Structure of a Disad

Can anyone explain how a DA should be structured? I know there are uniqueness/link/impact sections, but what does that all mean? Where would "brink" evidence go in all of this?

Similarly, what does a DA link to? Do you run a standard, or do you try to link back to your opponent's framework?

JohnnyFontane wrote:Can anyone explain how a DA should be structured? I know there are uniqueness/link/impact sections, but what does that all mean? Where would "brink" evidence go in all of this?

Similarly, what does a DA link to? Do you run a standard, or do you try to link back to your opponent's framework?

The uniqueness is what will happen in the status quo (something good). The link is how the plan/advocacy affects the status quo. The impact is what will happen as a result of the link (something bad). A good disad will have a brink built into the uniqueness evidence. For example, a heg disad on Jan/Feb would have uniqueness saying "Heg high now, but US heg is on the verge of collapse---giving in to int'l demands would destroy soft power." (I know that's probably not true but just go with it.) The evidence should say exactly what it will take to push the status quo over the brink.

If the aff standard is ends-based, no matter what specifically it is, you can usually get it to boil down to net benefits or saving lives or something generic like that. Then link the impacts to that. I suppose if you're running an NC as well as a disad, you could link back to your own standard, but that kind of defeats the purpose of running both.

Why is the affirmative presenting a plan, exactly? If I read a case that discusses the general benefits of something (conscription, the ICC, whatever), how would I be supporting a plan that would trigger the disadvantage? I am not even really assuming the status quo. I don't get quite why a stock affirmative case would link into a DA.

Db8rBoi wrote:Why is the affirmative presenting a plan, exactly? If I read a case that discusses the general benefits of something (conscription, the ICC, whatever), how would I be supporting a plan that would trigger the disadvantage? I am not even really assuming the status quo. I don't get quite why a stock affirmative case would link into a DA.

Substitute "plan" for "advocacy". On say the ICC topic, the affirmative defends US submission to the ICC (generally assumed to mean that they will join now). Your advocacy of US submission modifies the Squo and the negative says that's bad for reasons extrinsic to the ac advantages/impact scenarios/whatever.

On say conscription whereby a status quo does not exist, the disad's uniqueness would just be that the impact would not occur in the world that is not the affirmative.

By the way, a lot of regular NCs are really disads to the affirmative. They're just not structured in the same way.

Alright. That makes a lot of sense.

Thanks for the help.