The Basic Comparisons

1. PROBABILITY: the likelihood of certain impacts coming about in the worst or best form.

Wording: “more/less likely than”, “more/less probable than”, “A is guaranteed while B is only likely/may occur”

Example: If you study for your test, it is more likely that you will pass than if you choose to watch television all night.

Note: Probability is essential to analyzing any impact. In fact, impacts are usually assumed probable rather than attacked for being improbable. You should always address probability in IC.

2. TIMEFRAME:  When an impact will occur; how long it takes an impact to occur or begin/end

Wording: “will happen faster/sooner”, “short term effect versus long term effect”, “comes first”

Example: If we use stimulus spending to boost the economy, the creation of jobs and increase of consumer spending will come before the effects of a minor increase in deficit spending.

Note: One impact comes before another and therefore outweighs the secondary impact due to it occurring first. You can also question the urgency of the resolution’s action if the desired impact will not occur soon or requires many other events to take place before it will occur.

3. MAGNITUDE:  the scope or size of an impact

Wording: “bigger/smaller than”, “broader/narrower than”, “more important/significant than”

Example: Another oil spill in the Gulf Coast will wipe out the coastal ecosystem, destroying the environment and the economic activity tied to it. This is more important than the lost jobs from the oil industry, which will survive with or without offshore drilling.

Note: Magnitude is the easiest comparison to articulate because you can usually quantify the impact. Remember that magnitude can be qualitative too. Just because you can’t assign a number to your impact does not mean it does not have a big effect. Judges most easily understand magnitude. Given this, if you don’t think magnitude is important, you want to explicitly say, “ignore magnitude” and explain why timeframe or probability is more important.

None of these comparative types are independent. All three interact within each impact. A good rule is to combine two comparisons together in your IC. To compare all three you is often too complicated and will hinder your word economy. Be strategic about which two best fit the impacts you want to compare. When working on your case, it is a good idea to sketch out the Probability, Timeframe, and Magnitude of the impacts you will be arguing. With these prepared, it will be easier to do IC in round; you will only have to analyze your opponent’s arguments. This will also make strategizing about which comparisons to make simpler when you know the strong points of your own impacts. Here are examples of comparisons interacting.

Probability + Timeframe

While the probability of a dangerously large asteroid hitting the earth is high, we know that it could be predicted and will not occur for hundreds of years. Therefore, while funding for an asteroid defense is a good idea, we should prioritize fighting the growing hole in the ozone layer. Although the probability of significant growth in the ozone hole is lower, we know it will occur in the next few years.

Probability + Magnitude

While the probability of the seepage of radioactive waste is small, the effects of seepage will devastate the environment, the health and economy of our society, and cause irreversible damage. Nuclear energy may guarantee more energy for our country, but there are other energy options that pose no threat to our environment, health, and the economy. These other options pose no irreversible harms. We must limit our nuclear energy because of the devastation the waste can cause.

Timeframe + Magnitude

If we ban handguns today, the decrease in gun sales may be immediate, but the removal of handguns from the population will take an extended period of time. The immediate impact of guns remaining in the hands of criminals is much more devastating when people cannot buy guns for self-defense. Though a ban may be effective in the future, the short-term harms are too great to justify the long-term chance of solving the gun problem.