Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
In the formal speech competition genre known as policy debate, a widely accepted doctrine or "debate theory" divides the argument elements of supporting the resolution affirmative into five subtopical issues, called the stock issues. Stock issues are sometime referred to as on-case arguments or simply on-case or case arguments as opposed off ...
Here's what else happened today: 'Don't buy the tech dip' as the market gets more volatile , BofA says. 5 markets hit hardest by housing shrinkflation , according to Realtor.com .
Stock futures eased as the debate progressed, with the S&P 500 E-minis down 0.5% early Wednesday in Asia and Nasdaq 100 E-minis off 0.6%. The dollar index, which measures the U.S. currency's ...
Stocks closed higher on Thursday as investors await updates to the ongoing debt ceiling debate and quarterly results from Walmart flashed resilience from the American consumer.The S&P 500 rose 0. ...
In values debate, a "Significance" is a judgment about any crucial aspect of the team's debate outline, and Topicality is secondary to the Stock Issues. Significance goes toward Solvency and is weighed against Inherency, not Harms, that there is unknown danger in change (for example, from deterrence to deproliferation).
Here's what else happened today: From Rolexes to homes, patient retail bulls who bought bitcoin early are cashing in. The stock market boom will end in 2025 as investors punish the US for its ...
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.