Mastering Impact Weighing in Debates: An In-depth Guide
Delve into the world of debate strategies with a focus on impact weighing. Learn how to analyze and compare impacts, evaluate different frameworks, meta-weighing, and more. Enhance your debating skills to make compelling arguments and win debates effectively.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
Truth-Testing, Comparatives, and how to win a debate By Thadeus Smith for Climb the Mountain
How do we know who s won? Truth-testing The role of the judge is to evaluate the resolution s truth or falsity. Any argument that could contribute to this is relevant. Comparative Worlds The role of the judge is to evaluate the desirability of each side s world. The AFF burden is to show that their world is better than the NEG, and vice versa. We re going to focus on comparative worlds today, and specifically Impact Calculus
Impacts An impact is the reason your argument matters They provide an easy illustration of your side s world They can show a benefit to your world or a cost of the opponent s world Allows the judge an easy comparsion Let s do an example A judge overturned the CDC s mandate on masks on air travel What are some potential impacts of this? Positive? Negative?
Impact Weighing Take the impacts from the previous example about the mask mandate How does a judge know which one of those impacts is better? This is where impact weighing comes in There are a lot of different ways to outweigh Magnitude Probability Timeframe Scope Reversibility You do it -Weigh the impacts from that example
Advanced Impact Weighing Frameworks Meta-weighing Weighing about weighing How to compare different weighing mechanisms Example One team outweighs on magnitude. One team outweighs on probability. How do we resolve this? I say that Coke outweighs coffee because it tastes better, while you say coffee outweighs because it s healthier -How do we compare? We need to compare our weighing arguments - Taste vs. Health Framework tells the judge what types of impacts to prefer If you re winning the framing debate, you re probably also winning impacts Example 1 Value: Justice Criterion: Reducing structural violence What type impacts work under this framework? Example 2: Value: Morality Criterion: Utilitarianism (maximizing happiness) What type impacts work best here?
Meta-Weighing continued Probability vs. Magnitude The most common meta-weighing Magnitude Nuclear war, climate change, extinction Infinite risk Cognitive bias Magnitude is a prereq Probability Things like structural violence, war, inequality, and the economy are generally high probability Policy Paralysis Cognitive Bias Rounding Down
