This is a lightly-edited transcript of a conversation in the Ace Peak Society.

Paul

So I agree that inherency is part of topicality. I don’t think that harms really matter though. If Omni is built off of resolutionism, then aff does not need to show a problem. Only that their plan makes the system better. For example:

• Gas prices right now are ok.

• Plan: Lower gas prices. (ignore the resolutions and implementation)

• Advantage: Lower gas prices are better for the consumer.

There is no harm in the status quo, but since our plan makes the status quo better, we should pass.

Coach Joseph

Good point Paul! If you enjoy math, we're about to have a lot of fun.

I find it helpful to break the calculus down in terms of formulas. I'm only gonna use one algebraic factor here:

N = negative option

In other words, either the status quo or the counterplan. If it’s a counterplan, the math gets more complex; we’ll just focus on the status quo for now.

It's helpful to look at this in terms of algebra because, as I'm sure you know, you cancel common factors on both sides.

The aff world is more like N than not; the aff isn't changing most things. The question is: what's different?

You're absolutely right that impact calculus means comparative advantage. All we're doing is

IF (Benefits - Detriments ) > N

THEN: Aff Wins

IF NOT: Neg wins.

There are two ways to express a Benefit, and they mathematically amount to the same thing. The way you're discussing, an Advantage:

• Negative option: Don't go to college.

• Plan: Go to college.

• Advantage: Better paying job.

If that's all we know, then the choice is

N vs (N + better pay) 

Clearly, option 2 is better.

In the example you gave, the aff is offering:

(N + consumer benefits)

That's definitively better than just N.

You are correct that that is the only possible offensive argument an affirmative can make. You could run nothing but Advantages; you'd definitely be coherent and you could probably get a solid win rate. The problem is that Advantages can be a confusing way to express some ideas. Consider:

• Negative option: Do nothing.

• Plan: Jump into that swimming pool.

• Advantage: You will continue to be alive.

N vs (N + being alive)

Contrast with this.

• Negative option: Do nothing.

• Harm: You are on fire.

• Plan: Jump into that swimming pool.

N vs (N - dying in fire)

It's the same argument, deep down. If "dying in fire" is worth -100 points, then "extinguishing the fire and continuing to live" is worth +100. But expressing that Benefit as an Advantage can be convoluted.

If you see someone on fire and you want to tell them to jump into a swimming pool, do you say:

"Mike! Prolong your life by jumping into the pool!"

or

"Mike! You're on fire! Jump into the pool!"

It becomes a weird thought exercise to figure out how to express things like "change your flat tire" or "take sleep medication" or "bomb that building full of bad guys." Can you do it? Sure. But it's a lot clearer and easier to do it with Harms.

Bottom line: to win, the aff must present at least one Benefit.

You can run all Harms, all Advantages, or some combination of the two. Choose between them based on what gives you the greatest clarity.

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