Value and Fact debate have very clean separations between offense (your case) and defense (their case) that make strategic decisions simple. Ace Peak has encouraged policy debaters to apply similar thinking to policy: emphasizing off-case arguments like DAs and Topicality, while minimizing time spent on the aff case. This may still be a good strategy, but the underlying thinking is more nuanced in Omni.

Compare these negative tactics.

(We’ll go in-depth on Costs and Backfires soon)

• Affirmative: Our plan will earn one dollar.

• Significance: Dollars are useless in this economy.

• Solvency: You’ll never get paid.

• Cost 1: The plan will cost a dollar.

• Cost 2: You’ll miss out on the chance to earn a dollar.

• Backfire: Thieves will target your newfound wealth and steal the dollar.

• Disadvantage: You’ll lose a dollar’s worth of happiness executing the plan.

• Counterplan: Do this other thing that earns a dollar.

This diverse range of arguments all have the same impact: that the net effect of the plan is $0. Older strategic thinking says: “You should prefer the off-case arguments.” But in terms of how they sway the judge logically, they’re interchangeable.

A penny saved is a penny earned.

In policy, the line between offense and defense is blurry. This has huge implications for your overall strategy.

Running multiple beefy case responses with evidence is suicide in value debate because you’re validating something you don’t want the judge to care about. But in policy, the judge cares about everything. It all matters! Which means you’re not wrong to take “defense” seriously if you see a chance to improve the final impact calculus.

There’s a big caveat, however. We’ll tell you all about it on Monday.