Impact Calculus

In debate, you will be required to respond to the various other arguments presented within rounds. And despite case construction being the essential backbone of any argumentation presented, refutation and rebuttal are what bring on the argumentative “back-and-forth” nature of a debate. However, as outlined by the NSDA (National Speech & Debate Association), speakers need to aim to: identify and discuss the biggest questions and clashes in the debate, rebut the most crucial points, and contribute original refutation to have a productive round.

Five Weighing Mechanisms:

Probability

How likely is it that an outcome occurs? How preventable is it?
EX: Substantial climate change is more likely than the breakdown of the internet.

Magnitude

The severity of the scenarios.
EX: Someone dying is worse than someone losing money.

Scope

The number of people (or other aspects) affected.
EX: A global war would affect more people than gang violence in a city.

Time Frame

How quickly each impact will take place.
EX: The effects of an economic recession are felt quicker than climate change.

Reversibility

Can the impacts be undone? How easily?
EX: Death cannot be reversed, but financial setbacks can be recovered from.

Use a combination of these factors to argue that the impacts of your side of the house outweigh that of your opponents, a form of argumentation known as Meta-Weighing. Some general tips for Meta-Weighing:

Reversibility > time frame because it doesn’t matter how long something lasts as long as it can be undone

Probability > scope because something that is highly likely to impact a handful of people should be addressed before something unlikely to impact more people

Magnitude > scope because it matters the severity of an impact is more important than how many were impacted

Magnitude > time frame because whether it doesn’t matter whether an impact takes place now or years later when its severity would be the same

NOTE: These are very broad generalizations, and might not necessarily hold true for all resolutions. Use your own reasoning to determine this.

Comparing your side’s worst case scenario to the opposition’s best case scenario can create a compelling argument. This is commonly presented as “taking side [opposition side] at its highest point and comparing it to our lowest point, we still outweigh on…” As a sidenote, refrain from this if you don’t feel confident in your argument.

Drill

Of the following pairs of impacts, take one and argue in its favor. Then argue the opposite.

Economic growth vs. environmental degradation

Warfare vs. poverty

Individual rights vs. social welfare

Earthquakes vs. flooding

Nuclear proliferation vs. biological weapons proliferation