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.
These results are at the end of the chain of reasoning of your DA (starts with your link with internal links spanning over the Brink with Uniqueness and lead to the Impact),[3] then continuing along with the example, an impact would be that economic collapse may cause nuclear war.
While it appears outlandish to outsiders and even to some debaters now, it originated in the 1980s during the height of the nuclear freeze movement, specifically after the publication of The Fate of the Earth by Jonathan Schell.
Other terminal impacts might include severe human rights abuses, such as near universal slavery or loss of individuality.
A commonly accepted theory holds that a sufficiently philosophical linear disadvantage with an alternative becomes a kritik.
Rather than linking to the specific plan action, it links to the idea that the plan does not exist in a vacuum but is exposed to political costs, measures, tactics, the overall political milieu--with no regard to Fiat and presumes the debate theory of Fiat could be settled anyway.
The Impact is typically referred to as a "Double-Whammy": they are busy not solving something, resources are ineffectively applied, now there is a two-headed hydra problem, viz.
A midterms version could focus on particular races or the general balance of the Congress; an example of a single-race midterms disadvantage would be that the reelection of Senator Daniel Akaka is critical to free speech, and plan prevents Akaka from winning; a "balance of Congress" disadvantage might hold that the plan is a credit to the Republicans, who would increase their grip on Congress and allow extensive drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Its use in any given debate round is entirely dependent on how well the affirmative argues that the judge should accept the model, a somewhat time-consuming process.
Argument from Intrinsicness is there is no reason that Congress can't pass both the plan and the bill, meaning they are not competitive.
Debate coach James Kellam writes that impact uniqueness is an underused but highly effective argument.
[5] For example: In this case, the argument that OPEC flooded the market last year with cheap oil and there was no nuclear war would be considered an impact uniqueness takeout.
For example, the argument that a weak US military prevents nuclear conflict could be considered an impact or internal link turn.
[1] For example, arguing both that the plan would increase US military power and that nuclear conflict is desirable would be a double-turn.
In this case, the negative team could concede both arguments, arguing that since the plan prevents a desirable event from occurring, it should not be passed.
Since turns are reasons why the affirmative's plan is actively beneficial (as opposed to takeouts, which only argue that it is not harmful), the negative must take extra care once one has been read.
In this case, the affirmative could not read an impact takeout; if they did, the negative could kick the disadvantage by arguing that even if the plan strengthens the US military, doing so does not affect the probability of a nuclear war.
[4] Or the aff may claim that uniqueness overwhelms the link; that conditions in the status quo are so far away from the threshold that the impact will not happen.
For example: the plan repeals the Hyde Amendment to allow abortion funding through federal sources by using congress; the negative runs a courts counterplan that repels the hyde amendment and runs a politics disadvantage that says the plan will drain the political capital of the president which causes a certain bill not to be passed; the affirmative would claim that the "perm shields the link" because congress would claim that the courts made them repeal the hyde amendment, therefore no political capital would be lost.