There are many reasons politics is a popular disad on every topic, one of them is that it is generally a quick way to get to nuke war. No matter what the issue is, if its on the presidents agenda its a safe bet there will be people making hyperbolic statements about it. While most disads/advantages are always exaggerations, the impact evidence selected to read for politics is generally some of the worst.
That the evidence is bad, and more specifically that it is often biased, is an issue frequently brought up, less frequently focused on, and even less frequently a round winning issue. It should be.
Suppose that the 1NC presented the following politics disadvantage shell:
Obama will get START ratified in the status quo.
The plan kills Obama’s political capital so he can’t get START ratified.
START ratification increases U.S.-Russia relations, decreases the risk of terrorism, and decreases proliferation.
Proliferation causes war.
Inspired by the list of camp affirmatives that was compiled by Christina Tallungan, Alex Agne of Detroit Country Day School has compiled a list of the disadvantages that were produced at this summer’s institutes. The complete list (in alphabetical order) is below the fold.
Stefan has posted a brief 411 on the politics disad for the start of the year.
I agree with his sentiment that if you are going to read an Obama good disad you should read healthcare so I won’t belabor that point. But I do think the article was a little light on where the disad will most likely get pushed- which is Obama bad disads. Nothing is gonna pass, there is way to much division in the democratic party. The amount of link cards written for a winners win style Obama needs to take command link is ridiculous.
There are a couple of interesting threads on Cross-X.com that discuss the theoretical underpinnings of political process disadvantages. In particular, Ankur Sarodia has developed a mathematical model that seeks to demonstrate that certain political process disadvantages are not legitimate considerations when determining whether the affirmative plan should be enacted. In this guest post, Dylan Keenan—debate coach at Emory University and the Westminster Schools—provides a rebuttal to the Sarodia model.