No Link

In competitive debate — particularly in policy and Lincoln-Douglas formats, as well as in Model UN caucusing — a "no link" argument attacks the chain of reasoning between a proposal and its alleged consequences. Every advocacy generally rests on three elements: a link (the action causes some change), an internal link (that change triggers further effects), and an impact (the final harm or benefit). A "no link" response concedes nothing about whether the impact would be bad; it simply denies that the opponent's plan actually causes it.

For example, if a delegate argues that a UN sanctions regime will trigger regional war, the opposing bloc might respond that sanctions historically have not produced military escalation in comparable cases, severing the causal claim. The impact (war) may remain horrifying in the abstract, but without a link it is irrelevant to the resolution at hand.

"No link" is distinct from related responses:

• No impact — concedes the causal chain but denies the consequence matters.
• Link turn — accepts the link exists but argues it runs the opposite direction (the plan prevents rather than causes the harm).
• No internal link — accepts the first causal step but breaks a later one.
• Non-unique — argues the harm is already happening regardless of the plan.

Strong "no link" arguments typically cite empirical evidence, structural reasoning, or expert analysis showing the mechanism does not operate as claimed. Weak ones merely assert disconnection without warrant, which judges and chairs generally discount.

For Model UN delegates, deploying "no link" effectively means listening carefully to a sponsor's speech, identifying the specific mechanism they rely on, and pressing them in moderated caucus to explain how the clause produces the outcome. If the sponsor cannot articulate the mechanism, the link collapses and so does the rationale for the draft resolution.