Impact Calculus Weber & Short

Overview Policy Framework:  Magnitude  Probability  Timeframe Kritikal Framework:  Systemic Harms Using evidence to generate links Beginning with the end in mind

Magnitude How large are your harms?  How many people/animals/biospheres are affected? This is sometimes called scope.  How much are they affected? What’s the terminal impact?  Framework: How would/should the judge weigh this calculation against opponent harms?  You can usually get to a large magnitude through a large, often improbable I/L chain, but consider the tradeoff with other advs/DAs  Advantages: Risk of the Link  Disadvantages: Unlikely (low probability), Catastrophizing turns

Probability How likely are the impacts to occur?  Link specificity key to determine and compare this with competing advs/DAs  High probability is usually derived from specific scenarios in the cards, scientific or statistical epistemologies, high probability semantics from field experts  Advantages: Great time tradeoff (good research does the trick—make link books)  Disadvantages: Usually needs to be weighed with other considerations

Timeframe How soon do the harms/impacts occur?  Usually get T/F through specific link scenarios and historical/empirical epistemologies  Advantages: Among equals, sooner is more persuasive  Disadvantages: Predictive or political language of historical readings can kill probability (monkeys throwing darts—looking at you, ptix)

Systemic Impacts Problems inherent in the status quo  Because K’s are non-unique, it becomes more difficult to explain case-specific causation, leading to a more difficult probability, magnitude, and timeframe story  Framework/role of the ballot helps focus discussion down onto in-round impacts  Discourse key  Rejection key  Individual Advocacy key  Don’t box yourself in unnecessarily: CP as alt (strategic choice: the policy/K link turn switcharoo)

Comparative Analysis Impact Calc isn’t just “M x P x T”: it’s all about comparison shopping Some questions:  Which is more persuasive: a 100% chance of a small impact (e.g. education) in the present or a 1% chance of a large impact (e.g. ‘splosions) far in the future?  How would you determine probability in a card that doesn’t give you a specific calculation?  What about timeframe?  Magnitude?  How would you reconcile the differences between policy and systemic impacts? (cede the political v. discourse; pre- v. post- fiat; etc.)

Using evidence to generate I/C links Specificity of Links: case-specific links grant higher probability than generics Semantic Differences: will v. may, etc. Competing Epistemologies:  Scientific/Statistical  Empirical/Historical  Ideological/Theoretical  Opinion (a la PTIX) Causality: Uniqueness, Brink, Isolation of Variables

Beginning with the end in mind Setting up 2NR calculus in constructions (especially the 1AC; although undercovering in the 1 is a good strat, too, if you want to push them into a specific argument):  “Now K/T…”: Need a unique scenario that pushes T/F into the present  Impact calc/weigh ____ first/framework: Explains why your advantages should be considered first when making decisions  Case-specific links: comparing probability vs. “risk of the link”