In policy and public forum debates, impact calculus, also known as weighing impacts, is a type of argumentation which seeks to compare the impacts presented in both causes and effects to sway the judge's decision.
There are several basic types of impact calculus that compare the impacts of the plan to the impacts of a disadvantage: Some other more sophisticated arguments are also considered impact calculus: Approach arguments can also be considered impact calculus.
Arguments as to why the judge should adopt a utilitarian or consequentialist perspective or conversely a deontological perspective may change the way they compare impacts.
Basic impact calculus arguments may be made at any time and are generally not considered "new" arguments, even if brought up for the first time in the 2NR or 2AR.
More sophisticated forms of impact calculus should generally be brought up earlier in the debate and supported by evidence whenever possible.