Stock Issues Article Index for
Stock 		Website Links For
Stock 		 

Information About

Stock Issues
  CATEGORIES ABOUT STOCK ISSUES
   
policy debate
   
APPAREL
BABY
BEAUTY
BOOKS
CAR TOYS
CELL PHONES
DVD'S
ELECTRONICS
GOURMET FOOD
GROCERIES
HEALTH & PERSONAL
HOME & GARDEN
JEWELRY
MUSIC
MUSIC INSTRUMENTS
OFFICE PRODUCTS
SOFTWARE
SPORTING GOODS
TOOLS & HARDWARE
TOYS
VIDEO GAMES
SHOPPING HOME
MORE SHOPPING...



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):
  • or create an advantage over the status quo

  • 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.

  • . 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 "Significance, Harms, Inherency, Topicality, Solvency" 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

=References=



'''