The most important never made argument is....

Link threshold.


This applies in basically every instance and for every argument. Link threshold is the idea that you have to pass a certain bar to trigger the internal link/impact. While difficult to explain in the world where the offense defense paradigm is so dominant that people can't conceptualize spending time on defense, this argument is devastating. Let's look at some examples.


1. The Presidential election disad- the average one of these I saw at St. Marks went like this

Obama leads in all national polls- Some guy from october

Renewable energy is popular- something from 06 or 07

Energy is a key campaign issue for McCain- blog in June


This is not a disad. At no point do either of these "link" cards make the arg that passing an energy policy now would allow McCain to bounce back and overtake Obama's lead. Sometimes people explain this, but they explain it as "Uniqueness overwhelms the link". I think this analysis falls short because generally the neg just reads link magnifiers like "no really, energy is SUPER popular" and then the aff drops it and moves on. A proper link threshold argument would go something like this


"No threshold- even if the plan boosts McCain no evidence indicates it will be enough to swing the election. Their evidence on this point pre-dates thier uniqueness and doesn't assume the extent of of Obama's lead or the way the race has shifted post economic collapse. Providing this internal link is the negative's burden- failure to do so should result in the disad being assigned zero risk. Offense defense on crucial threshold issues is anti educational- it encourages the neg to find obscure improbable disads they can then win on because the aff has no carded offense"


What can the neg say to this? In reality, nothing. But they will say a mix of the following:

1. Our link is really big
2. Swing voters are key
3. Energy is connected to the economy due to gas prices


Now, here is where most aff's wave the white flag of surrender. The 1AR will just say something like "extend no link threshold, they don't have a card, this is a neg burden, they've conceeded it" and move on. This is not an argument. Most 1AR's try and extend way too many arguments and do not take the time to respond to all the negative's answers, thereby guaranteeing they will lose this argument. A proper 1AR would go like this:

The neg has conceeded our meta frame- threshold issues are absolute and a negative burden. If we win no link threshold the disad gets zero risk. They have no link evidence that assumes Obama's current lead or prominence of the economy- their old evidence doesn't pass the test
-the Link is not big- energy was prominent when oil was at 140 a barrel but it is now at half that
-No link uniqueness- off shore drilling and production tax credit should of triggered the energy key link- there is no meaningful distinction between them and the plan that would matter to voters- we can win the debate on this argument alone
-No Swing voters- they now care more about the economy
-Gas prices is answered above

Note the 1AR both explains the aff argument, what it is, what the impact is, and what the framework for evaluating it is. Maybe reading a card on PTC could be added. That "block" should take about 20 seconds max to read. If you only have a minute on a DA its much better to spend 20 seconds on each of 3 arguments then it is to try and extedn 6+ when the 2NC made multiple answers to all of them.



2. The Cap K- or really any "masking" link critique. Here the negative must prove that the degree to which the affirmative props up capitalism is suffiecient to either prevent its collapse or trigger an extinction impact. Here is the outline of a debate I judged.

Aff- PTC exists now, will be extended for 1 year, we should extend it for 10 years
Neg- Cap is collapsing now due to the financial crises, plan props it up, cap = extinction


This is a joke. In order to win this cap DA the neg has to win that there are people out there who are rejecting capitalism due to the bailout, these people are unpersuaded that they should go back to capitalism due to the 1 year extension of the production tax credit, however- if it were extended for 10 years they would jump back into the capitalist fold.


Now with K's it is not usually that simple. The neg will produce a series of other links to obfuscate the issue. These links are most likely things like
-you view nature as a commodity/market mechanisms cause commensurability
-you read an economy advantage, therefore you are a capitalist
-renewable energy is an attempt to consume more and avoid the consequences

The issue of link threshold might not respond to all of these links (although I believe it does) but how to deal with them is beyond the intended scope of this article. So while I acknowledge you probably won't be in a debate where this is the case, for the sake of education lets pretend they only make the masking link.

So how do you debate link threshold on a critique? Well I think we can all agree that there are "degrees" of capitalism. The neg oftentimes will say "capitalism makes extinction inevitable" a terribly stupidly worded argument, but one that basically presupposes that capitalism will facillitate things like militarism/environmental destruction that will kill all life on earth.

This has not happend yet (as I am alive). So, why is that? Well, the only logical explanation is that there is a "tipping point" or link threshold at which point capitalism triggers these catastrophic impacts (while it is possible that the neg could argue "its only a matter of time, not degree" this is dumb- over the last 100 years some countries have gotten more capitalist, others have gotten less capitalist, this accounts for the changes/impact disparities of capitalism, there is no unified capitalism that exists in a homogonized form throughout time, and if there was then the link to the affirmative would be irrelevant).

So the question becomes, does the affiramtive push us over the edge? There are two ways the neg can win this.

1. Uniqueness- this takes the form of commie blog cards that are like "capitalism is collapsing now- tension with russia, financial crises etc all prove!!". If this is the case the neg must win that extending the PTC for 9 more years is sufficient to make people believe they should not abandon capitalism due to the conflict with russia/credit crunch etc. The stupidity of this requires no elaboration, suffice to say the neg evidence will not come anywhere close to saying this.

2. Alternative- the neg will say "withdrawal from capitalism" and claim that this somehow ends capital. Now most teams usually make an argument to this in regards to the permutation that goes something like "if the alternative is able to overcome capitalism of the SQ, it can overcome whatever capitalism exists in the permutation". Not a bad arg. But it could be better.


Neg answers to the perm will be things like "cap is a yes no question" or "the perm coopts the alternative etc". The aff needs to start in the 1AR setting up a framework for how to evaluate these arguments and the way to do that is link threshold. I would say something like:

"Capitalism only triggers thier impacts in its excess- a tiny amount of capitalism is not enough to cause extinction- this is empirically proven by 5k years of history. While the permutation might not result in ZERO capitalism- it certainly results in a tiny amount. An amount less than what exists in the status quo- thus even if the permutation links, it doesn't link ENOUGH to trigger their impacts- their is no meaningful distinction between the alternative and the permutation"

Obviously you would then go on to refute the specifics of thier answers to the permutation as explained above on the politics example.



3. CP Solvency-this is one that many judges implicitly acknowledge but the neg rarely explicitly brings up. The idea here is that even if the CP does not solve AS WELL as the plan, it solves sufficiently to avoid the impact.


Most of the time the neg needs to take advantage of this when they are reading a ridiculous CP like lopez or consult. Here, the affirmative may have evidence that says "now key" or "only congress can solve". However, this evidence in no way assumes the ridiculous fiat of the CP.

Fed key against lopez is a total non starter- the CP creates a new USFG and has the new USFG do the plan, not a single piece of fed key evidence in existence assumes this action of the CP, and thus no warrant could possibly exist to create a solvency deficit to lopez (which is why theory on lopez is an absolute must and pretty easy to win). However negs lose debates sometimes because the aff reads a card that says Fed key to market perception or some such nonsens. In that case the neg should respond:

"If the market is perceptive enough to notice a differance between state and fedearl action, then they will know that the CP solves the case. The reason fed action is key to reassure markets is because businesses percieve state action is impermanent- at any point the Fed can step in and supercede state law. The CP makes this impossible because it eliminates federal authority to do so. There is no concievable world where businesses would percieve a difference between fed and state action and yet they would not percieve this monumental change created by the CP"