My first post on this forum in what is such a good question
Just a couple premises about the stock issue of Significance when I'm talking about it:
1) It falls under the goal(s), violation(s)/harm(s), advantage(s), disadvantage(s), and ASQ's.
2) There are 5 types of significance: qualitative, quantitative, social, moral, and I'm blanking on the last one.
EDIT: traditional significance
Now onto the question.
In my primary league since I began High School (CCA), you must win one of the 4 stock issues to win the round as neg and aff must win all 4 to win. Because of this I spent more time researching debate theory regarding the 4 stock issues than I did cards sophomore year and we don't have sourcebooks!
That being said, here's my point. It's all about the context of the argument. Qualitative and quantitative sig are for primarily economical arguments, its good to have impacts for both but not required.
A great example is when the neg team runs a DA that someone could lose their job under the plan with the impact that the judge is going to be out of work. Awful argument but to often the aff team will respond with not many people are losing their jobs without actually flipping the DA to a quantitative point from a really bad qualitative point. I won that argument freshman year to often
So again its all about the context of the argument. Whoever starts the argument gets to provide the arguments context giving the other team the option of either flipping context or arguing the point as presented by the other team.
It must be remembered that qualitative and quantitative sig are economical only though and that you can win sig on moral, social etc. Also the argument may be qualitative but when referring to it as so, you only mean that it is primarily qualitative, it must include some quantitative as well and vis versa.
As far as I see it I don't see any reason this would change league to league either as it is stock debate theory. Anyway if you read that thanks