Judges Information: Stock Issues at a Glance

Contents:
Resolution
Topicality
Significance
Inherency
Solvency

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 fails to provide a prima facie case, the Negative can win just by pointing that out in their first speech. The arguments which must be presented in a prima facie case should reflect answers to basic stock issue questions.

Resolution: The resolution is written by our debate association (STOA). For the 2010-2011season it is: “Resolved: that the United States Federal Government should significantly change its policy toward Russia.” The affirmative team must affirm this resolution by upholding all four of the stock issues.

1.Topicality: Is the plan within the boundaries of the resolution? There are two aspects of topicality. One involves defining the terms of the resolution, the other involves arguing within the boundaries of the resolution.

Definitional Topicality may include some wrangling over the way terms are understood. The teams should give you a reason to prefer one definition over the other. Affirmative teams may define the terms so that they are within boundaries, but a negative team may challenge the legitimacy of those definitions and show they are, in fact, outside of the resolution. A negative team would need to prove a legitimate violation and negative impact to the violation to win on this.

Resolutional Topicality: This has to do with the interpretation of the resolution. The aff team must give a reasonable interpretation and provide a plan that would fall within those boundaries. The burden of proof for topicality is the affirmative team’s responsibility. If they cannot prove they are topical, they should not win.

2.Significance: Is this important? The affirmative team has the burden to prove why we need to change the current policy toward Russia through analysis. They may prove this by revealing the scope or magnitude of a certain problem or (harm) in the status quo, social significance, traditional significance or moral imperative.

Scope: The problem affects a large number of people

Magnitude: Though it may not impact a large number of people, the degree to which it impacts some is severe and proves significance

Social: The problem impacts most of society negatively

Traditional: Argues the status quo has digressed from American tradition. It is based on the idea of precedent.

Moral Imperative: Argues that some moral value is violated by the status quo and must be changed.

3.Inherency: Is the problem caused by current policy? Must prove that there is a link between the problems that exist and the current policy. If the aff team can’t prove it is linked, changing the policy wont solve the problems. This may be shown by Structural, Gap or Attitudinal Arguments.

Structural Inherency: A structural analysis suggests that a specific 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.

Gap 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.

Attitudinal Inherency: claims that the problems are caused by people's beliefs, feelings, or opinions. For example, racial prejudice is an attitudinal problem. These attitudes are the underlying reason for the problems and without the aff plan these attitudes cannot be changed. *Note: Neg teams can use attitudinal inherency against the aff team by saying that the plan will not solve the problem because it does nothing to adjust the attitudes of the constituents.

4.Solvency: Will the proposal solve or ease the harms? Arguments should again prove a causal relationship. The Affirmative's goal is to show that the plan will work to solve the specific “harms” they have mentioned in the significance analysis.. Usually this means finding evidence in which an authority supports the specific proposal the Affirmatives are suggesting. They will typically list these as “Advantages”.The ways to prove solvency are usually shown in one of three ways: Elimination, Comparative Advantage or Maximizing Goals.

Elimination of Harms: Aff. Team proves that if their plan is enacted that harms will be eliminated.

Comparative Advantage: Aff team proves that with their plan, harms will be reduced or kept from increasing.

Maximizing Goals: The aff team proves that their plan fulfills the goals of the status quo better than the existing policy and should be the preferred course of action.




**Note: Even if the Affirmative team properly upholds all the stock issues, they may still lose the round if the negative team can prove that disadvantages will come about as a result of the new proposal. The aff team must be able to show that the disadvantages are insignificant in relation to the advantages.

These notes are primarily paraphrased and adapted from Christy Shipe’s book: An Introduction to Argumentation and Debate.
I also referenced this website http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter02.htm
Cathy Cary (PROBE Debate Club)