Disadvantages of eating quail eggs
On this Wikipedia the language links are at the top of the page across from the article title. Not to be confused with Disadvantaged or drawback. This article needs disadvantages of eating quail eggs citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. A disadvantage is also used in the Lincoln-Douglas debate format. 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 and the plan’s effect on it. Uniqueness shows why the Impacts haven’t 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.
An Example: If 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. 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”. 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.
The internal link in our example would be that government spending leads to economic collapse. The impact is the result of the policy action that make it undesirable. Internal links are often undesirable things by themselves, and could be considered impacts. However, the worst of the consequences, or the final one in the chain of events, is usually given the label of “impact”. Other terminal impacts might include severe human rights abuses, such as near universal slavery or loss of individuality. A traditional DA follows the structure above. Traditional DA’s can include or exclude the internal link.
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. 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. A politics disadvantage is unique in the way that it links to affirmative plan .
Rather than linking to the specific plan action, it links to the fact that a plan passes at all. 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. 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, however, say the politics disadvantages are “real world” and provide education on how bills are passed and politics in general. Examples of these fiat arguments include Vote No and Intrinsicness. Biscon: Plan actually or perceptually harms business – Spending: Plan costs too much money causing the dollar to lose value. A more nuanced version of this argument focuses on rather investors will buy our t-bills or if a credit agency will downgrade our credit.
US, if the US destroys their federalism, then wars will break out in other countries as a result, or that state control is key to stop climate change. Constitutionality DA – plan is unconstitutional, and creating it would set a bad precedent, causing other unconstitutional policies to be passed. Overpopulation or “Malthus DA” DA – by the plan saving lives, it undermines natural death checks, which lead to overpopulation and a “Malthusian” catastrophe because of it. Relation disadvantages – plan harms our relationship with another nation, possibly leading to nuclear conflict. 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 turns, which argue that the situation is somehow the reverse of the negative’s claim. 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 affirmative simply claims that the plan does not cause the impact. 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. A variant on the No Link, it states that either the link or the previous internal link does not lead to another internal link. 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. Arguing the impact’s uniqueness is an underused but effective argument.
