behindthyhazeleyes-blog - Tumblr blog

All About Debate

STOCK ISSUES

How does this apply to debate?

As you will recall, the Affirmative team speaks first in the round, since they need to justify changing the status quo. The goal of this first speech is to present a specific plan and a list of reasons for adopting it, the case.

The plan is a very detailed list of what steps the Affirmative team thinks the government should adopt. The case is a persuasive series of arguments designed to show that the plan is needed and effective.

The Affirmative must present a prima facie (PRY-muh FAY-shuh) case in the first speech if they expect to win the debate. "Prima facie" a Latin phrase meaning, roughly, "at first glance" means that the arguments are sufficient to persuade a reasonable person until they are refuted. If the Affirmative presents a prima facie case, they have fulfilled their burden of proof for the first speech: they have presented a reason to change the status quo. If the Affirmative fails to provide a prima facie case, the Negative can win just by pointing that out in their first speech.

What are the components of a prima facie case?

The prima facie case must answer certain of the stock issues in the 1AC speech. The stock issues are four basic varieties of argument which appear in every debate.

One way to think of stock issues is as questions to which the Affirmative must answer yes and the Negative may answer no. There are many ways of posing these questions, but here are some examples:

1. Is there a significant need for a change? Is there a great harm in the status quo, and/or is there a great advantage which can be obtained by modifying our present way of doing things?

2. Will mechanisms in the status quo cause the problem to remain? Is the harm an intrinsic part of the present system? Can only the Affirmative proposal gain the advantage?

3. Will the proposal ease the problem effectively?

4. Will the plan avoid unpleasant side effects?

The first stock issue is known as harm or need. The second is called inherency (or, sometimes, uniqueness). The third issue is called solvency, and the fourth, disadvantages (or, rarely, cost). To provide a prima facie speech, the first Affirmative Constructive must provide a plan and address the harm, inherency, and solvency issues.

Notice how our playground example a few paragraphs ago fits into this system of analysis. The Harm issue is considered in the dangers to children from the current playground structure. The fact that nobody else is taking action satisfies the Inherency issue. The detailed proposal for new equipment provides the plan, and the claims that it would be a functional solution meets the Solvency requirement.

Why isn't the Disadvantages stock issue part of a prima facie case?

We assume that the Affirmative plan has a tiny amount of risk, but we trust the Affirmative enough to suspend judgement on any disadvantages until later in the debate. We expect that any bad side-effects will be brought up by the Negative team in their speeches. The Affirmative will, of course, deny that there are any major defects in their plan.

If the Affirmative had the duty to anticipate and answer all possible side-effects in their first speech, they couldn't possibly fulfill their burden of proof in eight minutes. So, in the interests of fairness, Disadvantages are excluded from prima facie consideration.

Explain the Need stock issue.

To meet the need issue, the Affirmative must prove that there is a significant amount of suffering going on due to present policy. They can take two approaches: they can prove a quantitative harm, showing that many people are affected, or they can show a qualitative harm, demonstrating that relatively few people are hurt deeply.

Consider a resolution calling for stricter federal control over pornography. One Affirmative case may choose to show that millions of people are exposed to pornography, and each exposure corrupts them slightly; the net effect is widespread, even universal, harm. This quantitative approach suggests a big, but not necessarily intense, problem.

Another case on the same topic might suggest that, for a few individuals, pornography causes criminally violent sexual behavior: it leads to rapes, assaults, and child molesting. Clearly, not all people are sexually assaulted in the course of a year not even a large fraction of the population are so harmed. But those who are harmed are hurt greatly. This is a qualitative approach.

Remember that the need analysis is equally valid as an advantage instead of a harm. For example, the Affirmative could demonstrate that cutting pornography would cut assaults, resulting in a savings of thousands of hours of police time, and millions of dollars in court and prison costs. This quantitative advantage is just as legitimate as a quantitative harm approach. Both types of analysis demonstrate a need for the Affirmative proposal.

Are there any other stock issues?

No....but you may hear about three others. They really aren't valid ones they are holdovers from debate theory of previous decades but a few schools are using old textbooks that still refer to them, so you should be familiar with the concepts. If you are faced with a team using this analysis, you have an excellent chance of winning; just make sure the judge knows that you know the underlying concept of the issue is flawed.

Significance deals with size and magnitude. Usually an Affirmative team arguing significance notes that their case extends to very many people. Properly, significance is a part of the Harm/Need stock issue: the Affirmative must prove that the harm they cite or the advantage they hope to derive is a significant and important one. Merely noting that large numbers of people (or many millions of dollars) are involved is not sufficient. Be careful here. A few debate teams use the word Significance when they mean Need or Harm.

Workability (sometimes called Unworkability) is usually brought up by the Negative, to claim that the Affirmative plan is not practical. Usually the Second Negative speaker will argue that the plan doesn't have Congressional backing, or that some minor details are too sketchy to function. These arguments are misapplied. If the plan is flawed so that it will not function well, the Negative argument is clearly one against solvency; if the plan is so flawed that it will worsen the situation, the relevant stock issue is disadvantages.

Often, workability arguments are just presented as a list of questions or assertions (known as presses): "How will your financing work? I don't see how the Affirmative is going to get all the money they need. And mailing out checks to everybody in poverty every month who's going to lick all those envelopes? Until the Affirmative can answer these questions, we must conclude their plan is not workable." But questions aren't the same as arguments, and they are not persuasive. The Affirmative team cannot ignore Workability questions, but they can be handled quickly and easily...and the Affirmatives can expect to win the debate.

Finally, there is the pseudo-stock issue called Topicality. This is a very special case, because topicality is a legitimate and often vitally important issue in policy debate. It's so important, in fact, that we devote a whole chapter to it later on. While some debate theorists disagree, I don't think topicality should be considered a Stock Issue, however. Topicality is not an issue which must arise in every debate, while the other stock issues must be considered. Even Disadvantages are at least an implicit part of every round, even when the Negative fails to introduce formal disadvantage arguments, as part of the presumption in favor of the status quo. Topicality arguments are different; we consider that the Affirmative case and plan are operating completely within the bounds of the resolution until the Negative team begins a challenge to topicality. Thus, I think Topicality should not be considered a part of the standard Stock Issue quartet.

Inherency

Inherency is the hardest of the stock issues for the beginning debater to understand. The crux of inherency is the nature of cause-and-effect: the Affirmative wants to demonstrate that there are features in the status quo which cause the problems discussed in the Need issue. Proving that this causal link exists means that the harms can't be cured except by reforming the status quo.

There are four basic types of inherency that you might meet. For demonstration purposes, we will assume that the Affirmative is proposing a plan to increase federal aid to people living in poverty.

Structural inherency is the strongest type of inherent barrier to establish. A structural analysis suggests that a law, or rule, or fact of life is causing the harms. For example, the Affirmative may argue that people who do not get a good education have low productivity, and thus earn low wages, and thus are condemned to poverty. The causal link of poor education to low income is based on economic facts. Similarly, the government rule that people who have given up looking for jobs are not counted as "unemployed" means that the unemployment figures underestimate the number of people in need of work; a law demonstrates structural inherency.

Gap inherency is weaker than structural inherency. The Affirmative notes that the present system has identified a problem and is taking steps against it, but those steps fall short of curing the harms. There is a gap between the solution now in existence and the harm that needs to be cured. For example, federal welfare payments are designed to relieve poverty, but the money a family receives from welfare is too little to raise it above the poverty line a gap exists. Gap inherency is weaker than structural inherency because it shows that the status quo is already making some effort to remove the problem, as we will see when we discuss First Negative tactics.

Attitudinal inherency claims that the problems are caused by people's beliefs, feelings, or opinions. For example, racial prejudice an attitudinal problem prevents many blacks from getting good-paying jobs, thus causing poverty to strike at the African-American family more often than the white family. Another example is that people find it humiliating to ask for charity (an attitude), and so many poor people refuse out of pride to participate in welfare and food stamp programs, and thus suffer poverty and malnutrition (the harm). Attitudinal inherency, also, is weaker than structural inherency; the opposition will argue that the attitudes are not really strong (in 1NC), and that they will thwart the working of the plan (in 2NC). Attitudinal inherency can be effective, but you must be careful when you use it.

Finally, existential inherency argues that, since there's a problem, something must be causing it ...and leaves the question at that point. The Affirmative claims that the mere existence of a problem is enough; we don't have to worry about causes. This is a flawed analysis; existential inherency must never be used! Unless they show a true barrier, the Affirmative can't prove that the harms will not evaporate overnight and so they will lose the debate. Existential inherency is considered a valid approach in some debate circuits, but the consensus among most high school judges is that it is not acceptable. Avoid it.

Burden of Affirmative: Significance

Significance is a stock issue in policy debate which establishes the importance of the harms in the status quo. As a stock issue has fallen out of favor with the debate community almost all debaters and judges now believe that any plan which is preferable to the status quo is significant.

Significance derives from the word "substantially" which appears in most resolutions, and one can argue that Significance has been subsumed by the option for the negative to use a Topicality violation on that word.

Significance deals with size and magnitude. Usually an Affirmative team arguing significance notes that their case extends to very many people. Properly, significance is a part of the Harm/Need stock issue: the Affirmative must prove that the harm they cite or the advantage they hope to derive is a significant and important one. Merely noting that large numbers of people (or many millions of dollars) are involved is not sufficient. Be careful here. A few debate teams use the word Significance when they mean Need or Harm.

Significance: Brings statistics and numbers into the debate. Whichever team (aff. or neg.) brings more, higher, and better statistics into the debate wins the issue. As the affirmative team you must prove your case is important enough if enacted for the judge to waste his time listening too.

Significance: This answers the "why" of debate. All advantages and disadvantages to the status quo (resulting from inherency) and of the plan (resulting from solvency) are evaluated under significance. A common equivocation is to confuse "significance" with the word "significantly" that appears in many resolutions. Significance is derived from calculating between advantages and disadvantages, whereas significant policy changes are determined by how much the policy itself changed (rather than how good or bad the effects are).

Credits:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_issues

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter02.htm

Burden of Affirmative: Inherency

Inherency is the hardest of the stock issues for the beginning debater to understand. The crux of inherency is the nature of cause-and-effect: the Affirmative wants to demonstrate that there are features in the status quo which cause the problems discussed in the Need issue. Proving that this causal link exists means that the harms can't be cured except by reforming the status quo.

There are four basic types of inherency that you might meet. For demonstration purposes, we will assume that the Affirmative is proposing a plan to increase federal aid to people living in poverty.

Structural inherency is the strongest type of inherent barrier to establish. A structural analysis suggests that a law, or rule, or fact of life is causing the harms. For example, the Affirmative may argue that people who do not get a good education have low productivity, and thus earn low wages, and thus are condemned to poverty. The causal link of poor education to low income is based on economic facts. Similarly, the government rule that people who have given up looking for jobs are not counted as "unemployed" means that the unemployment figures underestimate the number of people in need of work; a law demonstrates structural inherency.

Gap inherency is weaker than structural inherency. The Affirmative notes that the present system has identified a problem and is taking steps against it, but those steps fall short of curing the harms. There is a gap between the solution now in existence and the harm that needs to be cured. For example, federal welfare payments are designed to relieve poverty, but the money a family receives from welfare is too little to raise it above the poverty line a gap exists. Gap inherency is weaker than structural inherency because it shows that the status quo is already making some effort to remove the problem, as we will see when we discuss First Negative tactics.

Attitudinal inherency claims that the problems are caused by people's beliefs, feelings, or opinions. For example, racial prejudice an attitudinal problem prevents many blacks from getting good-paying jobs, thus causing poverty to strike at the African-American family more often than the white family. Another example is that people find it humiliating to ask for charity (an attitude), and so many poor people refuse out of pride to participate in welfare and food stamp programs, and thus suffer poverty and malnutrition (the harm). Attitudinal inherency, also, is weaker than structural inherency; the opposition will argue that the attitudes are not really strong (in 1NC), and that they will thwart the working of the plan (in 2NC). Attitudinal inherency can be effective, but you must be careful when you use it.

Finally, existential inherency argues that, since there's a problem, something must be causing it ...and leaves the question at that point. The Affirmative claims that the mere existence of a problem is enough; we don't have to worry about causes. This is a flawed analysis; existential inherency must never be used! Unless they show a true barrier, the Affirmative can't prove that the harms will not evaporate overnight and so they will lose the debate. Existential inherency is considered a valid approach in some debate circuits, but the consensus among most high school judges is that it is not acceptable. Avoid it.

Credits:

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter02.htm

Burden of Affirmative: Topicality

There is the pseudo-stock issue called Topicality. This is a very special case, because topicality is a legitimate and often vitally important issue in policy debate. It's so important, in fact, that we devote a whole chapter to it later on. While some debate theorists disagree, I don't think topicality should be considered a Stock Issue, however. Topicality is not an issue which must arise in every debate, while the other stock issues must be considered. Even Disadvantages are at least an implicit part of every round, even when the Negative fails to introduce formal disadvantage arguments, as part of the presumption in favor of the status quo. Topicality arguments are different; we consider that the Affirmative case and plan are operating completely within the bounds of the resolution until the Negative team begins a challenge to topicality.

Topicality: The affirmative case must affirm the resolution, since that is the job of the affirmative in a debate round. The affirmative case often is shown to be within the bounds of the resolution as defined by appropriate definitions. When the resolution appears vague, the probable intent of the resolution is often considered and upheld. In modern usage, most paradigms and regions do not consider topicality to be a "stock issue" per se; instead, it being a procedural one brought up by the negative.

Topicality: Topicality is designed to check abuses by the affirmative team. Topicality is simply asking, "Is the Affirmative debating the resolution?" It can be run from any word in the resolution. For example, regarding the 99-00 Education resolution, if a plan is not significantly increasing academic achievement, you could run topicality on the word significantly. Topicality is over used, but it is a vital stock issue because it cuts down tricks in Affirmative cases.

When arguing Topicality on the Negative, it is customary to define one or more of the words in the resolution. Then you should explain how the Affirmative's case does not meet the definition you provide. This is called a violation of the resolution. Next you should provide some standards to evaluate your definition. These are basically reasons why your interpretation should be accepted. Some of the most popular standards include:

1. Preserves the precise meaning of the word and protests grammatical preciseness.

2. It is a more even division of ground, so as to provide for a fairer debate.

3. Bright line-The negative team clearly and fairly defines ground and makes an obvious line for what is topical and what is not.

Lastly, when arguing Topicality, tell the judge why they should vote on Topicality. For example, Topicality is a voting issue because it is a stock issue, it sets jurisdiction, provides fair ground, it is a rule of the game, and it should be decided first in the round.

Two branches of Topicality are Effects Topicality and Extra Topicality. Extra topicality is arguing that the Affirmative has gone outside the bounds of the resolution. A topicality argument should first have a definition, second-a violation, third-standards, and fourth-voters. For example, regarding this year’s resolution, they might provide a plan to increase cash to Department of Education, Defense, and Medicare. You can see how this would unfairly delimit the resolution and provide the Affirmative with advantages not related to a policy with Education. Effects topicality is arguing that the Affirmative team is only topical by the effects of their plan. For example, again regarding the 99-00 Education resolution, Effects Topicality is when a plan occurs outside the area of topicality but that only the results are within the resolution.

Negative Strategy : Kritiks

What is the kritik? Kritiks are philosophically-based arguments which question fundamental assumptions underlying the arguments, positions, or presentation of one side in the debate. Since the kritik asks for the judge to evaluate the round based on the evaluation of the kritik, we can consider these arguments to be varieties of (formal) decision-rules. Generally, the kritik is a tool for the Negative team against the Affirmative but there are instances where Affirmatives can apply the kritik, too. Authorities suggest that successful kritiks have five characteristics:

The kritik questions the fundamental assumptions of the round. It looks at issues lurking within the presentation of one side of the debate, rather than taking the presentation at its face value. The result of this is that the debate shifts away from policy discussion, often toward discussing questions of fact or value.

The kritik is generally presented as an absolute argument. It demands a yes-or-no response from the judge, rather than an impact which is weighed against other arguments.

The kritik may be non-unique. The side presenting a kritik may indulge in the same "hidden assumptions" for which it is kritiking the opposing team. They will argue, however, that a decision on the kritik can mean a lost debate only for the opposing team.

Kritiks are non-comparative. The kritiks only questions and objects. It does not seek to present an alternative. At most, a kritik can suggest a vague realm of alternatives but not specify which one should be selected. A "kritik of capitalism," for instance, may urge that capitalism be rejected, and the Affirmative plans capitalistic underpinnings would be rejected as well. But the Negative presenting the argument would not have to urge for a specific replacement for capitalism, such as fascism or socialism.

Kritiks are a priori (Latin: "from the beginning") voting issues. Since they represent fundamental considerations on which presentations are built, they demand to be evaluated before substantive issues such as inherency, topicality, or disadvantages are considered. If the bedrock of those arguments is faulty, as the kritik suggests, then we can discard the arguments without looking at them in detail.

Negatives will find that kritiks have some features in common with more conventional arguments. Often, the argument embedded in a kritik could be recast, using the same evidence, as a counterplan, disadvantage, topicality challenge, or a response to one of the Affirmative’s stock issue burdens. Strictly on its own, though, the kritik should be distinguished from any of these. It’s not a counterplan, because it’s absolute and non-comparative. It’s not a disad, because it’s not unique and it’s a priori, it must be evaluated before disadvantages. Topicality arguments also claim to be absolute and a priori, but they are also unique and comparative where kritiks are not.

It should be obvious from this discussion that kritiks are naturally generic arguments. They do not look at the details that the other side has presented, but rather at the core reasons underlying the opposing case, or style and diction of the presentation. Source: http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter14.htm

Negative Strategy : Counter Plans

What is a counter plan? A counterplan is a policy defended by the negative team which competes with the affirmative plan and is, on balance, more beneficial than the affirmative plan. Counterplans are advocacies that offer alternate courses of actions besides the one implied by the resolution and besides doing nothing. Coming over from policy debate, counterplans have seen a dramatic rise in popularity over the last few years and are in general used by negative debaters in expressing advocacies that conflict with the resolution. Understanding what counterplans are and what their necessary components are is a key aspect to knowing how to best respond to them. Purpose In reality, there are always more than two options in any given situation. Accordingly, the counterplan represents the diversity of real life choices and can be used to your advantage. If you can think of an alternative not specified by the resolution, then that would be a great time to make use of a counterplan. Further, counterplans are strategic in that you can use them to co-opt many of the benefits specified in your opponent's position without having to deal with any of the downsides (if you position your advocacy well). The counterplan has four elements to it: the text, competition, solvency, and net benefits. Each of these sections is crucial in order to establish its legitimacy as a position and further is necessary to demonstrate the feasibility of your advocacy. Text The text is the section where you explicitly state your advocacy. Because counterplans very often imply evaluating an action not directly implied by the resolution, it is important to be extra specific in explaining what it is you are evaluating. Competition In order for a counterplan to be valid, it must be competitive. A good way to understand this is to think of competition in terms of opportunity cost. If there is an opportunity cost to taking the action specified by the resolution, your counterplan should be that opportunity cost. As long as the opportunity cost is less than the cost of the action, then you should do the counterplan instead of the plan. There are two ways to establish a basis for competition.

Further, one of the important reasons to have competition is that because the counterplan is not an advocacy directly implied by the resolution, there's no reason why the other debater can't say you should take both the course of action specified in the resolution and do the counterplan. If that is a viable option, then your counterplan is invalid.

Mutual Exclusivity The first way to establish competition is through mutual exclusivity. What is implied by mutual exclusivity is that it is impossible to do both the counterplan and the normal course of action expressed by the resolution. This functions as a valid form of competition, as if you physically cannot do both, you are forced to choose between them. Net Benefits The second way to establish competition is through net benefits. The idea behind net benefits is that, regardless of your ability to do both the course of action in the resolution and the counterplan, if doing just the counterplan is strictly better doing the resolution or doing both, then the counterplan is competitive as an independent option. As a form of competition, net benefits can be run in conjunction with mutual exclusivity but is in general the weaker form of competition.

Solvency In order for your position to be a valid one, you need to show how you solve all of the problems that taking the normal action in the resolution solves. If your position does not in fact solve for all or at least most of the same issues, then you in general shouldn't be running this counterplan. Note: Finding evidence on this issue is highly recommended, as this is the section that is considered most important. If you don't have strong solvency, then the other debater can treat it like any normal case and remove any strategic advantage you had. Net Benefits In the previous sections, you established your advocacy, showed why its competitive, and showed how you solve for most of the problems specified in your opponent's case. The net benefits section is where you take the final step and show why your position is in fact preferable to your opponents. In general, a lot of what goes in here is very similar to the kind of information that goes in the contention section for a lot of cases, so it's important to follow the same argument style that you have been using. If you want to try framing these as disadvantages to the affirmative position, as they are formally done in policy debate, look ahead to see how best to do so.

Sources: https://www.nfhs.org/media/1018487/education-topic_counterplans.pdf https://sites.google.com/site/anintroductiontodebate/lectures/2-more-advanced-material/2-counterplans

Negative Strategy : Disadvantages What is a disadvantage? In policy debate, a disadvantage (abbreviated as DA, and sometimes referred to as: Disad) is an argument that a team brings up against a policy action that is being considered.

Disadvantages (occasionally abbreviated as DAs) are types of arguments that have also found their way into Lincoln-Douglas after a long tenure in policy debate. Disadvantages are often characterized by long link chains and large final impact stories like extinction or nuclear war. While the format may seem intimidating, in reality disadvantages are no different from normal arguments, and accordingly, you should treat them as such. When to use Disadvantages? Disadvantages, while very similar to normal arguments, benefit from their slightly different form. While much of the time, the focus of a constructive is on providing a solid framework through which you can interpret and filter impacts. In contrast, disadvantages are independent pieces of offense that because of their large final impact, tend to operate under any type of a standard. As a result, their is much less focus on debating the standard, and a lot more emphasis on debating over actual arguments. Another benefit of this style is that it's possible to read multiple disadvantages that seemingly have no relation. Disadvantages are in general employed by negative debaters, as a very modular strategy that makes adapting easy. Because disadvantages often do not depend on each other or on a common framework, it is very easy to switch individual disadvantages in and out. A disadvantage has a slightly different set up than the normal claim-warrant-impact structure you're probably used to. While all of these elements are still present, their presentation is noticeably different. Namely, the three sections of a disadvantage are the uniqueness, the link, and the impact. Uniqueness The uniqueness section is probably the section that is most foreign to you, and in here you describe the state of the world as it currently is. This description should pertain to the type of argument you want to make. For example, if you want to talk about how the implementation of the death penalty would lead to huge amounts of problems in the judicial system, you should describe what kinds of problems (if any) the judicial system is facing now. Uniqueness is important because it directly correlates with how strong your impact actually is. Taking the previous example, if the judicial system was already overburdened, adding more problems while bad wouldn't be as devastating as if the court system was running well for the first time and was about to be ruined. Thus the uniqueness controls how strong your impact is.

Further because uniqueness is a description of the status quo, the more recent your uniqueness evidence is the stronger it stands up to criticism. Additionally, this serves as a great way for you to defensively engage a disadvantage. If you can disprove their claim, you ultimately weaken their impact. This argument is called 'uniqueness overwhelms the link'.

Link

The link is much more intuitive, and you can think of it as a long extended warrant. In general, the link section is where you demonstrate why taking the action of the resolution would be bad.

Because of the nature of a DA and their large impacts, often time multiple links are needed. Each of these smaller links in the larger chain should be independently labeled, but it is perfectly acceptable to have a long chain. Further, doing such can be advantageous. Each link in your chain has its own warrant and its own impact, and it is that impact that is used to propagate the chain. Thus, each mini-link does have an impact and can be used as offense in that way.

The danger with having multiple links, however, is that all of the links are needed in order to prove the final argument true. Thus, even though you are able to come up with many smaller impacts with this strategy, you run the risk of having to spread yourself thin defending each individual part. In order to counter-balance this problem, if possible you should try and come up with multiple link chains for your story.

Impact

The impact is the final section and ultimately the most intuitive of all of them. The impact is exactly the same as it is in the claim-warrant-impact structure, namely the reason why your argument is important. Again, because of the structure, the impact should be as big and broad as possible, so it denies the possibility of it being excluded by a particular criterion.

To discuss further, here are some links you might want to click to know more about Debate:

All about Policy Debate, Burden of Affirmative and Negative Strategy: https://soundcloud.com/bianca-katrina-sagun-bk/sets/policy-debate-burden-of-affirmative-harms-negative-strategy-disadvantages