1. Conceptsferen Os Made For Today's And Tomorrow's Generation Tv
  2. Conceptsferen Os Made For Today's And Tomorrow's Generation Differences
  3. Conceptsferen Os Made For Today's And Tomorrow's Generation 7
  4. Conceptsferen Os Made For Today's And Tomorrow's Generation 10
Policy debate
Organization
Format
Argument types
Policy debate
  • Generation Y (or Millennials, Nexters, Generation Next) Generation Y - are those people born between 1980 and 2000. (4) They have no recollection of the Reagan era, do not remember the Cold War, and have known only one Germany. Their world has always had AIDS, answering machines, microwave ovens, and videocassette recorders.
  • Baby Boomers were interacting with their parents, members of the “Silent” or “Builder” generation, born between 1925 and 1945. Today, Boomers are mostly in charge and getting hit with the new wave of change brought in by the Millennial generation, born between 1982 and 2004, sometimes called Generation Y.
  • Scale compute resources with Intel® Xeon® Scalable processors that deliver a 27% increase in cores and 50% increase in bandwidth over the previous generation. Address massive data growth with up to 18 x 3.5' or 32 x 2.5' drives and 8 PCIe slots.

Generation X has around 44 to 50 million Americans who were born between 1965 and 1980. They're smaller than the previous and succeeding generations, but they're often credited for bringing work.

In policy debate, a disadvantage (abbreviated as DA, and sometimes referred to as: Disad) is an argument that a team brings up against a policy action that is being considered. A disadvantage is also used in Lincoln Douglas Debate. [1]

Structure[edit]

A Disadvantage usually has four key elements. 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. A traditional threshold DA, however, has a structure as follows:

Uniqueness[edit]

Uniqueness shows why the Impacts haven't occurred yet or to a substantial extent and will uniquely occur with the adoption of either the Affirmative's plan or the Negative's counterplan.

An Example: If the negative team argues that the affirmative plan will result in nuclear proliferation, it would also argue that the status quo will avoid nuclear proliferation. If the Affirmative claims that nuclear proliferation is already occurring, the negative team could argue that adoption of the plan would result in a unique increase in nuclear proliferation. If the plan causes no net change in the rate of nuclear proliferation, the disadvantage is not unique to the plan, and therefore not relevant.

External links[edit]

For the disadvantage to have relevance in the round, the negative team must show that the affirmative plan causes the disadvantage that is claimed. If the DA stated that the plan takes money from the government, and the affirmative team shows that the plan does not increase governmental spending, then the DA would be considered to have 'no link'.

Internal link[edit]

The internal link connects the link to the impact, or, it shows the steps the link causes to get to the impact. Not all DA's use an internal link but some have multiple internals. The internal link in our example would be that government spending leads to economic collapse.

Impact[edit]

The impact is the result of the policy action that make it undesirable. 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), then continuing along with the example, an impact would be that economic collapse may cause nuclear war. The Impact is the edge of the sword of your DA and is usually a significantly bad event caused by inertia evident through the internal links inside the link off over the brink and uniquely so.

Internal links are often undesirable things by themselves, and could be considered impacts. However, the worst of the consequences, or the final one in the chain of events, is usually given the label of 'impact'. For example, nuclear war is probably worse than economic collapse, so nuclear war is given the 'impact' label, even though economic collapse (the internal link) could itself be viewed as an impact.

The nuclear war impact is the terminal (i.e. final) impact in virtually every disadvantage today. 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. Barring nuclear war, the terminal impact usually ends up as extinction anyway, either human extinction or the extinction of all life on Earth; the most common mechanisms for these are cataclysmic climatic change (in the style of The Day After Tomorrow), or uncontrolled undiscovered uncurable disease. Most debate coaches use the nuclear war argument as a way of training young policy debaters.

Other terminal impacts might include severe human rights abuses, such as near universal slavery or loss of individuality. These types of impacts are usually argued under a deontological framework or as a turn to a human rights advantage

Types of disadvantages[edit]

Traditional[edit]

A traditional DA follows the structure above. Traditional DA's can include or exclude the internal link.

Linear[edit]

A linear disadvantage does not have uniqueness. The negative concedes that the status quo has a problem but insists the plan increases that problem's severity. A commonly accepted theory holds that a sufficiently philosophical linear disadvantage with an alternative becomes a kritik. There is also much controversy over kritiks being linear disadvantages, due to the fact that most kritik argue the affirmative plan over a discursive level, while a disadvantage argues the affirmative's actions.

Non-kritikal linear disadvantages frequently face attacks from the Affirmative on debate theory; the theory that linear disadvantages are abusive (i.e. unfair) to the affirmative team has much popularity.

Brink[edit]

A brink disadvantage is a special type of linear disadvantage which claims that the affirmative will aggravate the problem in the status quo to the extent that it passes a brink, at which time the impact happens all at once. The negative team claims that in the status quo, we are near the brink, but the affirmative team's plan will push us 'over the edge.'

Politics disadvantage[edit]

A politics disadvantage is unique in the way that it links to affirmative plan . Rather than linking to the specific plan action, it links to the fact that a plan passes at all. Politics disadvantages typically will say that a plan will pass through Congress, thus causing a shift in the 'political capital' of either the President, or a political party, which will affectthe ability of the affected group to pass other bills. An example of a politics disadvantage would be: Uniqueness: Immigration Reform will pass in the status quo. Link: Plan decreases the President's political capital, perhaps with a specific link that increasing civil liberties would be a flip-flop for President Obama. Thus, Obama has no political capital to pass his Immigration Reform. Impact elections cycles. For example, in a presidential election, it might argue that a certain Presidential candidate or his or her opponent is currently weak (or strong), but the affirmative plan will cause him or her to gain (or lose) popularity, and that either his or her election is undesirable or the election of his or her opponent is undesirable. 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.

Controversy[edit]

In some sections of the country, politics disadvantages are frowned upon because they link to virtually every affirmative plan, destroying the on case debate and focusing solely on the disadvantage. Supporters, however, say the politics disadvantages are 'real world' and provide education on how bills are passed and politics in general.

Other debate theorists have recently created a model of fiat that appears to preclude the politics disadvantage; however, 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. Examples of these fiat arguments include Vote No and Intrinsicness. Vote No argues that the debate should be a simulation of the debate before Congress and thus the president has already exerted political capital, meaning there is no disadvantage. Intrinsicness, popularized by New Trier Coach Michael Greenstein, says that there is no reason that Congress can't pass both the plan and the bill, meaning they aren't competitive.

Other types of D/As[edit]

Tradeoff DA - plan takes money from more important things

Economy/Spending DA - plan leads to economy collapse/recession- Biscon: Plan actually or perceptually harms business- Spending: Plan costs too much money causing the dollar to lose value. A more nuanced version of this argument focuses on rather investors will buy our t-bills or if a credit agency will downgrade our credit.

Federalism DA - aka the 'fism DA' - says that plan = undermine federalism (balance of powers between USFG and states), and since most countries model their democracy on the US, if the US destroys their federalism, then wars will break out in other countries as a result

Constitutionality DA - plan = unconstitutional, and creating it would set a bad precedent, causing other unconstitutional policies to be passed

Overpopulation or 'Malthus DA' DA - By the plan saving lives, it undermines natural death checks, which lead to overpopulation and a 'Malthusian' catastrophe because of it

Relation Disadvantages: Plan harms our relationship with another nation

Responding to disadvantages[edit]

Disadvantage responses can generally be classified into two categories: takeouts, which simply seek to refute a claim made by the negative in the disadvantage, and turns, which argue that the situation is somehow the reverse of the negative's claim.

Takeouts[edit]

Non-unique[edit]

The 'non-unique' argument says that the impact will happen in the status quo with or without the passage of the plan or that it is happening in the status quo. The links and impacts (and thus the entire disadvantage) become largely irrelevant since the status quo is no different from the plan.

No link[edit]

A very simple argument. The affirmative simply claims that the plan does not cause the impact.

An example:

  • Uniqueness: The United States-India nuclear deal is likely to pass now, but just barely. It requires extensive expenditure of limited political capital.
  • Link: The plan uses political capital that would otherwise be used for passage of the deal.
  • Internal Link: Failure to pass the deal will reduce American influence on the Indian subcontinent.
  • Internal Link: Reduction of American influence on the Indian subcontinent will lead to nuclear war between India and Pakistan.
  • Impact: India-Pakistan nuclear war will spiral out of control into a global nuclear conflict.
Conceptsferen os made for today

No Link: The plan expends no political capital

No internal link[edit]

A variant on the No Link, it states that either the link or the previous internal link does not lead to another internal link.

Using the example above, a no-internal-link could either be that the failure to pass the deal will not reduce American influence on the Indian subcontinent, or that reduction of American influence on the Indian subcontinent will not lead to nuclear war between India and Pakistan.

Impact uniqueness[edit]

Arguing the impact's uniqueness is an underused but effective argument. To prove that an impact is non-unique the affirmative must show that the link has already happened in the past but the impact didn't happen.

For example:

Uniqueness: American oil consumption high now!

Link: Ethanol trades off with oil!

Internal: OPEC will flood the market with cheap oil

Impact: Destroys Russian and Canadian Economies—global economic collapse—Nuclear war!

Conceptsferen Os Made For Today's And Tomorrow's Generation Tv

Impact Uniqueness—OPEC flooded the market last year with really cheap oil and there was no nuclear war

Turns[edit]

Link Turn[edit]

Conceptsferen Os Made For Today's And Tomorrow's Generation Differences

The Link Turn is generally accepted to be a better attack on a disadvantage than the defensive take-out arguments, as it is an offensive argument. The link-turn is in two parts: a card that says the disadvantage is non-unique (the impact is going to happen in the status quo)--and reading a link-turn (a piece of evidence that states the plan does the opposite of what the negative link says).

For Example:

Original DA

Uniqueness: US Military Strong

Link: Plan Decreases military power

Impact: Weak military leads to nuclear conflict.

A non-unique and a link turn would go something like this:

Non-unique: Military weak now.

Link Turn: Plan increases military power.

This strategy turns what was previously a 'disadvantage' to the plan into a benefit or advantage of the plan. This helps the affirmative debaters prove that they should win on presumption(that the aff plan is proven to be the better policy option than the status quo).

Impact turn[edit]

Another way to debate against a disadvantage is an impact turn, in which the affirmative team reads evidence stating that the disadvantages impact would actually be good or that the status quo creates a worse impact. If the impact to a disad was global nuclear war, an impact turn would say that death is good or that the status quo creates a bigger nuclear war. Often impact turns function at the level above this. The argument is then sometimes called an internal link turn. For example, if the disadvantage argued that the plan hurt free trade, which was key to avoiding war, the affirmative might argue that in fact free trade caused war, environmental destruction, and other negative consequences. This type of turn is often much harder to convince the judge of (in part because of the structure of a debate round, in particular, the negative block), but some believe that it makes a round much more interesting.

Straight turn[edit]

One strategy the affirmative may use in order to attack the Disadvantage is to 'straight turn it.' To straight turn something means to run only offensive arguments against it. Such an example would be to run 3 impact turns against a Disadvantage. This forces the negative team to not kick the Disadvantage because it automatically becomes an extra advantage for the affirmative. If the affirmative did run defensive arguments such as non-unique and an impact turn, then the negative could concede that it is non-unique so the impact turn would be rendered useless thus the negative could kick out of the disadvantage.

The affirmative team should never run an impact turn and a link turn together—this is called double turning. When the affirmative team double turns themself they claim that 'right now the status quo is doing something, and the affirmative plan stops it, but what the affirmative stops is a good thing.' In simple terms, the affirmative runs a disadvantage on themselves.

Other ways to answer a disadvantage[edit]

In answering the Link, an affirmative might argue that the link has no threshold, i.e. that the link does not make clear when the impact will happen or even that the impact will happen solely based on what the affirmative plan causes. 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. This second answer is rarely made however, because it is a strategic gamble.

A disadvantage can also be answered by no longer doing a part of the plan that causes the aff to link into the disadvantage. This is often referred to as a severance perm, because by making this claim the affirmative does all parts of the plan except the part that links to the disadvantage, thus severing out of part of their own plan. This argument is also rarely made, due to the theory arguments it brings up on the affirmative changing its plan in the round in order to avoid the disadvantage.

Also if the negative runs a Counterplan in addition to the Disadvantage (which commonly occurs) the affirmative can make a permutation and say that the combination of the counterplan and plan shields the link to the disadvantage. 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.

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^https://sites.google.com/site/anintroductiontodebate/lectures/3-advanced-argumentation/2-disadvantages
  • Cheshier, David. (2003). Politics, Politics, Politics. Rostrum.
Retrieved from 'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Disadvantage&oldid=998703825'

Every generation has its own approach to life and work. At the risk of stating the obvious, the interactions between generations have profound effects on families and their businesses. Reflecting on John’s decades of researching and advising family companies, we are impressed with how attitudes about work, careers, family life, and family business have changed rather steadily since 1978, when “Baby Boomers,” born between 1946 and 1964, were just entering the workforce. Baby Boomers were interacting with their parents, members of the “Silent” or “Builder” generation, born between 1925 and 1945. Today, Boomers are mostly in charge and getting hit with the new wave of change brought in by the Millennial generation, born between 1982 and 2004, sometimes called Generation Y. By 2016, Millennials will be 80% of the global workforce. We’ve never seen generational change on this scale before, and most Boomer leaders are not ready for the widespread changes the Millennials will bring to their organizations.

Sandwiched in the middle are Generations Xers, with technical skills and insights into new trends that are propelling them into leadership positions faster than the two generations that came before them. Meanwhile, the Silent Generation are not retiring in their 60s or even their 70s, as generations have always done before them. They are still exerting significant influence on families, ownership groups, foundations, and companies.

Conceptsferen Os Made For Today's And Tomorrow's Generation 7

At the Cambridge Institute for Family Enterprise, we are tracking how all four of today’s living generations approach life and work, and what impact that has on family enterprise. We are particularly concerned with the confusion and conflict that can arise when multiple generations— especially from the same family–meet across the conference table. Our research aims to better understand how generational differences can be transformed into advantages and opportunity. In this article, though, we will stay focused on Boomers and Millennials.

Baby Boomers all over the world share a strong work ethic and they have mostly joined organizations to pursue their careers. During their formative years, they benefitted from and were shaped by three key things: modern education, expanding markets in a mostly peaceful world economy, and a belief in scientific progress. Boomers in the United States grew up in a world of social turmoil brought about by a Presidential assassination, Watergate, the Vietnam War, the women’s movement, and civil rights movements marked by two other assassinations: RFK and Martin Luther King, Jr. They are less trusting of authority than their parents were, skeptical about power concentrated in government and companies, and they believe it is their job to make the world a better place. They espouse change through knowledge, rationality, and communication.

Millennials are their grandchildren in the family and the youngest new recruits at work. The early Millennials graduated from university roughly at the time the global recession began. If not in the workforce today, they are suffering the double-digit unemployment that characterizes their age group in many countries. The second wave of Millennials, born up to 2004, was largely in elementary school on September 11, 2001, when a terrorist event in the promise of a better life. In Latin America, according to a 2013 survey by Telefonica and The Financial Times, Millennials are confident that technology will empower and produce global change. Almost ironically, “disconnected” Millennials are more connected with their families. A study by Junco and Mastriodicasa of over 7,000 U.S. college students found that 94% owned a cell phone, a computer or both, and they talked with their parents an average of 1.5 times a day. Where once it was unheard of for young American adults to live at home after college, today it is becoming the norm. Experts say this attachment to home and parents is behind an entirely new stage of personal development they label “Emerging Adulthood,” focused on self-fulfillment and characterized by self-exploration and trying out different pathways to a good life. U.S. marked the beginning of a new global era. These late Millennials are still teenagers or young adults today. Millennials perceive economic uncertainty all around them.

Some experts believe that Millennials’ apparent lack of interest in joining organizations results from the lack of opportunity that organizations currently offer, along with the lack of loyalty that organizations express. Understandably, Millennials feel it is safer to invest in themselves, than in organizations. Millennials are the first generation to completely grow up with computers in the home and to be immersed in social media. This might help explain the short attention spans that observers attribute to Millennials. Efforts by parents and others to curtail their social media involvement face huge challenges. One study shows that quitting social media causes the same symptoms as quitting an addictive drug. While Boomers accept new technology as a necessary tool for work and life, Millennials view technology as the promise of a better life. In Latin America, according to a 2013 survey by Telefonica and The Financial Times, Millennials are confident that technology will empower and produce global change.

Almost ironically, “disconnected” Millennials are more connected with their families. A study by Junco and Mastriodicasa of over 7,000 U.S. college students found that 94% owned a cell phone, a computer or both, and they talked with their parents an average of 1.5 times a day. Where once it was unheard of for young American adults to live at home after college, today it is becoming the norm. Experts say this attachment to home and parents is behind an entirely new stage of personal development they label “Emerging Adulthood,” focused on self-fulfillment and characterized by self-exploration and trying out different pathways to a good life.

By 2016, Millennials will be 80% of the global workforce.

U.S. marked the beginning of a new global era. These late Millennials are still teenagers or young adults today.

Millennials perceive economic uncertainty all around them. Some experts believe that Millennials’ apparent lack of interest in joining organizations results from the lack of opportunity that organizations currently offer, along with the lack of loyalty that organizations express. Understandably, Millennials feel it is safer to invest in themselves, than in organizations.

Millennials are the first generation to completely grow up with computers in the home and to be immersed in social media. This might help explain the short attention spans that observers attribute to Millennials. Efforts by parents and others to curtail their social media involvement face huge challenges. One study shows that quitting social media causes the same symptoms as quitting an addictive drug. While Boomers accept new technology as a necessary tool for work and life, Millennials view technology as the Young adults today (including recent MBA graduates) don’t see a problem changing jobs every year or two to benefit their own career development. Around the world, early Millennials (ages 22-30) tell us that they are not interested in working in established organizations or having conventional careers. In business families, we are also hearing many more serious discussions about work-life balance—a topic raised by Xers and Millennials, who agree that work should not be the primary focus of life.

There is common ground between Boomers and Millennials. Both believe that business has a social purpose and they both frequently press for social and environmental responsibility by their family business.

But even where Boomers and Millennials share interests, their interactions can be problematic. Research at Georgetown University suggests that Millennials and Boomers approach community engagement differently. Boomers believe in face-to-face interaction and think it’s important to mingle and make their voices heard in their communities and in their governing forums. Boomers accuse Millennials of “slacktivism” for their primary use of social media, rather than physical gatherings, to broadcast ideas, establish viewpoints, and take action. Millennials, on the other hand, wonder why they need to leave the house to engage with the community when technology delivers more impact.

Finally, consider this. More Millennials from business families want to be entrepreneurs. (According to the same Financial Times survey, more than half of Latin American Millennials —52%—consider being an entrepreneur to be a very important life accomplishment. Many still want their families to provide financial support for their ventures, so not everything is changing.) We believe their interest in entrepreneurship is a reflection of their generation’s attitudes about what is important about work and life— independence, flexibility, and self-expression. Millennials’ entrepreneurial drive could prove to be a good thing for families that want to diversify into other businesses. You need to think about the opportunities you can offer Millennials, both in and out of the core business. But if Millennials work inside the core business they will need to adapt to the regulations of the business.

Perhaps the biggest challenge in working with Millennials could be adjusting to, and managing, their work habits. “Most Millennials say the older generations have a better work ethic,” writes T. Scott Gross in his book Invisible: How Millennials are Changing the Way We Sell. Many Millennials expect work to be punctuated by humor and fun, so their own productivity may depend on providing it. Is the Millennial work ethic really weaker? Or does it just look different from Boomers’ but still gets the job done—maybe even in more innovative or efficient ways?

We have more to learn. Will Millennials really hold 25 jobs in a lifetime and forge five careers? What if economic conditions improve significantly for the late Millennials? Will they be more open to joining and staying with established companies? Will Xers lead Millennials differently than Boomers or Builders, who recognize their tech savvy but balk at their demands for good to great salaries, steady advancement, and for coaching relationships (not just direction) from their managers? Before you think all this is only happening in your family enterprise, look around.

Founder and Chairman, Cambridge Family Enterprise Group; Senior Lecturer and Faculty Director, Family Enterprise Programs, MIT Sloan School of Management

John A. Davis is a globally recognized pioneer and authority on family enterprise, family wealth, and the family office. He is a researcher, educator, author, architect of the field’s most impactful conceptual frameworks, and advisor to leading families around the world. He leads the family enterprise programs at MIT Sloan. To follow his writing and speaking, visit johndavis.com and twitter @ProfJohnDavis.

Defensa y justicia kitsempty spaces the blog. Get the latest Defensa y Justicia news, scores, stats, standings, rumors, and more from ESPN. 48k Followers, 71 Following, 3,205 Posts - See Instagram photos and videos from Club Defensa y Justicia (@defensayjusticiaoficial).

Postdoctoral Fellow, Harvard Kennedy School

As a sociologist of culture and inequality, Jennifer investigates the relationship between systems of inequality – race, social class, and gender – and systems of meaning. She is the author of Coming Up Short: Working-Class Adulthood in an Age of Uncertainty.

About the Cambridge Institute for Family Enterprise

The Cambridge Institute for Family Enterprise is a global research and education institute dedicated to the real issues facing family enterprises. It is a place where progressive members of family enterprises come to learn, exchange ideas, develop themselves and position their enterprises to be not only successful, but sustainable over generations. Its sister organization, Cambridge Advisors to Family Enterprise, is a highly specialized, international, advisory firm that assists family enterprises with navigating the new economy, solving sensitive issues, and making the entire family enterprise strong and united over generations.

Conceptsferen Os Made For Today's And Tomorrow's Generation 10

The copyright on this article is held by Cambridge Family Enterprise Group®. All rights reserved. Articles may be available for reprint with approval. For permission to duplicate, distribute, or copy, in whole or in part, contact [email protected]

Coments are closed
Scroll to top