The Parli Debate Prepbook: A Community-Driven Guide To Modern Parliamentary Debate
form, to withdraw their support from the US economy, which will trigger negative economic impacts. It is tempting for MGCs to answer this position in the same way they might approach a “Spending Bad” disadvantage — which is to say that “the plan actually helps the economy for X reasons and therefore turns the position.” A skilled MOC will understand that arguments about how “the government plan helps the economy” are not directly responsive to the position. It is possible to spend money on highway construction, for example, and see positive economic benefits because traffic times are decreased but also cause businesses to lose confidence in the economy because of the perception of reckless spending. The unique nature of the Business Confidence Disadvantage can be used to undermine a large number of MGC responses and that holds true for almost any disadvantage. MOCs should attempt to understand how the LOC is constructing positions to undermine MGC offense. As outlined in the above scenario, MGC responses to LOC shells often fail to answer the specificity of LOC arguments. Disadvantages are always potentially viable when MGC’s fail to meet minimum argument thresholds to properly constructed LOC positions— that is, the MGC must typically make a certain number or a certain type of arguments for it to become untenable for the MOC to defend that particular position. This idea is obviously tied to an understanding of how to properly construct LOC positions. There are several arguments that every MOC ought demand that they find a way into the LOC: a disadvantage should always attempt to both (1) turn and (2) outweigh the government case and these arguments should be made explicit in the LOC. A MOC that is able to generate even a tenuous link to a disadvantage can win the
116