Turn (policy debate)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Part of the series Policy Debate |
|
 |
|
| Organization | |
| Policy debate competitions |
|
| Format | |
| Structure of policy debate · Resolution |
|
| Participants | |
|
Affirmative · Negative · Judge |
|
| Types of Arguments | |
|
Stock Issues · Case· Disadvantage |
|
| Argumentative Concepts | |
In policy debate, a turn is an argument that proves an argument the other side has made is in fact support for one's own side. This is as opposed to a take-out which merely argues that the argument the other team has made is wrong.
For example, if the negative said "The plan increases poverty," the affirmative could turn with "the plan decreases poverty" or take-out by proving the plan didn't increase poverty.
There are two types of turns:
- Link Turn
- Impact Turn
[edit] Link Turns
Example: If the negative argued the plan would destroy the economy, the affirmative would link turn this argument by arguing that the plan would help the economy.
A link turn requires that the affirmative control the uniqueness, that is whether the disadvantage will occur in the status quo. In the above example, in order to link turn effectively, the affirmative would need to win a non-unique argument, i.e. that the economy will collapse now. Otherwise, the Negative can kick the disadvantage, arguing it is a moot issue, by saying that economic collapse will not occur in the status quo, so the prevention of a non-existent event carries no advantage.
[edit] Impact Turns
Example: If the negative argued the plan would cause the economy to collapse, resulting in war the affirmative could impact turn by arguing that economic decline would actually dampen desire to go to war.
An impact turn requires impact calculus, that is: the reasons economic decline would make war less likely must outweigh the reasons it would spur war. For this reason, Impact Turns are usually run with No Impact arguments.
Note that the line between link turns and impact turns can be rather blurry. For instance, in the above disadvantage, the affirmative could also impact turn by arguing that nuclear war would be an on-face positive event (perhaps in preventing the development of even more deadly weapons in the future). In general, the phrase link turn is used to describe a turn applied directly to what the plan action does, and impact turn to a turn applied to what the negative has asserted is a good or bad thing. Where there is ambiguity, turns in the middle of this hierarchy of causation are often called internal link turns.
[edit] Double Turns
It is a classic debate mistake for an affirmative to read both link and impact turns. In the above example, the affirmative might argue that the plan was key to prevent the economy from collapsing, and that economic collapse would dampen the probability of war. While either of these arguments alone turns the disadvantage, the two arguments together double-turn. The negative can grant these two arguments, and the affirmative is stuck arguing that the plan would increase the probability of a war.
