Impact Calculus
This session we went over how to compare between (weigh) different impacts. If my impact is climate change and yours is nuclear war, and the link to both is 100% true, how does the judge know which is more important? Impact calculus helps us resolve this.
What is impact calculus? It’s how we weigh between impacts. Every argument must have an impact to answer the question “why does [your impact] matter? Why should we care?” We use weighing mechanisms to compare different impacts.
Magnitude: The scope of your impact (how many people it affects). If your impact and your opponents’ impact is nuclear war, you should compare arsenal size and state rationality (for example, if their internal link to nuclear war is terrorism, you should say it outweighs on probability because nonstate actors and terrorist groups are irrational, while most great powers are. You could also say that terrorist groups are already pariahs and have nothing to lose, while states like China and Russia seek international influence and recognition).
Probability: The chance your impact happens. If you’re defending an environment impact like warming, the most favorable metric is usually probability (typically amenable to empirical and scientific quantification) or magnitude (multiplies interstate instability and encourages reckless lash out instead of diplomatic engagement). “We outweigh on probability because the advantage was dropped” is judge instruction, not a probability argument. You must assume the full strength of their internal links. Why should we still prioritize your impact even if theirs is true?
Timeframe: The speed at which your impact occurs.
Tips:
Strategy: Choose whichever vector (magnitude, probability, timeframe) matters most for your impact, not theirs (otherwise they can concede that metric and say their impact outweighs under it) and explain why that impact calc metric is the most important. For example, if your impact is immediate, like nuclear war, you should explain why prioritizing timeframe outweighs because you can only die once and the judge should preserve the ability for humanity to fight another day.
Be Comparative: Impact calc is not just why your impact is big, but why it’s bigger than theirs. “Nuclear war is BIGGER/WORSE than theirs because…” is much better than “nuclear war is bad.” Incorporate evidence comparison. For example, if their impact is climate change and is written by a climate activist, that person obviously has an incentive to say environmental concerns outweigh.
You should not treat impact calculus like a checklist where you say “we outweigh on magnitude, probability, and timeframe,” because not all impacts are suited for each metric. For example, probability/timeframe would be better for a more recent-but-less threatening impact like climate change, and magnitude for a large-scale impact like nuclear war.
Turns: Why does your impact happening trigger your opponents’ impact (or why does solving your impact solve theirs)? For example, nuclear war turns warming because it destroys biodiversity and the ozone layer, and developing and detonating nukes would cause tons of more emissions.
Turns case arguments are best when with a timeframe argument because it means your impact happens first, and also causes their impact before theirs can cause yours.
