In the last post, we talked about how impact calculus simplifies policy strategy. But here’s the caveat:

Logically, things don't always break down into clean math.

Compare:

• Affirmative Plan: Save 1 life.

• Negative Counterplan: Kill 1 person to save 2.

If we’re just measuring net life, these plans are interchangeable. But the full effects of the counterplan are more complex than that. Does that mean we can’t use impact calculus? No! But we have to factor in everything, like the moral ramifications of killing someone, and the potential legal consequences.

Real live debate rounds tend to look more like this. Both sides may impact to the same concepts, but the details of their arguments are harder to compare.

Does this look familiar?

• Affirmative Plan: Force factories to meet clean air standards.

• Negative Counterplan: Encourage rapid economic development so factories transition to cleaner technology on their own.

Yes, both sides are claiming clean air. But the equation isn’t a binary “clean/dirty air.” Assuming both plans work as intended, the aff cleans the air immediately, but could hamper the economy and even prolong the time spent in a low-tech industrial mode. The negative plan cleans the air up at some point in the future, but actually increases pollution now.

The calculus can get complex, and unfortunately, most debaters don’t do all the work needed for the judge to make a decision.

Policy debate isn’t just about running good arguments. A huge part of winning is weighing those arguments against each other.

• Level 0: The aff cleans the air, but it’s bad for governments to tell private businesses what to do.

Both sides leave the round certain that they won, oblivious to the fact that Preston has no idea how to make this choice and will have to invoke his personal bias if he doesn’t want to die in the judge’s lounge.

• Level 1: The aff wants cleaner air; our counterplan ALSO cleans the air.

Better, but Preston now has to do a lot of work on his own to figure out which plan produces the cleanest air.

• Level 2: Our plan cleans the air; the aff actually makes it a bit worse.

This is strong because Preston doesn’t have to do any work now. One side is clearly superior. But as we said earlier, it’s rare that you can set up a decision this simple.

• Level 3: If you vote aff, here’s exactly what the air will be like. Now here’s exactly what you get with our plan. Now let me directly compare and contrast so you don’t have to figure anything out when you fill out your ballot.

This is what Omni rebuttals should sound like. Preston can basically flow the final negative speech in the Reason for Decision part of his ballot.

Another version:

• Level 3: The aff world creates cleaner air, but it also creates a world where the government tells private businesses whether they can pollute. Here’s why that world is worse overall.

You can absolutely concede affirmative arguments, only to outweigh them with other arguments. In fact, that’s probably the right strategy in at least one round per tournament. The key is: you can’t just push your own arguments. You have to do the work of impact calculation. You have to describe exactly what the aff and neg worlds look like, and explain why yours is better. Once you get into the hang of it, you’ll start to notice how rare it is. Winning rounds will start to feel like hacking.

Omni still gives the negative some new toys to go on raw offense, however.

Those are coming in the next post. See you soon.