Editing Disadvantage (section)

===Takeouts===

====Non-unique====

The "non-unique" argument says that the impact will happen or is happening in the status quo, regardless of the passage of the plan. The links and impacts (and thus the entire disadvantage) become largely irrelevant since the status quo is no different from the plan.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |last=Stafford |first=Victoria |date=16 March 2024 |title=Disadvantages |url=https://thedebateguru.weebly.com/disadvantages.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240112022904/https://thedebateguru.weebly.com/disadvantages.html |archive-date=12 January 2024 |access-date=16 March 2024 |website=The Debate Guru}}</ref>

====No link====
The "no link" argument claims that the plan does not cause the impact.<ref name=":2" />

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.

In this case, the argument that the plan does not use political capital would be classified as a "no link" argument.

====No internal link====
"No internal link" is a similar argument to "no link." It states that either the link or the previous internal link does not lead to another internal link.<ref name=":0" />

Using the example above, a no-internal-link could either be that 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====
Impact uniqueness is a variant of "non-unique" arguments. 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. Debate coach James Kellam writes that impact uniqueness is an underused but highly effective argument.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Kellams |first=James |date=25 October 2011 |title=Uniqueness in Disadvantages |url=http://everydaydebate.blogspot.com/2011/10/uniqueness-in-disadvantages.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240316202232/http://everydaydebate.blogspot.com/2011/10/uniqueness-in-disadvantages.html |archive-date=16 March 2024 |access-date=16 March 2024 |website=Everyday Debate}}</ref>

For example:

* '''Uniqueness:''' American oil consumption is high now.
* '''Link:''' Expansion of ethanol decreases oil consumption.
* '''Internal Link:''' Decreased oil consumption will OPEC will flood the market with cheap oil.
* '''Internal Link:''' Cheap oil influx destroys the Russian and Canadian economies.
* '''Impact:''' Russian and/or Canadian economic collapse causes global economic collapse, resulting in nuclear war.

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.