Jump to content
Maxster111

What are they?

Recommended Posts

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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)

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...