We’ve discussed the big-picture changes to the affirmative, and how in Omni, negatives run cases, too. Assuming the negative isn’t running any presumption arguments, here’s what that case will consist of.

There is only one negative offensive claim: “The negative option is more beneficial than the plan.”

If you’re making an argument that says that, you’re presenting a Detriment. There are 3 kinds.

Disadvantage: A Detriment claiming that the plan creates a bad consequence outside the intended effect area.

This is a narrower meaning than traditional policy theory. In this version, it’s only a DA if the affirmative wasn’t trying to do anything about it. You might think of DAs as “unintended/unforeseen consequences.”

• Harm: No Respect. No one in this office respects me.

• Plan: Bus Jump. Jump in front of a bus to show how tough I am.

• Disadvantage: Death. Jumping in front of a bus will kill you, which outweighs any respect you may gain.

Backfire: A Detriment claiming that the plan creates a bad consequence inside the intended effect area.

In the past, this sort of argument would typically show up as a solvency argument, a DA, or a redundant pair. In short, a Backfire says: “The plan will make worse what it tries to improve.”

• Harm: No Respect. No one in this office respects me.

• Plan: Bus Jump. Jump in front of a bus to show how tough I am.

• Backfire: Laughing Stock. Everyone will think you’re insane for jumping in front of a bus, so you’ll actually lose respect.

The difference between a DA and a Backfire is in the impact. If the aff has a Benefit in that topic area, it’s a Backfire. If not, it’s a DA. Backfires are unique and have their own sub-point structure.

Cost: A Detriment claiming that the plan causes missed opportunities.

There is no clear analog for this in traditional policy theory. A DA is the closest relative, but these kinds of arguments are rare outside of Omni. A Cost says that the negative option gives us something great that the plan forces us to lose. It may help to think of a Cost as: “The status quo presented as a counterplan.”

• Harm: No Respect. No one in this office respects me.

• Plan: Bus Jump. Jump in front of a bus to show how tough I am.

• Cost: No Cake. They’re about to sing “Happy Birthday” to Brenda in the break room. If you jump in front of a bus, you won’t get to eat any cake.

There is a lot to say about each of these arguments. We’ll go through each of them in detail in upcoming posts. For now, a quick review of what’s different:

• Customizable Cases. In the Team format, negatives should split their arguments between the two constructives. Traditional theory doesn’t give a good way to maximize offense because there’s only one negative argument type: a DA. That means the most obvious neg offense strategy is to present some DAs in the 1NC, and then present some more DAs in the 2NC. This is deeply unintuitive. Dividing Detriments into 3 categories gives you more ways to map out your plan of attack without having to add filler arguments.

• Genuine Distinctions. Backfires and Costs are genuinely unique patterns of thinking. We could just blend the aff case into “Benefits” and the neg into “Detriments.” But expanding them based on their impact helps distinguish them and clarify exactly what you’re targeting. It also helps you come up with arguments - a hidden but incredibly important aspect of debate theory.

• Costs are New. The concept of a Cost isn’t new, but without a proper class, it’s very hard to run effectively. In the past, Costs wound up just being a feeble persuasive device: “What a waste, considering all these other arguments that have teeth! Why bother?” Costs give a structure building to a genuine impact that can sway the judge, giving you a whole new way to win rounds as the neg.

  • Aff: Our plan will cost 10 billion dollars.

  • Traditional Neg: That … is a waste because the plan won’t work.

  • Omni Neg: Spending that 10 billion to build orphanages is better than how the aff wants to spend it.

• Off-Case Solvency Fixed. The problem of off-case solvency was what led us to Omni in the first place. Traditional theory presents it in a messy way with unintuitive, interdependent logic and redundancies - “Here’s why the plan won’t work - here’s my DA - and guess what, they actually make it WORSE! - so now my response to their advantage …” Omni turns that mess into a powerful new argument class. It’s clearer, condenses the flow, and best of all, seizes strategic control of the issue. We’ll have a lot more to say about them in future posts, but for now, we’ll just say this.

Backfires offer an unprecedented level of strategic potency.

No other argument on the impact calculus can compare. Strategically, Backfires are the strongest argument that we have ever seen - in any theory ecosystem. In early tests, we’ve been blown away by what’s possible with them.

We’ll go through each of the Detriments one at a time. Stay tuned.