Impact Calculus

There is an impact calculus epidemic going on. It is happening right now so nothing could be faster and it causes extinction so it totally outweighs your case, and we are always gonna win that.
Sound familiar?
It is important for both sides in a debate to make comparative arguments about the costs and benefits of adopting the affirmative plan. To not do so is a major strategic blunder. However, to simply repeat tired, unwarranted taglines over and over again about timeframe, magnitude and probability may actually be worse.
It is better to be suspected of being a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt, even DMX knows that.
The average impact overview in a 2NC goes something like this: “Our DA outweighs the case because of timeframe- its faster than their case, Magnitude- its bigger than their case, and probability- its super probable, and it turns the case because in a war no one would do their plan.” This is pretty much a waste of oxygen. A complete argument consists of a claim , a warrant, and evidence. Saying economic collapse is fast is a claim. It doesn’t become an argument until you ad a warrant and some evidence. The warrant could be markets are perception oriented, and therefore will react quickly. You then need to provide evidence for this, such as a card from a qualified source (an appeal to authority), give an example of when that has been the case (an empirical example), or a more in depth explanation that relies on logic.
Now sometimes you might not have to do this. If the aff advantage is something obviously long term, like resolving the collapse of social security, and has the same impact as your disad, say the economy, then you can get away with relying on the fact that its obvious your disad happens faster. However, this is very rarely the case. Most of the time debaters are attempting to compare disparate impacts such as the collapse of the economy vs the loss of US primacy. In this case you need to put together a coherent impact overview that takes at least 1 argument and completes it. Let’s look at some examples:
Bad: "Economic collapse outweighs the case because Mead says it causes a global war- theirFerguson evidence only says regional war."
Never ever ever say something like this, its soooo stupid. The Mead evidence is a total of like 3 sentences. It doesn’t make a differential claim that economic collapse causes a bigger war than anything else. While Nial does say regional nuclear wars, that is only 1 sentence from a card that lists several other impacts to a collapse of leadership. This kind of oversimplification and exaggeration is not an argument.
Mediocre: "Immigration DA outweighs - Our impact is faster- markets operate based on perception whereas the structure of hegemony can’t collapse overnight."
This is approaching an argument. It makes some sense that economic growth could decline more quickly than the US military would cease to be effective. However, the Immigration DA doesn’t really have a perception internal link into the economy. Nor will most affs on this topic have an advantage about the US military just collapsing, they will be more related to soft power. While somewhat logical, this explanation still needs evidence to back up the warrants it lists.
Good: "Economic collapse turns the case- Khalilzhad says economic growth is essential to get the population to support engagement- a loss of growth will cause isolationism and immediate withdrawal from the world."
This contains a claim- Econ key to heg- a warrant- people want money or they wont support engagement- and evidence to back it up- a reference to an already read piece of hegemony evidence.
“But my lab leaders say that I should always talk about all 3- time frame, probability and magnitude”.
They probably do. In reality, however, your lab leaders are just channeling Mr. Miagi. They are trying to teach you a broad stroke strategy (painting the fence) so that you can later employ it effectively (blocking a punch). This does not mean that every time you talk about an impact you should mention all three. You will be better served by focusing on the one your disad is actually winning, and explaining why it is more important than the other 2. For example, when going for a politics disad like the 08 presidential election, don’t talk about timeframe. The election is more than a year away. You should instead emphasize the magnitude and explain why slightly longer term impacts with a huge magnitude are more important than short term low magnitude impacts.