What are they?

[Maxster111 6]

What are the five stock issues?

[Snarflax 1646]

Solvency, Harms, Inherency, Topicality and Significance... or the SHITS

[tshuman 1763]

Topicality is not a stock issue. It is helpful to think of stock issues in the form of questions a debate ought to resolve, to wit:

1. "Is there a problem to be addressed?" (Significance/Harms)
   
2. "Will the problem persist unless the plan is adopted?" (Inherency)
   
3. "Will the plan satisfactorily address the problem?" (Solvency)
   
4. "Will the plan create problems worse than those it is trying to solve?" (Disadvantages)

A "stock" issue is called that because it applies to EVERY policy debate (i.e., a rational policymaker wants answers to those questions in order to render a decision). Topicality does not meet that standard; it is not a substantive issue but rather a procedural one...

[Snarflax 1646]

All I hear is blah blah blah, I'm a dirty whore. So it must be "HISS"

[Maxster111 6]

is there a reason/way that you can say that T is a stock issue?

[Fritzler 8]

Well, I think that it is a stock issue because topicality is necessary, and an automatic voter, where as disadvantages can be weighed out, so they are not neccesarily a stock issue, at least the way I was taught.

[musicking 10]

I was certainly taught that disadvantages are more "policy-maker" concerns than "stock issues." I was taught exactly the same way that Stan rolled out. And if the judge around here says "stocks", you run the SHITS.

[Ankur 2917]

*waiting for shu to respond to nukfut over there*

[musicking 10]

Whatever. It depends on what region this kid is from, and how they define stock issues. My point is just that that's what it means where I come from, and it's obviously developed a more progressive definition in some areas in the Midwest.

[ghengis 582]

Shuman, I'm curious as to why you don't think Topicality would be considered a stock issue. . .

[Ankur 2917]

Paul,

I was referring to Bessey (Snarflax) over there....

[Maxster111 6]

Whatever. It depends on what region this kid is from, and how they define stock issues. My point is just that that's what it means where I come from, and it's obviously developed a more progressive definition in some areas in the Midwest.

1) mideast/virginia

2) not really taught anything in debate

[Next2Last03 16]

Stock issues are the basics of any debate, and since T is in most rounds, and is argued completely differently then any other off case in round, it must be a stock issue.

[ghengis 582]

Still no response from the Shuster.

[blades666 45]

Shuman, I'm curious as to why you don't think Topicality would be considered a stock issue. . .

 

Topicality is not a stock issue. It is helpful to think of stock issues in the form of questions a debate ought to resolve, to wit:

 

1. "Is there a problem to be addressed?" (Significance/Harms)

2. "Will the problem persist unless the plan is adopted?" (Inherency)

3. "Will the plan satisfactorily address the problem?" (Solvency)

4. "Will the plan create problems worse than those it is trying to solve?" (Disadvantages)

 

A "stock" issue is called that because it applies to EVERY policy debate (i.e., a rational policymaker wants answers to those questions in order to render a decision). Topicality does not meet that standard; it is not a substantive issue but rather a procedural one...

[Brainstorm 27]

1. "Is there a problem to be addressed?" (Significance/Harms)

2. "Will the problem persist unless the plan is adopted?" (Inherency)

3. "Will the plan satisfactorily address the problem?" (Solvency)

4. "Will the plan create problems worse than those it is trying to solve?" (Disadvantages)

That's a policy-maker way to look at it. in that viewpoint, yes, T is NOT a stock issue (and somehow, a DA is...) But in a stock-issues/debate-world view, when you're asking about the plan specifically rather than the hypothetical world, then another question is added... "Does the plan meet the burden of the resolution?" which makes T a stock issue. It deals with the case directly, and therefore is an on-case attack, which classifies it as a stock issue.

 

It all depends on your judging philosophy.

[JoshTheFrosh 27]

haha, i disagree with ALL of you

 

contemporary stock issues:

 

1) stable plan text

2) defense of the state

3) a 180 degree fort made of 2AC accordians at the start of the 1AC

[ghengis 582]

Thank you, Jamison, but I was looking for a more specific explanation as to why you couldn't ask a similar question of topicality.

"Does the plan fit this year's topic?" Doesn't seem too extreme or out of line with the others, but maybe I'm having trouble bridging the generation gap.

[Brainstorm 27]

Well, the resolution is there for a reason, and I don't want this to regress to a "T is a voter" argument, but basically, we have to assume that the framers worded the resolution a specific way for a reason, seeing as they spend days arguing over it before they release the choices. If an affirmative team ignores that, it's not fair to the negative team, who can only prepare for cases who meet that resolution. This is why T becomes a stock issue for a stock-issues judge. But policymaker judges won't buy the T is a voter issue because they're looking at a hypothetical world view and a what's-best-for-the-world dilemma, and whether the case meets a specific definition of an arbitrary word doesn't change its effectiveness.

[perniciouspimp 18]

I wouldn't really consider T a stock issue, mainly b/c I think the other stock issues are more important and deserve more time to address. While I do think non-topical cases are blatantly unfair to the negative, the whole point of policy debate is the policy and what the policy solves, not necessarily on its strict adherence to the resolution.

[Next2Last03 16]

I wouldn't really consider T a stock issue, mainly b/c I think the other stock issues are more important and deserve more time to address. While I do think non-topical cases are blatantly unfair to the negative, the whole point of policy debate is the policy and what the policy solves, not necessarily on its strict adherence to the resolution.

 

That doesn't make T not a stock issue, who cares if you think inherency deserves more time, even if Solvency is more important, T is still primia facia in most rounds and a gateway the judge must look through, thus it is a stock issue.

 

It's almost like saying Janet Jackson is a really bad singer, because Michael Jackson is a good dancer......No relevance at all

 

(I know it is a really bad and random example)