Debate Advice: Impact Calculus
By: Jaya Nayar
Simply stated, impact calculus is how we determine, between two impacts, which one matters more.
You may be thinking: isn’t this just learning to weigh between arguments… which is debate??? Well yes, but that’s not easy. The purpose of this article is to give you tips on how to make the best arguments so that your impact comes out on top.
There are 5 different components of impact calculus
1. Our impact outweighs
2. Our impact turns their impact
3. Our impact solves the internal link to their impact
4. Timeframe is your BFF
5. External impact
Our Impact Outweighs
This is the standard magnitude, probability, etc. calculus and it has two parts.
First, say what your impact outweighs on (magnitude, probability, etc.). This should be picked strategically: find the place where your impact comes out ahead or what you think you have the best chance of winning on.
Second, and this is crucial despite the fact that it is frequently forgotten in debates, do an analysis of why the distinction between impacts is meaningful and why your calculus matters the most. Magnitude might come first because it destroys the possibility of future generations and humans have a cognitive bias to underestimate large scale threats which means we should take high-magnitude impacts more seriously. However, probability might come first because high-magnitude impacts result in avoiding policy actions because any action could result in extinction and we actually have a cognitive bias to overestimate large scale threats, making their extinction scenario exaggerated. This would support an argument about the necessity to address structural violence happening in the status quo. You want to say: “they may be winning X, but since we are winning Y that changes the way you view risk because Z. Any chance of our impact means err on the side of caution.”
Our Impact Turns Their Impact
This argument is pretty self-explanatory in that you want to say that your impact occurring would result in their impact or a worse version of their impact. This doesn’t necessarily have to even turn their direct impact scenario of nuclear war or climate change; it could also turn their internal link.
For example, if someone reads an aff with reasons why international law is good and key to stop XYZ extinction scenario, you can say that war turns international law because things like soldiers committing human rights abuses in other countries, nations breaking treaties, etc. result in many violations of international law. Usually, international law affs will say one issue is currently eroding international law and the aff solves that. You can say that violations of international law from war outweigh because there are many violations as opposed to the one violation that the aff is talking about, giving you the best access to their own impacts.
Our Impact Solves the Internal Link to Their Impact
This argument says that if we solve our impact, it’ll also solve their impact. This is a crucial way to answer turns case arguments referenced above.
For example: if their impact is war in the SCS and your impact is bolstering hegemony, then you can say that even if war in the SCS is likely now, strong US hegemony is able to deter it which their evidence doesn’t account for.
Another example: if their impact is climate change and your impact is disease, then you can say that if we spur global cooperation on disease, that’ll spill-over to cooperation on climate change because there will be dialogue among nations so inevitably global warming will be discussed as well. Be careful though, your warrant for cooperation spill-over can’t be that nations will realize disease is generated by climate change because that grants your opponent a turns case argument. Unless you are really winning the timeframe debate, for reasons explained in the next section, that shouldn’t be your explanation of solves the internal link.
Timeframe is Your BFF
Timeframe is super important in these debates when it comes to turns case and solves the internal link arguments. If your impact turns theirs / solves theirs before their scenario happens, that’s a reason you win. This is because if it turns their impact then it means their impact is inevitable absent voting for whatever side you’re on, but if if it solves their impact then it means their impact is no longer an issue after voting for you.
External Impact
Unrelated to either impact in the round, it’s frequently useful to have an external impact as a tie-breaker. If both teams have a war impact, you want to say: fine, we both solve war, but there’s this external issue that only our internal link can access so you should vote for us.
We hope you can apply these 5 quick tips the next time you debate!