This is a simple lesson on whyat happens to disadvantages in a debate. You
can, as a negative decide to KICK OUT of them (#1) when there are no turns,
KICK OUT of them when there are link or impact turns on them (#2), extend
the disadvantage if there are NOTHING BUT TURNS (#3), lose the
disadvantage by DROPPING ANSWERS made by the affirmative (#4), how to
deal with an affirmative DOUBLE TURN (#5), and finally how to WIN A
DISADVANTAGE by being complete in extending it (#6).
Please get a copy of the sample flow sheet to use with this discussion. It can be
found at: http://debate.uvm.edu/sixpix.gif
#1: KICKING OUT OF A BAD DISAD WHEN THERE ARE NO TURNS
-Concede specific responses.
-Explain how this makes the disad irrelevant.
-Note that no answers are called turns.
-New turns or reinterpretations are not allowed.
#2: KICKING OUT OF A DISAD WHEN THERE ARE TURNS
-You must kick out of it, not just drop it. Otherwise, the turns make it a new
reason to vote aff.
-Answers 2 & 3 contradict.
-Conceding answers to take out the link turn (aff stops or solves problem
disad is about):
1. No link. If plan does not cause it, does that eliminate the link turn?
NO: There may be other causes, especially if it is linear disad.
2. Won't happen. If internal link is gone, does that eliminate the link
YES: If it isn't going to happen, they don't get credit for solving
3. Not unique: If it is going to happen anyway, does that eliminate the
NO: In fact, it makes the turn better. It is going to happen, so we
better have the plan so we can solve it. [Most common error]
4. No significance: If it is not bad, does that eliminate the link turn?
YES: They can turn it, but there is no impact. Caution: there may
be SOME impact, in which case the answer is NO.
-Conceding answers to take out the impact turn (aff says the disad result is
good, not bad):
1. No link: If plan does not lead to the disad, does that take out the