Impact calculus

In policy debate, impact calculus is a type of argumentations which seeks to compare the impacts presented by both teams.

There are three basic types of impact calculus:

Probability (one impact is more likely)

e.g. Economic collapse is more probable than a vacuum metastability disaster, therefore the risk of economic collapse outweighs the risk of a vacuum metastability disaster.

Timeframe (one impact will happen faster)

e.g. Global warming will cause extinction before an asteroid will hit Earth, therefore global warming outwieghs an asteroid impact.

Note that timeframe is only relevant when comparing two extinction scenarios or two scenarios of equal magnitude. 1,000 people dying in a year probably outweighs 1 person dying now.

Magnitude (one impact is bigger)

e.g. Nuclear war kills more people than car accidents.

Some other more sophisticated arguments are also considered impact calculus:

Impact inclusivity (one impact is inclusive of the other)

e.g. Global war is inclusive of a Taiwan war, therefore global war outweighs Taiwan war.

X turns Y (one impact causes the other impact to happen)

e.g. War causes genocide, therefore war outweighs genocide

Internal link shortcircuiting (one impact prevents a (positive) imapct from happening)

e.g. Nuclear war halts space colonization, therefore nuclear war outweighs space colonization

Framework arguments can also be considered impact calculus. Arguments as to why the judge should adopt a utilitarian or consequentialist perspective or conversely a deontological prespective may change the way they compare impacts.

Basic impact calculus arguments may be made at any time and are generally not considered "new" arguments, even if brought up for the first time in the 2NR or 2AR. More sophisticated forms of impact calculus should generally be brought up earlier in the debate and evidenced if possible.