Comprehensive Overview of Impact Calculus in Policy Frameworks
This document provides a detailed overview of impact calculus within policy frameworks, focusing on critical elements such as magnitude, probability, and timeframe. It explores the systemic harms arising from policy decisions, the importance of using evidence for effective link generation, and methodologies for framing arguments with a focus on outcomes. Key concepts such as the Kritikal Framework and comparative analysis are elaborated to enhance understanding of how different impacts can be weighed against one another, facilitating persuasive advocacy in debates and decision-making processes.
Comprehensive Overview of Impact Calculus in Policy Frameworks
E N D
Presentation Transcript
Impact Calculus Weber & Short
Overview • Policy Framework: • Magnitude • Probability • Timeframe • Kritikal Framework: • Systemic Harms • Using evidence to generate links • Beginning with the end in mind
Magnitude • How large are your harms? • How many people/animals/biospheres are affected? This is sometimes called scope. • How much are they affected? What’s the terminal impact? • Framework: How would/should the judge weigh this calculation against opponent harms? • You can usually get to a large magnitude through a large, often improbable I/L chain, but consider the tradeoff with other advs/DAs • Advantages: Risk of the Link • Disadvantages: Unlikely (low probability), Catastrophizing turns
Probability • How likely are the impacts to occur? • Link specificity key to determine and compare this with competing advs/DAs • High probability is usually derived from specific scenarios in the cards, scientific or statistical epistemologies, high probability semantics from field experts • Advantages: Great time tradeoff (good research does the trick—make link books) • Disadvantages: Usually needs to be weighed with other considerations
Timeframe • How soon do the harms/impacts occur? • Usually get T/F through specific link scenarios and historical/empirical epistemologies • Advantages: Among equals, sooner is more persuasive • Disadvantages: Predictive or political language of historical readings can kill probability (monkeys throwing darts—looking at you, ptix)
Systemic Impacts • Problems inherent in the status quo • Because K’s are non-unique, it becomes more difficult to explain case-specific causation, leading to a more difficult probability, magnitude, and timeframe story • Framework/role of the ballot helps focus discussion down onto in-round impacts • Discourse key • Rejection key • Individual Advocacy key • Don’t box yourself in unnecessarily: CP as alt (strategic choice: the policy/K link turn switcharoo)
Comparative Analysis • Impact Calc isn’t just “M x P x T”: it’s all about comparison shopping • Some questions: • Which is more persuasive: a 100% chance of a small impact (e.g. education) in the present or a 1% chance of a large impact (e.g. ‘splosions) far in the future? • How would you determine probability in a card that doesn’t give you a specific calculation? • What about timeframe? • Magnitude? • How would you reconcile the differences between policy and systemic impacts? (cede the political v. discourse; pre- v. post-fiat; etc.)
Using evidence to generate I/C links • Specificity of Links: case-specific links grant higher probability than generics • Semantic Differences: will v. may, etc. • Competing Epistemologies: • Scientific/Statistical • Empirical/Historical • Ideological/Theoretical • Opinion (a la PTIX) • Causality: Uniqueness, Brink, Isolation of Variables
Beginning with the end in mind • Setting up 2NR calculus in constructions (especially the 1AC; although undercovering in the 1 is a good strat, too, if you want to push them into a specific argument): • “Now K/T…”: Need a unique scenario that pushes T/F into the present • Impact calc/weigh ____ first/framework: Explains why your advantages should be considered first when making decisions • Case-specific links: comparing probability vs. “risk of the link”
