100 likes | 328 Views
Impact Calculus. What’s the worst that could happen?. Overview. Policy Framework: Magnitude Probability Timeframe Kritikal Framework: Systemic Harms Using evidence to g enerate links Beginning with the end in mind. Magnitude. How large are your harms?
E N D
Impact Calculus What’s the worst that could happen?
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”