1. The Disadvantage Provides an added measure to vote against the affirmative plan and vote for the present system.

2. The Disadvantage Uniqueness: States the condition of the status quo, should show that the status quo is in fine condition. Uniqueness: States the condition of the status quo, should show that the status quo is in fine condition. Brink/threshold: better explains the condition of the status quo as being close to a bad consequence. Brink/threshold: better explains the condition of the status quo as being close to a bad consequence. Link: Shows how the affirmative plan disrupts the state of the status quo Link: Shows how the affirmative plan disrupts the state of the status quo Internal Link: Shows the causal step between the plan and the Impact. Internal Link: Shows the causal step between the plan and the Impact. Impact: Defines the implications or consequences of that disruption. Impact: Defines the implications or consequences of that disruption.

3. Uniqueness: DA’s inherency Arguments against and stemming from uniqueness –N–N–N–Non-unique: provides a warrant as to why the DA is not unique to case… but rather common to the status quo. –I–I–I–Impacts Denied: The impacts have not happened though a balance system was already interrupted. –S–S–S–Status Quo Links: Proves that there are added harms to staying with the present system –“–“–“–“OR” Uniqueness overwhelms the Link – DA Circumvention! –C–C–C–Contradicts Inherency Arguments – Their Inherency arguments claim that there is plan action in the status quo, were this true the DA wouldn’t be unique.

4. Link: “My plan Does What?” Common Link arguments –N–N–N–No-Link: the plan just doesn’t do what you say… with evidence of course –L–L–L–Link Turn: Explains that the plan in fact overcomes the link and prevents/solves the impact. –L–L–L–Link proves Solvency: If the DA is dependent on PMN (harms being solved) then it can be argued that solvency must happen before the DA. –N–N–N–No Brink/threshold: The plan is not a big enough disruption to cause the impact.

5. Impact: “A world without nuclear weapons would be less stable and more dangerous for all of us.” - Margaret Thatcher Intervention – Claims that mechanisms inherent in the status quo, independent from the Aff’s agent will intervene to stop the claimed Impact. Intervention – Claims that mechanisms inherent in the status quo, independent from the Aff’s agent will intervene to stop the claimed Impact. Impact turn – Claims the impact is a good thing and that causing it acts as an advantage. Impact turn – Claims the impact is a good thing and that causing it acts as an advantage. DO NOT LINK TURN AND IMPACT TURN!!

6. Impact Calculus 101 Magnitude – Claims one impact outweighs the other based on damage done. (Utilitarianism) Magnitude – Claims one impact outweighs the other based on damage done. (Utilitarianism) Timeframe – Claims one impact outweighs another based on which one would happen first. (Exigency and Salience) Timeframe – Claims one impact outweighs another based on which one would happen first. (Exigency and Salience) Probability – Weighing model that claims one impact is more likely to happen… (realism; disambiguous) Probability – Weighing model that claims one impact is more likely to happen… (realism; disambiguous) How to weigh impacts in round…

7. Inclusively: World war is inclusive of a US- Korean War. Inclusively: World war is inclusive of a US- Korean War. Reversibility: Destroying Human rights is reversible, Death is not… Reversibility: Destroying Human rights is reversible, Death is not… A Turns Y: One impact causes another, specifically your opponents. A Turns Y: One impact causes another, specifically your opponents. Internal Link Short Circuiting: One impact prevents a good impact from happening. Internal Link Short Circuiting: One impact prevents a good impact from happening. Pre Vs. Post Fiat: It can be claimed that something real is worse than something imagined… Pre Vs. Post Fiat: It can be claimed that something real is worse than something imagined… Impact Calculus AP Impact Calculus 101

8. A Notion of Fiat Fiat: Latin Term meaning “let it be done.” Fiat: Latin Term meaning “let it be done.” Fiat is an agreement that “policy debate” should not be about Plan Probability but rather should be about Plan Desirability. Fiat is an agreement that “policy debate” should not be about Plan Probability but rather should be about Plan Desirability. This agreement is that the debate is not about what “ will ” be adopted but what “ should ” be adopted. This agreement is that the debate is not about what “ will ” be adopted but what “ should ” be adopted.

9. A Topical Proposition Case must be related to the resolution Must prove that the need-solution can only be obtained by adopting the topic Jurisdictional Argument – means that the affirmative's proposal must fall under the judges jurisdiction to decide the round. Topicality standards come down to education and fairness.

10. Proper Shell Interpretation - determines what words/phrases in the resolution the Aff violates (definition) Interpretation - determines what words/phrases in the resolution the Aff violates (definition) Violation – Warrants how the Aff violates those words/phrases Violation – Warrants how the Aff violates those words/phrases Standards – Provides a weighing mechanism by which the judge can determine if the aff is topical based on competing interpretations. Standards – Provides a weighing mechanism by which the judge can determine if the aff is topical based on competing interpretations. Voters – Gives a reason as to why the judge should vote on the particular violation sited above. Voters – Gives a reason as to why the judge should vote on the particular violation sited above.

11. Common Standards Grammar – The resolution provides certain grammatical standards by which an aff interpretation must follow. Grammar – The resolution provides certain grammatical standards by which an aff interpretation must follow. Field Context – provides a use of the interpretation based on expert’s uses in their particular field. (hopefully on the topic some how.) Field Context – provides a use of the interpretation based on expert’s uses in their particular field. (hopefully on the topic some how.) Each word has a meaning – It means that one word or phrase cannot be so defined as to make another word or phrase meaningless. (Goes good with intent) Each word has a meaning – It means that one word or phrase cannot be so defined as to make another word or phrase meaningless. (Goes good with intent) Debatablilty – Must fairly divide ground between the AFF and NEG. Debatablilty – Must fairly divide ground between the AFF and NEG. Limits – In order to be fair the interpretation must limit the affirmatives choice of policy positions. Limits – In order to be fair the interpretation must limit the affirmatives choice of policy positions. Intent – The people who wrote the topic had something in mind. Intent – The people who wrote the topic had something in mind.

12. Common Voters Jurisdiction – Voting for topicality a jurisdictional matter and must be exercised Jurisdiction – Voting for topicality a jurisdictional matter and must be exercised Education- By allowing a one sided debate we are not educated on the topic. Education- By allowing a one sided debate we are not educated on the topic. Fairness – To be equitable topicality must be a voter. Fairness – To be equitable topicality must be a voter. A priori- Topicality comes first in the debate, must rule here before the case. A priori- Topicality comes first in the debate, must rule here before the case.

13. Extra Topicality Claims that added un-topical plan provisions go above and beyond what is “topical” as claimed by the interpretation. Can be expressed as an interpretation or as a resolutional analysis. If the affirmative team claims added justification through either the PMN story or through advantages then there is abuse of jurisdiction. (Africa Topic: vote for us cause we save whales)

14. Effects Topicality Claims that in a vacuum (or by itself) the plan does not intuitively support the resolution, but rather, the effects of plan (i.e. solvency) are topical. This means that you must look to solvency to determine whether the affirmative does in fact support the resolution.