The Stock Issues

Topicality
Harms/Significance
Inherency
Solvency
Advantages/Disadvantages

The Affirmative Burden

The Affirmative has the

Burden of Proof
The Affirmative normally indicts the Status Quo.
The Affirmative Advocates Change.
The Affirmative must show justification for change.
This can be done through harms, inherency,
solvency, or advantages. (Or a combination of
these.)
The affirmative plan could simply solve the problem
better than the status quo.

The Negative Presumption

The negative defends the Status Quo

The status quo is presumed better than change
until the affirmative meets the burden of proof.
The negative works to present reasonable doubt
to reject the affirmative plan.
The negative has a variety of choices to
demonstrate that the affirmative plan is not superior
to the status quo.
Such strategies include arguing: topicality,
significance, harms, inherency, solvency, workability
of the plan, disadvantages to the plan, a counterplan, and a critique of the affirmative ideas or
language.

The Affirmative Case

The affirmative must present a prima facie

case in the first affirmative constructive.
A prima facie case is one which includes the
stock issues and on face value presents a
reasonable plan to solve for a problem
inherent in the status quo.
A prima facie case meets the burden of proof
in the first speech by demonstrating a need
for change and a possible solution for
change.

The Case Structure

Introduction
Harms/Significance
Inherency
Plan
Solvency
Advantages
Conclusion

Modified Case Structure

Inherency or Justification
Harms/Significance
Plan
Solvency
Advantages
These may be presented in any order. Advantages
may come first. Solvency could come first.
The key element is to include the key stock issues on
face value. The order may vary from school to
school.
The order is best determined by how the issues best
tell the story to persuade the judge.

Plan Texts

Plan text may be presented in paragraph form or in planks.

Planks are recommended for novice but are used by many
varsity to increase clarity.
A plan should include:
Plank 1: Administration (define who will administer the plan)
Plank 2: Mandates (define the steps or actions necessary to
implement the plan)
Plank 3: Funding (how the plan will be funded)
Plank 4: Enforcement: (who will enforce the plan)
Plank 5: Fiat or Legislative Intent: (basically means that the
plan should be passed and that the debaters do not need to
argue whether or not congress will pass the plan). It is
assumed that if it is proven to be a good plan, it should pass.
A good plan will include all of these elements, either in plank
form or in a paragraph.

Structure of the Affirmative Case

As you begin to write the affirmative case

you must keep in mind that a clear
structure is necessary.
Number and Letter your case the same
way you would structure an outline for
English class.
For example:
I. Harms

A,
B.
C.

Some tips for Good Communication

in the Affirmative Case

Dont abbreviate your tag or argument

lines. Write clear and concise sentences.
Present credible authors with the authors
credentials. Impressive credentials add to
the clout or overall credibility of your case.
Remember the affirmative case is a story
and must persuade the judge. It should
have good transitions and be easy to follow.

The Negative Strategy

The affirmative client is change, and the

negative client is the status quo.
Status Quo simply means the way things
are.
Although the negative team may not claim the
status quo is perfect, they should argue that it
is better than the affirmative proposed
change.
Remember that the negative must only
maintain presumption, and demonstrate
reasonable doubt to win the debate.

Some Negative Positions

Topicality: The negative team must always look first

to the question of whether or not the affirmative
case is topical.
Because the negative looks to topicality first,
topicality is considered an apriori issue. This
means that before all else, they must examine
topicality.
Obviously, if the case is non-topical, the rest of the
stock issues are irrelevant. The affirmative team
must be topical to win.
If the affirmative did not have to be topical, there
would be no point in a resolution, and no
boundaries to what an affirmative team might argue.
Absurd debate would be the result.

Structure of Topicality
Arguments

The basic point of topicality is to explain to the judge that the

affirmative case does not fall within the scope of the
resolution. Structuring topicality arguments may help to
explain how the affirmative is not topical.
A. Violation: Explain here which word in the resolution the
affirmative team is abusing or not meeting the proper intent.
B. Definition: Define the negative interpretation of the word.
C. Standard: Explain why the negative team definition is
superior to the affirmative team definition.
D. Voter: Remind the judge that topicality is apriori and
should be considered in the decision of the round (if the
affirmative team in non-topical).
If the affirmative team is blatantly topical, do not waste
your time arguing topicality.

Disadvantages to Adopting the

Affirmative Case

A smart negative will run an offensive strategy to help

outweigh the advantages of the proposed affirmative case.
The most effective offensive strategy is called a
disadvantage.
A disadvantage is basically the very bad thing that will happen
if the affirmative plan is implemented.
It is very critical that when you develop disadvantages that
you communicate a clear cause effect story (also called a link
story). You must show that the affirmative case will cause
something really bad to occur.
This strategy can create a great deal of reasonable doubt.
You may advance several disadvantage stories at the same
time (as long as they do not contradict).

Disadvantage Structure

A.
Uniqueness: Explain the state of the status quo, and how it uniquely will not cause
the disadvantage. Often the affirmative teams inherency will support the uniqueness
argument by showing that the status quo is not going to implement the plan.
B.
Link:
Explain that the affirmative case will cause the disadvantage to occur.
Often the negative can show through the affirmative mandates that the affirmative will
take action that causes the disadvantage.
C.
Internal Link: Demonstrate how the affirmative case causes the disadvantage to
happen. This step is often left to reasoning or to some miracle evidence which explains
reasoning. The internal link is the connecting point in the chain of the argument.
D.
Brink: Prove how close or how far away the status quo is from the disadvantage
occurring. The negative can argue that the status quo is close to trouble and the plan will
push it over the edge, or they can argue that the status quo is a long way from trouble
and the affirmative plan will be bad enough to put us in big trouble.
E.
Threshold: Show just how much change or with what force the affirmative plan
has to push to cause the disadvantage. There is a relationship between brink and
threshold. If we are close to the brink, the threshold can be very small and the
disadvantage will still happen.
F.
Impact: Describe clearly the ultimate impact of the disadvantage.
Not all disadvantages will have all of these parts. A good disadvantage will have most of
them. It is very common for a team to present only the Uniqueness, Link, and Impact.
If that is the case, a smart affirmative will press for answers to the missing parts.

The Negative Stock Issue Debate

The negative can and should combine a

multitude of negative positions. The key is
to not run contradicting positions.
A. Harms

The negative can mitigate harms, make them

smaller or insignificant
The negative can deny the harms exist
The negative can claim that the status quo is
solving for the harms
The negative can argue that no one can solve
the harms, they will not disappear

The Negative Stock Issue Debate

B. Inherency

The negative can argue that the status quo is

working on the inherency
The negative can demonstrate that the
affirmative inherency is a good thing and should
not be overcome
The negative can demonstrate that there is no
inherency
The negative can challenge the affirmative ability
to overcome the inherency

The Negative Stock Issue Debate

C.

Solvency

The negative can claim that the status quo is solving the problem, or will
solve it
The negative can argue that solvency is impossible
The negative can grant that the affirmative can solve but that they may
not solve all of the problem (mitigate solvency)
The negative may demonstrate that the affirmative will not only not solve
but actually make things much worse (this would be called a solvency
turn)
the negative could argue that the affirmative is not solving the root cause
of the problem, thus they are masking the real problem
The negative could show that the affirmative is not acknowledging the
alternate causes of the problem and thus only solve for part of the
problem.
The negative may argue that the affirmative plan simply wont work (for
one reason or another) and thus cannot solve. No Funding, no
enforcement, no manpower etc. would be examples of workability
arguments.

The Negative Stock Issue Debate

D. Advantages

The negative could argue that the

affirmative advantages will not happen
The negative could argue that the
affirmative advantages exist in the status
quo
The negative could show that the
advantages are not worth the risk of the
disadvantages.