Jump to content
Nonegfiat

stock issues

Recommended Posts

why do we have stock issues?

 

yes, they're burdens of the aff

 

but it seems to me that they're not procedural rules so much as a mnemonic to remember the pieces it takes to craft a coherent affirmative

 

for example, if you have solvency, inherency, topicality, and harms but those harms aren't significant, there's no reason to vote affirmative, regardless of the fact that significance is a stock issue, ie a "rule of the game"

 

is there a reason for thinking of stock issues on the procedural level or is this a meaningless distinction?

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you can meet stock issues without explicitly stating them. The reason to view them as procedural is to have logical burdens not just "suggestions."

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for example, if you have solvency, inherency, topicality, and harms but those harms aren't significant, there's no reason to vote affirmative, regardless of the fact that significance is a stock issue, ie a "rule of the game"

 

Actually, this is not correct. Imagine an affirmative that loses on solvency but successfully impact turns a DA. Should they win the round? If stock issues are a procedural burden, then the answer is the affirmative should lose. I don't know if stock issues judges actually evaluate rounds this way, but I think some of them might. They like to have a mental checklist they can rely on to simplify the decision. As far as checklist judging goes, I guess it could be worse.

Edited by Chaos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, this is not correct. Imagine an affirmative that loses on solvency but successfully impact turns a DA. Should they win the round? If stock issues are a procedural burden, then the answer is the affirmative should lose. I don't know if stock issues judges actually evaluate rounds this way, but I think some of them might. They like to have a mental checklist they can rely on to simplify the decision. As far as checklist judging goes, I guess it could be worse.

Arguably, by impact-turning the DA, they've identified new significant harms the Affirmative does solve.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they've identified new significant harms the Affirmative does solve.

I guess that the question then becomes do they win the Ballot if they have really strong harms but weak Solvency. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...