SV vs. Extinction Outweighs

Structural Violence vs Existential Risk

Disclaimer: This guide will mainly focus on how to answer structural violence, rather than how to read it. 

To beat an argument, you must first understand it. So, what is structural violence? The term structural violence refers to the harm that is woven into the structure of society, rather than caused by isolated instances of physical force. These “structures” can include social, political, and economic systems that systematically disadvantage certain groups, often preventing them from meeting basic living standards, such as adequate access to healthcare, job opportunities, and education. In the context of the Public Forum debate, it functions as a framework that tells the judge how to evaluate impacts in the round. Often, debaters using structural violence as a framework will argue that arguments should prioritize ongoing, systemic violence over existential or “big stick” impacts. If won, this framework usually frames out impacts such as extinction as they don’t derive their offense from solving a structure. Debaters may also argue that it is an ethical obligation to address structural violence rather than trying to prevent low-risk, high-magnitude impacts. 

How to answer a structural violence framework:

1. Extinction Outweighs

Extinction outweighs is a weighing mechanism that argues judges ought to vote in a way that reduces the most existential risk given the sheer magnitude and irreversible consequences. Extinction represents the painful death of 8 billion human beings and the elimination of all future generations, meaning that no other impact can reverse it. This answers the framework of structural violence well because it functions as meta-weighing that should be evaluated on a higher level, since extinction is such a large impact that under the default consequentialist risk-calculus framework, it would take priority. Many authors have written about existential risk, such as Nick Bostrom, Toby Ord, Jonathan Schell, and many more. Their books or articles are thus commonly cited as evidence in rounds. Although cut cards are a good option when answering structural violence, analytics are also an option that many successful teams use. 

2. Link-ins

This method of answering structural violence is strategic for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it allows you to gain the offense stemming from the structural violence framework and access their weighing/implications, as well as being able to weigh the impact of extinction. For example, the impact of climate change can link into a structural violence framework. This is because during the process of climate change culminating in extinction, many disadvantaged communities living in coastal areas that aren’t mainly responsible for emissions or climate change are affected the hardest by things such as extreme weather. It is always important to double-check if your link is actually solving the root cause of the problem, instead of acting like a band-aid solution. Weighing, such as scope or timeframe, should always be done in addition to the link-in in order to break clash in your favor. 

3. Attack the link

As mentioned above, it is always important to interrogate the link, especially when it comes to teams running structural violence. Many teams running structural violence are in reality reading soft-left affirmatives with structural violence framing, but remember that teams must win by showing that they are solving the actual root cause and not giving a band-aid solution. A good way to remember this is that structural violence team’s advocacy must solve the root cause, and not just treat the symptoms. An example of a band-aid solution would be a link that expands healthcare access to a few programs, but doesn’t actually fix the broader healthcare inequality system, like cost structures or insurance gaps.

4. Theory/IVI

Although not the most persuasive response, it is nonetheless. A common response to teams reading a structural violence framework is an IVI called “Oppression Olympics.” Essentially, the argument is that structural violence impacts are evaluated by comparing which groups suffer more rather than addressing harm holistically. This turns debate into a competition over victimhood, forcing the judge to rank different forms of suffering instead of evaluating policies objectively. The subjective nature of the evaluation also increases judge intervention, which impacts out to fairness or education.

5. Resolvability

This response argues that the framework of structural violence is much too vague and difficult to evaluate because of the nature of the impacts. Specifically, it becomes extremely difficult to measure or reliably weigh impacts when you or an opponent cannot articulate how much of a vague “structure” they are solving for. This lack of precision makes it impossible for the judge to objectively evaluate which side better reduces harm, which links into voters like fairness and education, because judge intervention is increased. The argument thus goes that the main focus of the debate should be to try to maximise pleasure for the largest number of people, since it is the most resolvable.

6. Impact turning probability meta-weighing

Although not as common, a strategy is to try to impact turn probability meta-weighing, which teams reading structural violence will often argue. One common argument is policy paralysis, which claims that any deviation from the status quo carries some risk of triggering a chain of events that leads to extinction, meaning policymakers would avoid acting altogether. However, this logic is flawed because the inverse is also true: if policymakers only relied on probability, no policy would ever be enacted, since no outcome can be predicted with complete certainty. Decision-making necessarily involves risk, so probability alone cannot be the sole metric for evaluating impacts. Additionally, empirical examples disprove the idea of policy paralysis. During the Cuban Missile Crisis and the response to the September 11 attacks, policymakers acted quickly despite significant uncertainty and potential risks. Another strategy is that it can be argued that institutions/governments underestimate or are unprepared for the risk of extinction, which means we should prioritize it.