Stock issues

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Part of the series Policy Debate

Organization
Policy debate competitions Inter-Collegiate policy debate
Format
Structure of policy debate · Resolution Constructive · Rebuttal · Prep Time Evidence · Flow
Participants
Affirmative · Negative · Judge
Types of Arguments
Stock Issues · Case· Disadvantage Counterplan · Kritik Impact calculus · Topicality
Argumentative Concepts
Offense · Defense · Turn · Drop

Traditional policy debate theory states that the affirmative plan must fulfill certain issues, called the stock issues. The first four issues must be presented in the affirmative case. The last issue, topicality, need not be included in the affirmative case, but must be defended if the negative team raises arguments. They are (in order of importance):

Solvency: The plan should solve for a harm in the status quo or create an advantage over the status quo
Harms: The affirmative should demonstrate a harm in the status quo. This stock issue is often labelled as an advantage instead. An advantage may either be an actual harm or merely an opportunity cost harm.
Inherency: The status quo must not be capable of solving the harms asserted in the case. There are three types of inherency:

Structural inherency: Laws or other barriers to the implementation of the plan.
Attitudinal inherency: Beliefs or attitudes which prevent the implementation of the plan.
Existential inherency: The harms exist and res ipsa loquitur, the status quo must not be able to solve the problem

The affirmative team has the legislative intent of Fiat (Latin for "let it be so") for their plan so the debate focuses around the effects of the plan rather than whether or not the plan could occur. Inherency is often not labelled in the 1AC but rather incorporated into advantages such that it becomes clear why the plan is an advantage over the status quo. The popularization of offense/defense in policy debate effectively squelched debate over inherency because the affirmative will usually win Inherency as a stock issue as long as there is a chance the status quo will not solve the case.

Topicality: The affirmative case must affirm the resolution. The affirmative case must argue within the bounds of the resolution as defined by appropriate definitions. When the resolution appears vague, the probable intent of the resolution is considered and upheld.
Significance: The affirmative must be significant. This stock issue has also fallen out of use in part because of the difficulty of defining what is and what is not significant. Generally, any advantage over the status quo makes the plan significant. Some paradigms and regions, however, do not consider this to be a stock issue. It is reasonable to argue that Significance has been subsumed by the option of the Negative to use a Topicality violation on "substantially."

An alternate way to list the stock issues, and a possible easier way, is "Solvency, Harms, Inherency, Topicality, Significance," or S.H.I.T.S. or the classroom appropriate variant S.I.T.H.S.

Another, more contemporary, way in which the issues may be addressed in the 1AC is "inherency, harms, solvency" in this model,the significance, or impacts of NOT enacting the case, are added into the harms. Once again, topicality is left as a burden for the negative team to bring up. the final case structure would then look like:

1.inherency
2.harms
- links
- internal links
- impacts
3.solvency