The Disadvantage

Provides an added measure to vote against the affirmative plan and vote for

the present system.

The Disadvantage• Uniqueness: States the condition of the status quo,

should show that the status quo is in fine condition. • Brink/threshold: better explains the condition of

the status quo as being close to a bad consequence.• Link: Shows how the affirmative plan disrupts the

state of the status quo• Internal Link: Shows the causal step between the

plan and the Impact.• Impact: Defines the implications or consequences of

that disruption.

Uniqueness: DA’s inherency• Arguments against and stemming from uniqueness– Non-unique: provides a warrant as to why the DA is not

unique to case… but rather common to the status quo.– Impacts Denied: The impacts have not happened though

a balance system was already interrupted.– Status Quo Links: Proves that there are added harms to

staying with the present system– “OR” Uniqueness overwhelms the Link – DA

Circumvention!– Contradicts Inherency Arguments – Their Inherency

arguments claim that there is plan action in the status quo, were this true the DA wouldn’t be unique.

Link: “My plan Does What?”

• Common Link arguments– No-Link: the plan just doesn’t do what you say… with

evidence of course– Link Turn: Explains that the plan in fact overcomes the

link and prevents/solves the impact.– Link proves Solvency: If the DA is dependent on PMN

(harms being solved) then it can be argued that solvency must happen before the DA.

– No Brink/threshold: The plan is not a big enough disruption to cause the impact.

Impact: “A world without nuclear weapons would be less stable and more dangerous for all of us.” - Margaret Thatcher

• Intervention – Claims that mechanisms inherent in the status quo, independent from the Aff’s agent will intervene to stop the claimed Impact.

• Impact turn – Claims the impact is a good thing and that causing it acts as an advantage.

DO NOT LINK TURN AND IMPACT TURN!!

Impact Calculus 101• Magnitude – Claims one impact outweighs

the other based on damage done. (Utilitarianism)

• Timeframe – Claims one impact outweighs another based on which one would happen first. (Exigency and Salience)

• Probability – Weighing model that claims one impact is more likely to happen… (realism; disambiguous)

How to weigh impacts in round…

• Inclusively: World war is inclusive of a US-Korean War.

• Reversibility: Destroying Human rights is reversible, Death is not…

• A Turns Y: One impact causes another, specifically your opponents.

• Internal Link Short Circuiting: One impact prevents a good impact from happening.

• Pre Vs. Post Fiat: It can be claimed that something real is worse than something imagined…

Impact Calculus APImpact Calculus 101

A Notion of Fiat

• Fiat: Latin Term meaning “let it be done.”

• Fiat is an agreement that “policy debate” should not be about Plan Probability but rather should be about Plan Desirability.

• This agreement is that the debate is not about what “will” be adopted but what “should” be adopted.

A Topical Proposition

• Case must be related to the resolution• Must prove that the need-solution can only

be obtained by adopting the topic• Jurisdictional Argument – means that the

affirmative's proposal must fall under the judges jurisdiction to decide the round.

• Topicality standards come down to education and fairness.

Proper Shell• Interpretation - determines what words/phrases in

the resolution the Aff violates (definition)• Violation – Warrants how the Aff violates those

words/phrases• Standards – Provides a weighing mechanism by

which the judge can determine if the aff is topical based on competing interpretations.

• Voters – Gives a reason as to why the judge should vote on the particular violation sited above.

Common Standards• Grammar – The resolution provides certain grammatical

standards by which an aff interpretation must follow.• Field Context – provides a use of the interpretation based on

expert’s uses in their particular field. (hopefully on the topic some how.)

• Each word has a meaning – It means that one word or phrase cannot be so defined as to make another word or phrase meaningless. (Goes good with intent)

• Debatablilty – Must fairly divide ground between the AFF and NEG.

• Limits – In order to be fair the interpretation must limit the affirmatives choice of policy positions.

• Intent – The people who wrote the topic had something in mind.

Common Voters

• Jurisdiction – Voting for topicality a jurisdictional matter and must be exercised

• Education- By allowing a one sided debate we are not educated on the topic.

• Fairness – To be equitable topicality must be a voter.

• A priori- Topicality comes first in the debate, must rule here before the case.

Extra Topicality

• Claims that added un-topical plan provisions go above and beyond what is “topical” as claimed by the interpretation.

• Can be expressed as an interpretation or as a resolutional analysis.

• If the affirmative team claims added justification through either the PMN story or through advantages then there is abuse of jurisdiction. (Africa Topic: vote for us cause we save whales)

Effects Topicality

• Claims that in a vacuum (or by itself) the plan does not intuitively support the resolution, but rather, the effects of plan (i.e. solvency) are topical.

• This means that you must look to solvency to determine whether the affirmative does in fact support the resolution.