host or colocation provider because it hides your IP address, much like a proxy or VPN.
We recommend that you attempt to use another connection to edit. For example, if you use a proxy or VPN to connect to the internet, turn it off when editing Wikipedia. If you edit using a mobile connection, try using a Wi-Fi connection, and vice versa. If you are using a corporate internet connection, switch to a different Wi-Fi network. If you have a Wikipedia account, please log in.
If you do not have any other way to edit Wikipedia, you will need to request an IP block exemption.

How to appeal if you are confident that your connection does not use a colocation provider's IP address:
If you are confident that you are not using a web host, you may appeal this block by adding the following text on your talk page: ((unblock|reason=Caught by a colocation web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is _______. Place any further information here. ~~~~)). You must fill in the blank with your IP address for this block to be investigated. Your IP address can be determined here. Alternatively, if you wish to keep your IP address private you can use the unblock ticket request system. There are several reasons you might be editing using the IP address of a web host or colocation provider (such as if you are using VPN software or a business network); please use this method of appeal only if you think your IP address is in fact not a web host or colocation provider.

Administrators: The IP block exemption user right should only be applied to allow users to edit using web host in exceptional circumstances, and requests should usually be directed to the functionaries team via email. If you intend to give the IPBE user right, a CheckUser needs to take a look at the account. This can be requested most easily at SPI Quick Checkuser Requests. Unblocking an IP or IP range with this template is highly discouraged without at least contacting the blocking administrator.

This block will expire on 11:04, 19 October 2026.

Even when blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page, as well as email administrators and other editors.

For information on how to proceed, please read the FAQ for blocked users and the guideline on block appeals. The guide to appealing blocks may also be helpful.

Other useful links: Blocking policy · Help:I have been blocked
Your IP address is in a range that has been blocked on all Wikimedia Foundation wikis. The block was made by ‪Jon Kolbert‬. The reason given is Open proxy/Webhost: See the help page if you are affected .
- Start of block: 05:35, 21 February 2024
- Expiry of block: 05:35, 21 February 2029
Your current IP address is 3.230.118.156. The blocked range is 3.230.0.0/16. Please include all above details in any queries you make. If you believe you were blocked by mistake, you can find additional information and instructions in the No open proxies global policy. Otherwise, to discuss the block please post a request for review on Meta-Wiki. You could also send an email to the stewards VRT queue at stewards@wikimedia.org including all above details.

You can view and copy the source of this page:

((confused|Disadvantaged|drawback (disambiguation)((!))drawback))
((refimprove|date=February 2010))
((Policy Debate)) 
In [[policy debate]], a '''disadvantage''' (here abbreviated as '''DA''') is an argument that a team brings up against a policy action that is being considered.<ref name=":0">((Cite web |date=16 March 2024 |title=Debating Disadvantages |url=https://debateus.org/debating-disadvantages/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240112022806/https://debateus.org/debating-disadvantages/ |archive-date=12 January 2024 |access-date=16 March 2024 |website=DebateUS))</ref> A disadvantage is also used in the [[Lincoln-Douglas debate format]].<ref>((Cite web |title=1. Disadvantages - the Art of Debate - an Intro to LD |url=https://sites.google.com/site/anintroductiontodebate/lectures/3-advanced-argumentation/2-disadvantages |url-status=dead))</ref>

==Structure==
A disadvantage usually has four key elements. These four elements are not always necessary depending on the type of disadvantage run, and some are often combined into a single piece of evidence. A Unique Link card, for example, will include both a description of the [[Status quo#:~:text=With regard to policy debate,the situation gets any worse.%22|status quo]] and the plan's effect on it. A traditional threshold DA has a structure as follows:

===Uniqueness===

Uniqueness shows why the impacts have not occurred yet or to a substantial extent and will ''uniquely'' occur with the adoption of either the affirmative's plan or the negative's counterplan.<ref name=":1">((Cite web |last=Kellams |first=James |date=4 September 2017 |title=Elements of Policy Debate: Disadvantages |url=http://everydaydebate.blogspot.com/2017/09/policy-arguments-disads.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240112074041/http://everydaydebate.blogspot.com/2017/09/policy-arguments-disads.html |archive-date=12 January 2024 |access-date=16 March 2024 |website=Everyday Debate))</ref>

For example, the negative team argues that the affirmative plan will result in nuclear proliferation, it would also argue that the status quo will avoid nuclear proliferation.  If the Affirmative claims that nuclear proliferation is already occurring, the negative team could argue that adoption of the plan would result in a ''unique'' increase in nuclear proliferation.  If the plan causes no net change in the rate of nuclear proliferation, the disadvantage is not unique to the plan, and therefore not relevant.

===External links===
For the disadvantage to have relevance in the round, the negative team must show that the affirmative plan causes the disadvantage that is claimed.  If the DA stated that the plan takes money from the government, and the affirmative team shows that the plan does not increase governmental spending, then the DA would be considered to have "no link".<ref name=":1" />

===Internal link===

The internal link connects the link to the impact, or, it shows the steps the link causes to get to the impact. Not all DA's use an internal link but some have multiple internals.<ref name=":0" /> The internal link in our example would be that government spending leads to economic collapse.

===Impact===
The impact is the result of the policy action that make it undesirable. These results are at the end of the chain of reasoning of your DA (starts with your link with internal links spanning over the Brink with Uniqueness and lead to the Impact),<ref name=":1" /> then continuing along with the example, an impact would be that economic collapse may cause [[nuclear warfare|nuclear war]]. The Impact is the edge of the sword of your DA and is usually a significantly bad event caused by inertia evident through the internal links inside the link off over the brink and uniquely so.

Internal links are often undesirable things by themselves, and could be considered impacts. The worst of the consequences, or the final one in the chain of events, is usually given the label of "impact".  For example, nuclear war is probably worse than economic collapse, so nuclear war is given the "impact" label, even though economic collapse (the internal link) could itself be viewed as an impact.

The nuclear war impact is the terminal (i.e. final) impact in virtually every disadvantage today. While it appears outlandish to outsiders and even to some debaters now, it originated in the 1980s during the height of the [[nuclear freeze]] movement, specifically after the publication of ''[[The Fate of the Earth]]'' by [[Jonathan Schell]]. Barring nuclear war, the terminal impact usually ends up as [[extinction]] anyway, either [[human extinction]] or the extinction of all life on Earth; the most common mechanisms for these are cataclysmic climatic change (in the style of ''[[The Day After Tomorrow]]''), or uncontrolled undiscovered uncurable disease. Most debate coaches use the nuclear war argument as  a way of training young policy debaters.

Other terminal impacts might include severe human rights abuses, such as near universal slavery or loss of individuality.  These types of impacts are usually argued under a [[deontological]] framework or as a turn to a human rights advantage.

==Types==

===Traditional===
A traditional DA follows the structure above.  Traditional DA's can include or exclude the internal link.

===Linear===
A linear disadvantage does not have uniqueness.  The negative concedes that the status quo has a problem but insists the plan increases that problem's severity. A commonly accepted theory holds that a sufficiently philosophical linear disadvantage with an alternative becomes a [[kritik]]. There is also much controversy over kritiks being linear disadvantages, due to the fact that most kritik argue the affirmative plan over a discursive level, while a disadvantage argues the affirmative's actions.

Non-kritikal linear disadvantages frequently face attacks from the Affirmative on debate theory; the theory that linear disadvantages are abusive (i.e. unfair) to the affirmative team has much popularity.

===Brink===
A brink disadvantage is a special type of linear disadvantage which claims that the affirmative will aggravate the problem in the status quo to the extent that it passes a brink, at which time the impact happens all at once. The negative team claims that in the status quo, we are near the brink, but the affirmative team's plan will push us "over the edge."

===Political===
A political disadvantage is unique in the way that it links to an Affirmative plan. Rather than linking to the specific plan action, it links to the idea that the plan does not exist in a vacuum but is exposed to political costs, measures, tactics, the overall political milieu--with no regard to Fiat and presumes the debate theory of Fiat could be settled anyway.  However, Politics disadvantages typically will say that a plan will pass through Congress, thus causing a shift in the "political capital" of either the president, or a political party, which will affect
the ability of the affected group to pass other bills.  The Impact is typically referred to as a "Double-Whammy": they are busy not solving something, resources are ineffectively applied, now there is a two-headed hydra problem, viz. once the same money (or resources) is spent frivolously, not only did the government not solve south-of-the-border immigration concerns but now there is less money for solving homelessness of thousands U.S. nationals.  An example of a politics disadvantage (typically in high school debate, assuming "politics" is synonymous with the personalities of the leadership) would be: Uniqueness: Immigration Reform will pass in the status quo. Link: Plan decreases the President's political capital, perhaps with a specific link that increasing civil liberties would be a flip-flop for President Obama. Thus, Obama has no political capital to pass his Immigration Reform. Impact elections cycles. For example, in a presidential election, it might argue that a certain Presidential candidate or his or her opponent is currently weak (or strong), but the affirmative plan will cause him or her to gain (or lose) popularity, and that either his or her election is undesirable or the election of his or her opponent is undesirable.  A midterms version could focus on particular races or the general balance of the Congress; an example of a single-race midterms disadvantage would be that the reelection of Senator [[Daniel Akaka]] is critical to [[free speech]], and plan prevents Akaka from winning; a "balance of Congress" disadvantage might hold that the plan is a credit to the [[Republican Party (United States)|Republicans]], who would increase their grip on Congress and allow extensive drilling in the [[Arctic National Wildlife Refuge]].

In some sections of the country, politics disadvantages are frowned upon because they link to virtually every affirmative plan, destroying the on case debate and focusing solely on the disadvantage. Supporters say the politics disadvantages are "real world" and provide education on how bills are passed and politics in general.

Other debate theorists have often reshaped models of [[fiat (policy debate)|fiat]] that preclude the politics disadvantage. Its use in any given debate round is entirely dependent on how well the affirmative argues that the judge should accept the model, a somewhat time-consuming process. Examples of these fiat arguments include Vote No and Intrinsicness. Vote No argues that the debate should be a simulation of the debate before Congress and thus the president has already exerted political capital, meaning there is no disadvantage. Argument from Intrinsicness is there is no reason that Congress can't pass both the plan and the bill, meaning they are not competitive.  The Political DA, as misunderstood as politicians' political capital, has no warrant in traditional Fiat theory.

==Responses==
Disadvantage responses can generally be classified into two categories: '''takeouts''', which simply seek to refute a claim made by the negative in the disadvantage, and '''[[Turn (policy debate)|turns]]''', which argue that the situation is somehow the reverse of the negative's claim.

===Takeouts===

====Non-unique====

The "non-unique" argument says that the impact will happen in the status quo with or without the passage of the plan or that it is happening in the status quo. The links and impacts (and thus the entire disadvantage) become largely irrelevant since the status quo is no different from the plan.<ref name=":2">((Cite web |last=Stafford |first=Victoria |date=16 March 2024 |title=Disadvantages |url=https://thedebateguru.weebly.com/disadvantages.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240112022904/https://thedebateguru.weebly.com/disadvantages.html |archive-date=12 January 2024 |access-date=16 March 2024 |website=The Debate Guru))</ref>

====No link====
A very simple argument. The affirmative simply claims that the plan does not cause the impact.<ref name=":2" />

An example:

*'''Uniqueness:''' The United States-India nuclear deal is likely to pass now, but just barely. It requires extensive expenditure of limited [[political capital]].
*'''Link:''' The plan uses political capital that would otherwise be used for passage of the deal.
*'''Internal Link:''' Failure to pass the deal will reduce American influence on the [[Indian subcontinent]].
*'''Internal Link:''' Reduction of American influence on the Indian subcontinent will lead to nuclear war between [[India]] and [[Pakistan]].
*'''Impact''': India-Pakistan nuclear war will spiral out of control into a global nuclear conflict.

'''No link:''' The plan expends no political capital

====No internal link====
A variant on the No Link, it states that either the link or the previous internal link does not lead to another internal link.<ref name=":0" />

Using the example above, a no-internal-link could either be that the failure to pass the deal will not reduce American influence on the Indian subcontinent, or that reduction of American influence on the Indian subcontinent will not lead to nuclear war between India and Pakistan.

====Impact uniqueness====
Arguing the impact's uniqueness is an underused but effective argument. To prove that an impact is non-unique the affirmative must show that the link has already happened in the past but the impact didn't happen.<ref>((Cite web |last=Kellams |first=James |date=25 October 2011 |title=Uniqueness in Disadvantages |url=http://everydaydebate.blogspot.com/2011/10/uniqueness-in-disadvantages.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240316202232/http://everydaydebate.blogspot.com/2011/10/uniqueness-in-disadvantages.html |archive-date=16 March 2024 |access-date=16 March 2024 |website=Everyday Debate))</ref>

For example:

Uniqueness: American oil consumption high now!

Link: Ethanol trades off with oil!

Internal: OPEC will flood the market with cheap oil

Impact: Destroys Russian and Canadian Economies—global economic collapse—Nuclear war!

Impact Uniqueness—OPEC flooded the market last year with really cheap oil and there was no nuclear war

===Turns===

====Link====
The link turn is stronger against a claim than the defensive take-out argument, as it shifts the advantage (or disadvantage) to the other side, aka "capturing" (as opposed "subsuming"). The link-turn is in two parts: the disadvantage is non-unique (the impact is going to happen in the status quo)--and turning the presumption (the link).<ref name=":0" />

For example:

'''Original DA'''

'''Uniqueness:''' US Military Strong

'''Link:''' Plan Decreases military power

'''Impact:''' Weak military leads to nuclear conflict.

A non-unique and a link turn would go something like this:

'''Non-unique:''' Military weak now.

'''Link Turn:''' Plan increases military power.

This strategy turns what was previously a "disadvantage" to the plan into a benefit or advantage of the plan. This helps Affirmative debaters persuade that they should win on Solvency.

====Impact====
Another way to debate against a disadvantage is an impact turn, in which the affirmative team reads evidence stating that the disadvantages impact would actually be good or that the status quo creates a worse impact.<ref name=":0" /> If the impact to a disadvantage was global nuclear war, an impact turn would say that death is good or that the status quo creates a bigger nuclear war.  Often impact turns function at the level above this.  The argument is then sometimes called an internal link turn.  For example, if the disadvantage argued that the plan hurt free trade, which was key to avoiding war, the affirmative might argue that in fact free trade caused war, environmental destruction, and other negative consequences.

====Straight====
One strategy the affirmative may use in order to attack the Disadvantage is to "straight turn it." To straight turn something means to run only offensive arguments against it. Such an example would be to run 3 impact turns against a Disadvantage. This forces the negative team to not kick the Disadvantage because it automatically becomes an extra advantage for the affirmative. If the affirmative did run defensive arguments such as non-unique and an impact turn, then the negative could concede that it is non-unique so the impact turn would be rendered useless thus the negative could kick out of the disadvantage.<ref name=":0" />

The affirmative team should never run an impact turn and a link turn together—this is called double turning. When the affirmative team double turns themself they claim that "right now the status quo is doing something, and the affirmative plan stops it, but what the affirmative stops is a good thing." In simple terms, the affirmative runs a disadvantage on themselves.

===Other===
In answering the Link, an affirmative might argue that the link has '''no threshold''', i.e. that the link does not make clear when the impact will happen or even that the impact will happen solely based on what the affirmative plan causes.<ref name=":2" /> Or the aff may claim that '''uniqueness overwhelms the link'''; that conditions in the status quo are so far away from the threshold that the impact will not happen.  This second answer is rarely made because it is a strategic gamble.

A disadvantage can also be answered by no longer doing a part of the plan that causes the aff to link into the disadvantage.  This is often referred to as a severance perm, because by making this claim the affirmative does all parts of the plan except the part that links to the disadvantage, thus severing out of part of their own plan.  This argument is also rarely made, due to the theory arguments it brings up on the affirmative changing its plan in the round in order to avoid the disadvantage.

Also if the negative runs a Counterplan in addition to the Disadvantage (which commonly occurs) the affirmative can make a permutation and say that the combination of the counterplan and plan shields the link to the disadvantage. For example: the plan repeals the Hyde Amendment to allow abortion funding through federal sources by using congress; the negative runs a courts counterplan that repels the hyde amendment and runs a politics disadvantage that says the plan will drain the political capital of the president which causes a certain bill not to be passed; the affirmative would claim that the "perm shields the link" because congress would claim that the courts made them repeal the hyde amendment, therefore no political capital would be lost.

== See also ==
* [[Advantage (debate)|Advantage]]

==References==
((Reflist))

*((Cite |last=Cheshier |first=David |title=Politics, Politics, Politics |date=2003 |url=http://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/cx%20Cheshier%20for%20Feb%2003.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220513184254/http://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/cx%20Cheshier%20for%20Feb%2003.pdf |archive-date=13 May 2022 |url-status=usurped))

((Off-case arguments))

[[Category:Policy debate]]

Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page (help):

Disadvantage (edit)
Template:Ambox (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Citation (view source) (protected)
Template:Cite (view source) (protected)
Template:Cite web (view source) (protected)
Template:Confused (view source) (extended confirmed protected)
Template:Distinguish (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Find sources mainspace (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Hlist/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Template:Icon (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Main other (view source) (protected)
Template:More citations needed (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Navbox (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Off-case arguments (edit)
Template:Policy Debate (edit)
Template:Policy debate (edit)
Template:Refimprove (view source) (template editor protected)
Template:Reflist (view source) (protected)
Template:Reflist/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Template:Sidebar (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Arguments (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/blacklist (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/config (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/data (view source) (protected)
Module:Category handler/shared (view source) (protected)
Module:Check for unknown parameters (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1 (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/COinS (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Date validation (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Identifiers (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Utilities (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist (view source) (protected)
Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Module:Distinguish (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Find sources (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Find sources/config (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Find sources/links (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Find sources/templates/Find sources mainspace (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Format link (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Hatnote (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Hatnote/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Hatnote list (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Icon (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Icon/data (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Message box (view source) (protected)
Module:Message box/ambox.css (view source) (protected)
Module:Message box/configuration (view source) (protected)
Module:Namespace detect/config (view source) (protected)
Module:Namespace detect/data (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbar (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbar/configuration (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbar/styles.css (view source) (protected)
Module:Navbox (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Navbox/configuration (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Navbox/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Sidebar (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Sidebar/configuration (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:Sidebar/styles.css (view source) (template editor protected)
Module:TableTools (view source) (protected)
Module:Unsubst (view source) (protected)
Module:Yesno (view source) (protected)

Return to Disadvantage.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disadvantage"