homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Mon Dec 18, 2017 7:53 am
Not a member? Guests can only see part of the forums. To see the whole thing (and add your voice!), just register a free account by following these steps.

All times are UTC+01:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Nov 21, 2012 6:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 1070
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: NC
i've been thinking about stock issues a bit lately, and here is what i am thinking:

the distinction between stock issues and net benefits (advantages vs. disadvantages) is meaningless in some ways, but very important in others. from what i understand, net benefits fits into a stock issue framework, because the significance of the harms/advantages must outweigh the significance of the disadvantages. i've also heard disadvantages described as "negative solvency". however, i realized that the stock issues fit the net benefits framework too. and this is probably not a novel theory, but i haven't heard anybody describe it like this so i figured i would. in the simplest sense, a net benefits framework weighs advantages and disadvantages. however, in order to qualify as an advantage, an advantage: a. cannot be happening in the SQ (inherency), b. must be big (significance), and c. must result from the plan (solvency). disadvantages are the exact same, except we typically use different labels for some reason. specifically, a disadvantage: a. cannot be happening in the SQ (uniqueness), b. must be big (impacts), and c. must result from the plan (links).

so, the distinction i'm making is somewhat irrelevant, because you can't have stock issues without net benefits or vice versa. but there IS a difference in how you order them, like the difference between separating books by author and then by subject, or by subject and then by author. the question i'm now having is, why would your prefer one over the other? personally, i think using net benefits as a top-level framework (and then evaluating stock issues as they apply to the advantages/disadvantages) is best, but i'm curious what thoughts you guys have on this.

_________________
- Will

2010-11 | Freshman | Bardsley/King | IX | 13th at Regionals
2011-12 | Sophomore | Dovel/King | IX | Q'd to Nationals
2012-13 | Junior | Dovel/King | IX | 17th at Nationals
2013-14 | Senior | Dovel/King | IX | 5th at Nationals

Baylor University class of 2018


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 2:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 2:40 am
Posts: 1179
Home Schooled: No
Those mirrored elements aren't limited to stock issues and disadvantages, either. I think it's in this video, or one of the two following it, that I offer effectively the same explanation. But it extends out to topicality and theory arguments as well. Every complete debate argument has three elements: a baseline, a cause-effect claim, and a normative claim. Topicality violations have a baseline (this is what the word in the topic means, this is how the topic is properly interpreted), a cause-effect claim (the plan, being outside that interpretation either throws open the floodgates or makes our pre-round preparation time meaningless) and a normative claim (which warrants a loss because if the floodgates are thrown open, no negative can keep up, or because devaluing our preparation time means this round is not a meaningful measure of our potential to do the better debating). And you can do the same thing with other theory objections. Some kritik debaters try to break out of the framework by claiming that an alternative isn't necessary, but my experience tells me that approach isn't a winner over the long run.

One interesting wrinkle I've seen in the handful of NPDA debates I judge these days -- and boy, don't get me started on everything that's wrong with NPDA, at least in the Pacific Northwest -- is that they don't bother with two mirroring sets of terms anymore. The PMC lays out the affirmative case with uniqueness, link and impact, instead of significance, a token mention of inherency and solvency. I don't guess it's that big of a deal, since the concepts matter far more than orthodox labeling, but it does irk me a bit. Must be getting old.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 3:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 1070
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: NC
this is really neat. now i know why i sometimes think of affs having a sketchy "link" between their plan and their advantages, even though the term link usually refers to DAs. but i can see how it would be annoying for teams to mix up the terminology like that haha.

so given that there's these parallels between every type of argument, we can make a table something like this:

element | advantages | disadvantages | topicality | kritiks
descriptive | inherency | uniqueness | interp | alternative
casual | solvency | links | violation | (pre fiat) links
normative | significance | impacts | impacts | (real world) impx

if you look at it this way, though, the traditional 4 stock issues (in blue) don't really make much sense. you have the 3 elements of advantages, which sort of makes sense b/c aff has burden to prove advantages, but then you have topicality, which is qualitatively different from the other 3 - it's not an element of an argument, it is an argument. and then the stock issues seemingly leave out DAs and kritiks, leaving us to fit them under "significance" (which obviously doesn't work as DAs are qualitatively different from significance, just like topicality) and leave them out in the cold (at least in NCFCA), respectively. i'm not necessarily saying we should have the 4 stock issues be advantages, DAs, T, and kritiks, but that makes more logical sense than all 3 elements of advantages + T + kinda DAs shoved under one element of advantages.

_________________
- Will

2010-11 | Freshman | Bardsley/King | IX | 13th at Regionals
2011-12 | Sophomore | Dovel/King | IX | Q'd to Nationals
2012-13 | Junior | Dovel/King | IX | 17th at Nationals
2013-14 | Senior | Dovel/King | IX | 5th at Nationals

Baylor University class of 2018


Last edited by kingwill on Wed Nov 28, 2012 5:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 2:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 2:40 am
Posts: 1179
Home Schooled: No
I treat people calling topicality a stock issue the same way I treat people calling spiders insects. I overlook it, but inwardly roll my eyes. Topicality isn't a stock issue.

The stock issues are substantive, not procedural, and for each of them the burden of proof is on the affirmative. If the affirmative never mentions one of the three, they can lose for failure to present a prima facie case. The negative can simply note that it hasn't been proven, explain why that matters, and enjoy an easy win. Not true for topicality: the negative has to bring it up and win it pretty overwhelmingly; a tie, or even a marginal edge for the negative, tends to result in an affirmative win.

Categorically, topicality belongs with the various "Spec" arguments and the arguments that goofy counterplans are illegitimate. It's a theoretical objection. It's such a respectable and widely used theoretical objection that it gets taught along with the stock issues as a package of the very basics, but that doesn't make it a stock issue.

When we teach children their numbers, we include zero, even though zero has a lot of qualities that place it in an entirely different category. It's just a good moment to introduce the concept and get them accustomed to thinking about it.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 5:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 1389
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Austin, TX
Quote:
element | advantages | disadvantages | topicality | kritiks
descriptive | inherency | uniqueness | interp | uniqueness?
casual | solvency | links | violation | (pre fiat) links
normative | significance | impacts | impacts | (real world) impx


Isolating the three "stock issues" from their larger buckets may make sense with terminology, but I think avoids the idea that they are a "decision framework" for deciding what to do... in life.

What's happening and why – "Inherency"

How good/bad is it – "Significance" (knowable)

What's the proposal and how does it work - "Solvency" (or predictive inherency if you like...)

How good/bad is it - "Significance" (predictive)

So a "good decision" takes into account all the pros and cons of what is happening now versus what could happen, thereby weighing significance.

_________________
Upside Down Debate. The book that teaches you the deeper why of debate, from the ground up.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 3:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 5:54 pm
Posts: 1074
Home Schooled: Yes
I don't post much these days, but the "descriptive" element for kritiks is the alternative. This sounds really weird until you realize that most critical arguments are indictments of the way that the affirmative engages in/endorses something bad in the status quo, so the only way to generate any kind of uniqueness to your claims is by presenting an alternative.

_________________
-Chris


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 5:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 1070
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: NC
Isaiah wrote:
Quote:
element | advantages | disadvantages | topicality | kritiks
descriptive | inherency | uniqueness | interp | uniqueness?
casual | solvency | links | violation | (pre fiat) links
normative | significance | impacts | impacts | (real world) impx


Isolating the three "stock issues" from their larger buckets may make sense with terminology, but I think avoids the idea that they are a "decision framework" for deciding what to do... in life.

What's happening and why – "Inherency"

How good/bad is it – "Significance" (knowable)

What's the proposal and how does it work - "Solvency" (or predictive inherency if you like...)

How good/bad is it - "Significance" (predictive)

So a "good decision" takes into account all the pros and cons of what is happening now versus what could happen, thereby weighing significance.

but an alternate decision framework (or more accurately, another way of organizing the same decision framework) would be:

1. establish 2 options (SQ can be an option, but need not be if there's a CP (which is the norm in "real-life" decision making, e.g. buying a car))
2. look at each option, and establish pros (logically, pros must be non-unique, linked to the option, and significant - this is where the stock issues come in).
3. look at the cons of each option (again, with a consideration of the descriptive, causal, and normative stock issues).
4. weigh the pros and cons to determine the best option.

IMO this is a more natural decision-making process. when i make a decision for instance, i usually make a list and write the pros and cons. stock issues are usually applied to each individual pro or con, but in real life this often happens behind the scenes.

what do you mean by "larger buckets"?

Wraith Leader wrote:
I don't post much these days, but the "descriptive" element for kritiks is the alternative. This sounds really weird until you realize that most critical arguments are indictments of the way that the affirmative engages in/endorses something bad in the status quo, so the only way to generate any kind of uniqueness to your claims is by presenting an alternative.

ok, thanks. i've never run a kritik or seen one run, and all i know is that they're basically pre-fiat DAs, so my best guess was uniqueness. :P (edited previous post)

_________________
- Will

2010-11 | Freshman | Bardsley/King | IX | 13th at Regionals
2011-12 | Sophomore | Dovel/King | IX | Q'd to Nationals
2012-13 | Junior | Dovel/King | IX | 17th at Nationals
2013-14 | Senior | Dovel/King | IX | 5th at Nationals

Baylor University class of 2018


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 8:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 1389
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Austin, TX
That's fair and is a fine ORDER by which to proceed, organizationally.

With that said, separating the conceptual ideas of cause (current), effect (current), cause (future), and effect (future) is essential to any decision.

_________________
Upside Down Debate. The book that teaches you the deeper why of debate, from the ground up.


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited