Offence = Why the judge should vote for you
Defense = Why the judge shouldn’t vote against you
Arguments that claim the other team does something bad, link turns are a classic example of this.
Arguments that claim the thing doesn’t happen, mostly used for answering what the other team says. Think no link, no impact, etc.
If you read a link turn and impact turn, you claim to have resolved the issue, but you also claim the thing you stopped is good. You want to avoid these as much as possible, because the NEG can concede the link and claim the AFF causes impact.
When the 2AC only reads offence against the disadvantage, making it so the other team is unable to concede a specific point to get value out of it.
<aside> 🤝 If you go for a straight turn in the 2AC, you need to be ready to push it hard in the 2AR in order to win.
</aside>
Require a non-unique argument to be offensive, if the economy is already strong and you claim to improve the economy, you aren’t doing anything to make the outcome better, but if you claim the AFF plan hurts the economy and then offer a counter that improves it you have a positive cost benefit outcome
<aside> 👢 If a link turn is offense when combined with a non-unique, to kick a link-turned disadvantage you want to concede impact defense.
</aside>