Ask a Coach: Why not use Impact Calc in Value Debates?

Here’s a transcript of a brief conversation in the Ace Peak Society.

Evan

This question is one that I had after reading your article on the idea of using a criterion in TP. You said that using any kind of criterion unnecessarily narrows down the debate away from valid arguments and we should instead be using impact calculus to weigh each argument.

If that's the case, why wouldn't one do the same thing in LD when talking about the real-world effects of, say, policies that promote stability? It seems to me that the only difference between a TP round and this kind of LD round is that the TP aff case has 1 very specific policy whereas the LD aff case talks more about general policy. Why would one need a narrowing value and the other depend solely on impact calculus?

Coach Joseph

Evan, this is such a great question. The short answer is: you absolutely CAN do that in LD! But it's not the only reasonable approach, as it is in policy.

Let's define our terms:

Framework: The overall metric the judge uses to evaluate whether or not the resolution is true or false. Framework typically includes a value and/or criterion.

As we discussed in that post, the only appropriate Framework in policy debate is NET BENEFITS (aka Impact Calculus).

Suppose we used hanging case structure to build a policy case. We shouldn't, but it's helpful here for illustration.

  • Resolved: Evan should get a pet alligator.

  • Criterion: Net Benefits

    • Criterion Link: Only Reasonable Measure

  • Contention: Pet Alligator would be Net Beneficial

    • A. Harm: Loneliness

    • B. 5-plank Plan

    • C. Advantage: Home Defense

That Framework-Contention blend is implied in every single policy case. If someone runs anything else you can effortlessly swat it away and restore Net Benefits.

That means neither side needs to run the framework. You can just dive right into arguments that impact to it. (That also means policy debates all unfold inside a single invisible contention, which is cool to think about).

In value debate, there's one key difference: there are many viable frameworks, and none of them are presumed. That means you have to explicitly explain yours and defend it. It also means that your opponent is likely to contest it.

You can still run Net Benefits! In value debate, it typically goes by other names like General Welfare or Utilitarianism. Whatever you call it, there's nothing stopping you from running it and winning rounds. In fact, there are big strategic benefits to going this route if you run a more tangible, application-centric case. You're effectively saying: "I'd like this to feel like a policy debate; let's just look at the sum of its effects." But that's just one way to assign worth to something. Your opponent may argue that it's too hard to use, or just straight-up wrong. A common example:

  • Resolved: Evan is more valuable than Ned the Evil.

  • Aff Value: Net Benefits

  • Contention 1: Evan is beneficial

    • Application: Charity donation. Evan recently donated a million dollars to an orphanage.

  • Contention 2: Ned is detrimental

    • Application: Charity theft. Ned stole a million dollars from that orphanage.

  • Neg Value: Intrinsic worth

    • Reason to Prefer: Not Reprehensible. The implications of measuring the worth of a human life in terms of what they produce shocks the conscience and allows us to justify horrific acts like genocide. We have to look instead at the intrinsic worth of each human.

  • Criterion: Humanity

    • Criterion Link: Currency of Worth. Being human is the only significant aspect of someone's intrinsic worth. If someone is human, they are intrinsically worth 1 human life and therefore precious.

  • Contention 1: Evan is 1 human.

  • Contention 2: Ned the Evil is 1 human. Therefore Evan is exactly as valuable as Ned the Evil, and the res is false.

There’s more to explore in this topic. We’ll circle back to it soon.

Want to join the Ace Peak Society? Book a session today.

Joseph AbellComment