What are links?

[Clay Stewart]

Why does everyone use the "Iceland should stop giving Sweden pineapples" example?

Because it's an amazing example of an utterly ridiculous advocacy that would bypass block files/ allow the debater to delink.

[Zhou]

What the hell is delinking on aff?

"Sanctions should not be used. Your argument does not apply to my position that sanctions should not be used."

[Clay Stewart]

What the hell is delinking on aff?

"Sanctions should not be used. Your argument does not apply to my position that sanctions should not be used."

Example:

AC: Sanctions on Iran prevent regime change/ haven't been effective/ etc.

NC: Sanctions are effective/ can be used to achieve FPOs.

1AR: Delink. My AC said that sanctions have not been effective in Iran, so the negative's case is not applicable. He has no Iran specific evidence, etc.

[Zhou]

I think that argument should be allowed because stupidity checks.

[Clay Stewart]

I think that argument should be allowed because stupidity checks.

Pretty much.

[JamesM]

I think delinking is probably the same as saying 'no link'. I dislike the term 'delink' bc it sounds to shifty and illegit. Its always legit to make a no link argument. If the neg really didnt come prepared with links to your aff, then take advantage of that. An example would be:
1AC -Iran aff
1NC- Sudan neg (Link- need sanctions to stop genocide)
1AR- 'No link- They dont read any specific link evidence- we only lift sanctions on Iran and there isnt a tradeoff between that and Sudanese sanctions-And, their generic evidence isnt a link to our aff bc it doesnt assume the current political climate in Iran etc.

If the neg is framed as a DA the most appropriate way to follow up the no link argument is by saying the case outweighs, the DA is non-unique, and also win link or Impact turns.

If its framed as a CP, then make all the arguments youd make against the DA- you can test the link through a perm- for example

1AR- 'Perm: do both- lift sanctions on Iran and use Sudanese sanctions at the same time.' This will almost always put the aff ahead on single example negs unless they neg chooses to either read a specific link or actually clash with the aff.

[Clay Stewart]

I think delinking is probably the same as saying 'no link'. I dislike the term 'delink' bc it sounds to shifty and illegit. Its always legit to make a no link argument. If the neg really didnt come prepared with links to your aff, then take advantage of that. An example would be:
1AC -Iran aff
1NC- Sudan neg (Link- need sanctions to stop genocide)
1AR- 'No link- They dont read any specific link evidence- we only lift sanctions on Iran and there isnt a tradeoff between that and Sudanese sanctions-And, their generic evidence isnt a link to our aff bc it doesnt assume the current political climate in Iran etc.

If the neg is framed as a DA the most appropriate way to follow up the no link argument is by saying the case outweighs, the DA is non-unique, and also win link or Impact turns.

If its framed as a CP, then make all the arguments youd make against the DA- you can test the link through a perm- for example

1AR- 'Perm: do both- lift sanctions on Iran and use Sudanese sanctions at the same time.' This will almost always put the aff ahead on single example negs unless they neg chooses to either read a specific link or actually clash with the aff.

Even if we parametricize, we still have the concept of negative/ affirmative ground. The affirmative in this example, despite specifying, has to say that sanctions will not help/ are not necessary in Sudan. If not, then this is abusive, and will receive as many theory shells as I can put out in the second negative speech.