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.
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 ...
The economy, a key issue for voters as the November 5 presidential election draws nearer, will have a starring role in the debate tonight between the two candidates, Democratic nominee Kamala ...
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 ...
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.
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.