Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
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 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).
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 ...
Tuesday's presidential debate could also impact investor sentiment. US stocks were up on Tuesday, with investors looking to add to Monday's rebound following the big sell-off at the end of last week.
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 PF(Public Form) Debate.
Stock futures eased during the debate and after it concluded, with the S&P 500 E-minis down 0.5% and Nasdaq 100 E-minis off 0.65%. The dollar index, which measures the U.S. currency's strength ...
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.