Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The stock issues are harms, inherency, solvency, topicality, and significance: Significance: This answers the "why" of debate.All advantages and disadvantages to the status quo (resulting from inherency) and of the plan (resulting from solvency) are evaluated under significance.
Solvency is a stock issue in policy debate, referring to the effectiveness of the affirmative plan or the negative counterplan in solving the harms or problems of the status quo. [18] A good solvency mechanism will have a solvency advocate: a qualified professional or credible expert specifically advocating the proposed course of action, who ...
One traditional way to judge policy debate is to judge the Affirmative on four issues or burdens to meet, called the stock issues. The four stock issues are modeled after U.S. court procedural aspects of administrative law in deciding cases (as opposed to Constitutional controversies): ill (Harm), blame (Inherency), cure (Solvency), cost ...
Commercial real estate has beaten the stock market for 25 years — here's how savvy investors can ... the future solvency of the retirement benefits program is a separate issue to address, and ...
To undertake a stock buyback, a company typically announces a “repurchase authorization,” which details the size of the repurchase, either in terms of the number of shares it might buy, a ...
On Thursday, Bausch Health Companies (NYSE:BHC) reported a second-quarter 2024 GAAP EPS of $0.03 compared to the consensus of $0.28. The company reported revenues of $2.403 billion, up 11% year ...
Falls under the stock issue of inherency. Impact: an argument explaining why that condition of the status quo is damaging. Falls under the stock issue of harms. Solvency: an argument describing how the plan can alter the status quo to avoid the impact. Method 2. This method is more popular and widely used in National Public Forum Debate.
Topicality is a resolution issue in policy debate which pertains to whether or not the plan affirms the resolution as worded. [1] To contest the topicality of the affirmative, the negative interprets a word or words in the resolution and argues that the affirmative does not meet that definition, that the interpretation is preferable, and that non-topicality should be a voting issue.