homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:53 pm
Not a member? Guests can only see part of the forums. To see the whole thing (and add your voice!), just register a free account by following these steps.

All times are UTC+01:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Link, Brink, Impact
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2013 4:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 6:06 pm
Posts: 207
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Wherever the tournament is.
My coach is trying to get us to implement the Link, Brink, Impact structure in our arguments. I think I understand it decently, but I was wondering how you other debaters would explain this.

In my understanding...here's how this thing works:
Link: the IMF is loaning money to countries with bad human rights.
Brink: the IMF is aiding the abuse of human rights.
Impact: credibility of the IMF is undermined because they are helping countries who abuse their citizens.

The hardest part for me is the impact. I get to the brink and I'm like, "The IMF is aiding the abuse of human rights", and pray the judge can connect the dots and magically see why this is so bad. :lol:

Thoughts? How would you explain this structure?

_________________
Emily E. Rose
2011-2012 | Rose/Schvaneveldt | UADC | R8
2012-2013 | Rose/Schvaneveldt | UADC | R8
2013-2014 | Rose/Schvaneveldt | UADC | R8

Hammy wrote:
Like bacon on that sandwich, you can change me from its mediocre self into a vibrant living sandwich of ecstasy.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Link, Brink, Impact
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2013 4:59 pm 
Offline
Cupcake
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:08 pm
Posts: 1211
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Illinois
emilyerose wrote:
My coach is trying to get us to implement the Link, Brink, Impact structure in our arguments. I think I understand it decently, but I was wondering how you other debaters would explain this.

In my understanding...here's how this thing works:
Link: the IMF is loaning money to countries with bad human rights.
Brink: the IMF is aiding the abuse of human rights.
Impact: credibility of the IMF is undermined because they are helping countries who abuse their citizens.

The hardest part for me is the impact. I get to the brink and I'm like, "The IMF is aiding the abuse of human rights", and pray the judge can connect the dots and magically see why this is so bad. :lol:

Thoughts? How would you explain this structure?


Good try, but the brink isn't really a brink (and a brink isn't needed in this DA all that much).

A brink DA is basically saying that the SQ is NEAR the point of terminal impact (i.e. near the brink of disadvantage), but not surpassed the point, and that the aff plan will cause us to pass the brink resulting in the DA impacts.

e.g. You're standing near the edge of a cliff, but are stable. Someone comes along and pushes you off the cliff and you die. The aff plan is the push off the cliff.

When you run a brink DA (which I normally don't like unless it's in terms of a very large terminal impact like economic catastrophe, or war), the brink part is the part that proves the aff plan will result in a big enough push to push the actor entirely off of the cliff, instead of just pushing them closer.

_________________
Drew Chambers
LinkedIn


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Link, Brink, Impact
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2013 5:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 6:06 pm
Posts: 207
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Wherever the tournament is.
Drew wrote:
e.g. You're standing near the edge of a cliff, but are stable. Someone comes along and pushes you off the cliff and you die. The aff plan is the push off the cliff.


This was incredibly helpful . :D Thank you!!

_________________
Emily E. Rose
2011-2012 | Rose/Schvaneveldt | UADC | R8
2012-2013 | Rose/Schvaneveldt | UADC | R8
2013-2014 | Rose/Schvaneveldt | UADC | R8

Hammy wrote:
Like bacon on that sandwich, you can change me from its mediocre self into a vibrant living sandwich of ecstasy.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Link, Brink, Impact
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2013 5:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 1070
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: NC
ditto what drew said. for another example, a common brink DA is violating the constitution (well, not so common this year, but whatever). instead of setting it up with a link + impact (link - "plan violates constitution," impact - "violating constitution is bad"), people often add in a brink (link - "plan violates constitution," brink - "constitution is already weakened, if we weaken it further it will become completely irrelevant," impact - "violating constitution is super bad, b/c it basically kills the constitution")

in the IMF DA, what you labeled as the brink is an internal link. and, what you labeled as a link is not really a link either, since a link usually connects the plan to some result. additional links in the "chain" are typically called internal links, although i'm not sure of the terminology on that one (could somebody who knows more than me help me out here?)

as for trouble with impacting, i think the key is to get it to a point where it is obvious to the judge that it is a bad thing. and by obvious, i mean really obvious. so, most people would say that "aiding the abuse of HR" is bad, but if you take the small step to "more HR abuse", then it's more real. instead of saying that aff's plan results in us merely aiding HR abuse (maybe the aid isn't important, maybe the dictators will violate HR anyways, etc), you say that aff's plan will definitively result in more human rights violations, that wouldn't have happened without an aff ballot.

edit: was the IMF thing intended to be a DA in the first place? or are you saying that your coach wants you to use this structure for arguments other than DAs?

_________________
- Will

2010-11 | Freshman | Bardsley/King | IX | 13th at Regionals
2011-12 | Sophomore | Dovel/King | IX | Q'd to Nationals
2012-13 | Junior | Dovel/King | IX | 17th at Nationals
2013-14 | Senior | Dovel/King | IX | 5th at Nationals

Baylor University class of 2018


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Link, Brink, Impact
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2013 5:57 pm 
Offline
Get off my lawn, young'ins!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:06 pm
Posts: 1912
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Frantically hitting Ctrl+Alt+Del
Drew wrote:
e.g. You're standing near the edge of a cliff, but are stable. Someone comes along and pushes you off the cliff and you die. The aff plan is the push off the cliff.
To break this up into DA parts, as an example:

Brink: "You're standing near the edge of a cliff"
Uniqueness: "but are stable"
Link: "Someone comes along and pushes you off the cliff"
Impact: "and you die"

_________________
Abe bimuí bithúo dousí abe - "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free"

COG 2016 generics-only sourcebook - NCFCA/Stoa (thread)
Factsmith research software - v1.5 currently available (thread)
Loose Nukes debate blog - stuff to read with your eyes.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Link, Brink, Impact
PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 6:06 pm
Posts: 207
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Wherever the tournament is.
kingwill wrote:
as for trouble with impacting, i think the key is to get it to a point where it is obvious to the judge that it is a bad thing. and by obvious, i mean really obvious. so, most people would say that "aiding the abuse of HR" is bad, but if you take the small step to "more HR abuse", then it's more real.

edit: was the IMF thing intended to be a DA in the first place? or are you saying that your coach wants you to use this structure for arguments other than DAs?

On impacting...that's good. Definitively setting apart that the DA will happen with an Aff ballot and won't with a Neg pretty much ties up the loose ends for me. ;) Thanks!

The IMF thing was just the example we used in class. I didn't purposefully structure it to be a DA, although the Link, Brink, Impact thing is supposed to be the structure for DAs. :P I'm sorry; that was probably pretty confusing.

So let me get this straight, and y'all tell me if I have this right:
Link: Aff abolishes the veto power
Brink: the P5 gets angry since they've lost their power
Impact: the P5 stops funding the UN

Is that example somewhat better? ;)

_________________
Emily E. Rose
2011-2012 | Rose/Schvaneveldt | UADC | R8
2012-2013 | Rose/Schvaneveldt | UADC | R8
2013-2014 | Rose/Schvaneveldt | UADC | R8

Hammy wrote:
Like bacon on that sandwich, you can change me from its mediocre self into a vibrant living sandwich of ecstasy.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Link, Brink, Impact
PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2013 12:02 am 
Offline
Cupcake
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:08 pm
Posts: 1211
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Illinois
emilyerose wrote:
kingwill wrote:
as for trouble with impacting, i think the key is to get it to a point where it is obvious to the judge that it is a bad thing. and by obvious, i mean really obvious. so, most people would say that "aiding the abuse of HR" is bad, but if you take the small step to "more HR abuse", then it's more real.

edit: was the IMF thing intended to be a DA in the first place? or are you saying that your coach wants you to use this structure for arguments other than DAs?

On impacting...that's good. Definitively setting apart that the DA will happen with an Aff ballot and won't with a Neg pretty much ties up the loose ends for me. ;) Thanks!

The IMF thing was just the example we used in class. I didn't purposefully structure it to be a DA, although the Link, Brink, Impact thing is supposed to be the structure for DAs. :P I'm sorry; that was probably pretty confusing.

So let me get this straight, and y'all tell me if I have this right:
Link: Aff abolishes the veto power
Brink: the P5 gets angry since they've lost their power
Impact: the P5 stops funding the UN

Is that example somewhat better? ;)


Closer, but still not quite on target. I think that you think that brink and uniqueness are the same. They are similar, but brink is more nuanced.

Uniqueness is this "that the DA will happen with an Aff ballot and won't with a Neg."

Brink is closer to this: all the ingredients for a bad thing to happen are in the SQ, just not in the right amount.

Using your veto power DA in an oversimplified version:

Link: Aff abolished veto power
Link: P5 get angry
Internal Link: P5 already angry
Brink: P5 said that if one more bad thing happens they will stop UN funding
Impact: P5 stop UN funding

You see, for the above DA to be a brink DA, the P5 have to already be angry in the SQ, just not enough angry to do bad things.

Uniqueness: More to do with the existence of things
Brink: More to do with the amount of existent things

_________________
Drew Chambers
LinkedIn


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Link, Brink, Impact
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 1389
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Austin, TX
Something important: Many people teach "link, brink, and impact" because it is catchy and memorable.

A disad, to be a disad, need only have link and impact. That would be, cause and effect. IF there is another item that's "essential," it's uniqueness, not brink.

So don't be "ashamed" to have a single card saying doing X will cause Y bad thing. That's the best kind of DA because it's not using chains of logic and combining multiple authors to say an action is bad. ONE person is able to see the full chain of events! Link-->Impact is the most powerful kind of DA.

Here's a link to some more helpful stuff on DAs: http://www.ethosdebate.com/2010/11/over ... o-respond/

_________________
Upside Down Debate. The book that teaches you the deeper why of debate, from the ground up.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Link, Brink, Impact
PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2013 9:21 pm 
Offline
The Great White Sharc
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:58 pm
Posts: 4769
Home Schooled: Yes
Read what Isaiah said a couple times and remember it.

I am a firm believer that brinks should be incredibly rare in debate for two reasons: 1. They only apply to a type of disadvantage which happens to be the most rare type. 2. They aren't particularly necessary even in those types of disadvantages.

Like the others have said, if you imagine a disad in the shape of a cliff--the status quo goes on as it is until something is pushed too far and everything tumbles down into impact-land--then the brink is the argument that we are currently near the cliff.

But, the most common types of disadvantages are linear--the plan changes something about the status quo, and as that variable changes, bad things increasingly happen.

As an example, let's look at a pollution DA: If the plan increases the amount of pollution in the air, you could impact this both ways. Linearly, the most pollutants in the air, the most people suffer and die from things like lung cancer (or whatever pollution causes). This needs no brink because there is more or less a steady, linear line of causation. But, you could also impact that DA by saying something like...the policy will confirm the main international governmental players that the US is not committed to reducing pollution and fighting climate control, which causes China to similarly become more apathetic and removes any progress they may have been planning, which secures massive disaster through climate change in the next century. This is a "cliff" DA, and in this case a brink card may be that China is currently on the fence of whether or not they will pursue policies that aggressively fight pollution.

But, in that case, the China on the fence card is not strictly necessary if you have the right link card. What it can do is help, particularly if the brink card is new, because it gives you relevancy to the present day.

Having said all that, I have never labeled an argument a "brink" because I think it's not necessary. At its core every disadvantage is very simple: the plan does something, and because of that bad stuff happens. Use whatever reasoning and cards are necessary to connect those two happenings. All of the connection arguments are simply part of the narrative you are creating. Every time I've run a DA in college, where "link" "internal link" and "brink" are big buzzwords, I just said "subpoint A, B, C, etc" and never had a problem.

_________________
Marc Davis

I currently help coach at TACT in Region X.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Link, Brink, Impact
PostPosted: Sun Mar 31, 2013 4:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:35 pm
Posts: 2441
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Omaha, NE
Here's the way I explain it to novices at Hillsdale:

Isaiah is right, don't be ashamed to have an argument that's just one card--that's always best since it saves you time and makes your job of explaining the story pretty easy. However, for organizational purposes, that's called a "turn," not a DA. A turn is basically taking the aff case and saying they make the harms worse. So, for example, aff says "we increase the effectiveness of humanitarian aid." You go to that point on the flow (probably solvency or ADVs) and say "Turn. They increase human rights abuses." By putting such arguments next to that point on the flow rather than as a DA, the judge can clearly see "Oh, that's interesting. They make their own harms worse" rather than having two sort-of-but-not-really connected points on the flow.

A fully-fleshed out DA, however, needs 3 parts: Uniqueness, Link, and Impact. They are as follows; things in (parenthesis) are nice by not required:
A. Uniqueness--basically the inherency of the DA. It's simply what's going on right now, and should be from as recently as possible. For some DAs we wait until we get to the hotel at the tournament to cut the uniqueness. This is necessary to show the impact won't be triggered in the status quo. If you don't have good (or any) uniqueness a sharp aff will just say its non-unique and some other event should have already triggered the impact.
B. Link--How the aff changes the uniqueness. Like Isaiah/Drew/everyone else said, the link is how the aff changes the direction of the status quo.
(C. Brink--card that explains why now is the key time why the DA can be triggered. Basically, political, economic, or some other factors are just right for the DA to be triggered. In a way its like uniqueness, but its more specific to your particular DA scenario)
(D. Internal Link--if you need any more cards to get from the link to the impact, they're called internal links)
E. Impact--Why I care. In your example, "causes human rights abuses" is sort of your impact. I would recommend using that as your internal link and throwing in another card as your impact telling me why human rights are important. After all, HR abuses happen all the time, so if the aff can solve some other problem, why vote neg just because of some pesky HR problems? There are plenty of cards out there (try Vaclav Havel's 1999 address to the Canadian parliament--that's my go-to HR impact card) that say governments must protect HR above everything else. THat means, no matter the benefits of the aff plan, you vote neg because they violate the purpose of the UN/government.

I can't really give you a DA example for NCFCA's res, because I'm not terribly familiar with it, but here's a generic DA shell we're running this year. Of course we have cards for all this:
A. Uniqueness: Russia's economy is stable but is dependent on oil
B. Link: Aff's switch to sustainable agriculture decreases US demand for oil
C. Internal link: 1. A decrease in worldwide demand causes the Saudis to overproduce to drive out competitors
2. Overproducing Saudis/OPEC forces Russia out of the market, collapsing their economy
D. Impact: Collapse of Russian economy causes nuclear war (this card is fantastic b/c it says the Russian economy is the biggest moral, economic, military, agricultural, and diplomatic issue of our time)

_________________
-Bryan
Co-Founder of Olympus Forensics

Google it, we're the second link that pops up. We're pretty proud of that.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Link, Brink, Impact
PostPosted: Sun Mar 31, 2013 4:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 2:40 am
Posts: 1179
Home Schooled: No
So I know this is a discussion about the basics, but there are some finer points to keep in mind as well.

Turns are enthymematic disadvantages: they're a disadvantage with a premise omitted, in this case because the opponent has already supplied the missing premise. What LocutusofBorg offered up was a solvency turn, which it isn't necessary to impact, because the affirmative's harm is the impact. If you turned the affirmative's harm and said "human rights abuses are good" -- maybe James 1:2-4, or something -- then that would also be an enthymematic disadvantage with the link missing, because the link would be the affirmative's solvency claim.

I say all that to make the point that uniqueness is still an issue in a turn debate, but only for solvency turns, not for harm turns. Let's say the affirmative's harm was imminent economic collapse, and by "imminent" I mean later today. The negative deploys a solvency turn that says "Your plan would cause an economic collapse." The affirmative could say "Well, now we have to debate it out on our solvency evidence versus their turn argument, but you, the judge, should keep in mind that an economic collapse is inevitable. Voting negative does not mean avoiding an economic collapse. If you think it's a close call between the quality of both teams' evidence, remember that a negative vote is a vote for despair, but an affirmative vote is a gamble that might pay off in disaster averted."

It doesn't work that way for harm turns, because the affirmative has already stipulated that human rights abuses that would happen absent the plan will stop as a result of the plan's adoption. They could only eat into the uniqueness of the harm turn by saying "The human rights abuses will go away on their own absent the plan." But that's inconsistent with the claims of the 1AC, so the affirmative can't do that. The negative could accidentally do that for them, which is why it's important to think through what other case attacks you're combining with your turns, but if the affirmative has a prima facie 1AC with all stock issues met, then affirmatives have little hope of defeating harm turns by saying they aren't unique.

"Try or die" is not a great situation for any 2AR to find herself in, but the point that solvency turns have to be unique, but harm turns do not, is important to grasp.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Link, Brink, Impact
PostPosted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 4:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 1389
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Austin, TX
@Dr.Srader's post:
Concepts the same, but terminology we tend to see is a bit different. There are two types of "turns" that are typical:
- Impact turn (the "harm turn" mentioned above, where you reverse perspective on what happens as good or bad)
- Link turn (where you prove case/status quo leads in opposite direction, thereby claiming the impact stated by opponents as your own)

Both are enthymemes, but the former omits the link (given by the case or DA), whereas the latter omits proof that the impact is an impact (given by the case or DA). Is there a term you give to what I'm calling a "link turn"? Maybe it's just solvency of some type, but it's something that AFF can deploy against DAs as well.

@LofB: Mostly in agreement, with two minor exceptions... I contend that ALL elements of a DA can be found in a single card (if it's awesome), and that if it is a new issue (e.g. "your case guts the NPT" but AFF advantages and harms never mentioned NPT) it would at that point not be a "turn".

_________________
Upside Down Debate. The book that teaches you the deeper why of debate, from the ground up.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Link, Brink, Impact
PostPosted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 5:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 2:40 am
Posts: 1179
Home Schooled: No
Link turn and impact turn are what affirmatives do to disadvantages. Or, I suppose, what negatives could do against a disadvantage to their counterplan. Solvency turns and harm turns are negative attacks against an affirmative's case; offensive attacks on the stock issues. Although I will say, the last time I judged any NPDA, they'd dispensed with the stock issues labels and were talking about "link" and "impact" in the 1AC (or PMC), which threw me a bit. Same moves, different labels.

And to my previous point: if they say A causes B, and you turn it with A prevents B, you have to win uniqueness to win your turn. If they say B is bad, and you turn it with B is good, you don't.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Link, Brink, Impact
PostPosted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 4:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:35 pm
Posts: 2441
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Omaha, NE
@DrSrader:
Correct, the example I gave is a solvency turn. Personally, I very rarely run harms turns (i.e., HR abuses are good, etc), just because they're usually really difficult to get judges to buy. Obvious exceptions are hegemony, democracy, globalism, (sometimes) global warming, etc. A "solvency turn" functions more as "you make your own harms worse," which I guess is still a turn on harms. However, I find it easier to have judges flow it on solvency just because that makes it clearer how your card interacts with solvency. Also it makes it so the aff can't just extend solvency and cross-apply it; it makes your turn a very clear answer to solvency proper.
EDIT:
Fantastic analysis of the solvency turns. Although there are some cases that it doesn't apply--inherency can function as uniqueness for the turn, if you're going to collapse to a solvency turn, there should be some mitigation on the harm. In your example, "The economic collapse won't happen because X, Y, and Z, but the aff causes it to happen via my turn."
For an example of when uniqueness isn't a huge deal, a debater from Western Kentucky is running an aff with a 3-card biochar advantage. The A card is that biochar is underused/not used at all (I forget which), the solvency is her plan allows widespread use of biochar. We have a turn that, in one card, says biochar would lead to extinction of all humans. In that case, uniqueness doesn't matter for the same reason it doesn't matter on the harms debate--the aff has already supplied it, in this case with inherency.
Isaiah wrote:
@LofB: Mostly in agreement, with two minor exceptions... I contend that ALL elements of a DA can be found in a single card (if it's awesome), and that if it is a new issue (e.g. "your case guts the NPT" but AFF advantages and harms never mentioned NPT) it would at that point not be a "turn".

1. Yes, they can be found in one card. That is, however very rare and in 7 years of debate I've only seen it like twice. But yes, if you find that awesome of a card, you could have a one-card DA. We have such a card for biochar in our files right now.
2. Again, you're right, that wouldn't be a turn. This applies more to college than NCFCA, but I wouldn't signpost it as an off-case, simply because judges get cranky when non-novices waste a sheet of paper on one card. I would probably find the part of the aff that guts the NDT (plan text, solvency, something must give you the link), put the DA there, and call it a turn. That's more stylistic than anything, though.

_________________
-Bryan
Co-Founder of Olympus Forensics

Google it, we're the second link that pops up. We're pretty proud of that.


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited