It seems like an easy way to merge the stock issues and Net Benefits criteria would be to look at stock issues first, and if neg wins at least one, to vote for them. However, if the aff upholds all of them, look to see if their case provides a net benefit, and if so, vote aff.
How do you evaluate stock issue of significance?
You weigh out the implications of the SQ vs. the Plan.
Solvency causes the net benefit of a plan's change, while inherency causes the net loss of the SQ. If those causes are not present, then it disrupts the NB calculation.
Hence it's all saying the same thing.
The question is: what's beneficial? Saving economy, saving lives, saving dollars? One must discuss what is important in the lens of significance for benefit to be measured (assuming there are conflicting tradeoffs... such as some DAs are TRUE and some Advs are TRUE at the same time).
Well, thats true. If I had to judge on issues, I would put DA's under significance. However, the problem with that is alot of judges judge significance as whether or not the plan significantly solves the harms/provides significant advantages, but don't even take into account the disadvantages.
Imagine a case that abolishes the tax code. It would be topical under the stoa resolution, and it would have inherency if the harm was "there is a tax code", its obviously solvent, and its a significant reform/reforms a significant harm. While its kind of an extreme example, it illustrates the problem I have with a stock issues paradigm pretty well. Alot of judges who are hard-core SI judges often don't really consider disadvantages, or if they do they are unclear which stock issue they fall under. Its just something that happens.
This is the main reason that I think its still a good idea to throw net benefits into a stock issues round, even if there is a place to put DA's into a stock issues paradigm. It's not like I would ask a stock issues judge "where do you incorporate DA's into your paradigm?" Since I don't know the ins and outs of their style of judging, I would still have my partner still run NB in the 1nc. (that is of course, if our strategy hinged on DAs)