homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Wed Dec 13, 2017 10:07 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  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2012 2:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 9:59 pm
Posts: 349
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: In my room, reading books
I was wondering how to argue for a net-beneficial criterion over a criterion of stock issues. It seems like some teams (including a team in my club) always argue for a criterion of both net-benefits AND stock-issues. Or some argue for just stock-issues only. What would be the best way to persuade the judge to weigh the round off of just net-benefits only? What are some good arguments for a net-beneficial criterion? What's a better criterion when your neg. is it net-benefits or stock-issues?

Also, is a value based criterion good? These are just some of the many questions I have about criterions. :) What do you all think about these things?


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2012 4:26 pm 
Offline
titles are too mainstream.
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 5:59 pm
Posts: 4579
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Wisconsin
what is the difference between net benefits and stock issues? it seems like they both boil down to the same idea: if the case is good, vote for it.

i guess i don't see why one would have to argue the superiority of one over the other. why not just accept the criterion and argue from that standpoint? if you're aff, your case should be beneficial and fulfill all the stock issues anyway. if you're neg, you should be able to win under either criterion.

chaching wrote:
Also, is a value based criterion good?


it depends on the value. ; )

_________________
Somehow Your blood makes You blind
To our divide
I am all Yours

David Roth wrote:
you make my life hell.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2012 4:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 1389
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Austin, TX
When merged, net benefits is a way to evaluate the stock issue of significance. Add up all harms/advantages of SQ + harms/advantages

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2012 4:47 pm 
Offline
T-Rothasaurus
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 6:48 am
Posts: 3114
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Washington
Dawn wrote:
what is the difference between net benefits and stock issues? it seems like they both boil down to the same idea: if the case is good, vote for it.
Stock Issues evaluates the physical structure of the case, Net Benefits evaluate's its effects. They are inextricably linked. It's bad to evaluate on one and not the other.

_________________
"The north remembers, Lord Davos. The north remembers, and the mummer's farce is almost done." - Wyman Manderly


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2012 6:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 3:52 am
Posts: 636
Home Schooled: Yes
Dawn wrote:
what is the difference between net benefits and stock issues? it seems like they both boil down to the same idea: if the case is good, vote for it.

Functionally, there isn't a ton of difference. Practically, most self-described "stock issues judges" will vote a team down for losing a stock issue point, not a stock issue. For example, many judges will reject a case which is losing a solvency point which completely takes out one of its two advantages, but leaves the other intact.

Additionally, some SI judges just don't look at disads, which is absurd, since that's where the best debating happens, imo.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2012 6:19 pm 
Offline
Easiest Person to Kill with a Witty Comeback

Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 2:36 am
Posts: 973
Home Schooled: Yes
Isaiah wrote:
When merged, net benefits is a way to evaluate the stock issue of significance.
Doesn't net benefits evaluate inherency, significance, and solvency?

In my opinion, there is no reason not to use the stock issues framework and net benefits. I also strongly encourage using values though, because a lot of the best debate occurs there as well. A value is basically a way of arguing that one impact matters more than another.

_________________
- Region 6 Alumnus


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2012 6:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 1389
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Austin, TX
Dr_Pepper wrote:
Isaiah wrote:
When merged, net benefits is a way to evaluate the stock issue of significance.
Doesn't net benefits evaluate inherency, significance, and solvency?

Inherency and solvency are causal links to significance. So yes and no not really.

Typically AFF should be trying to constrain to one value and neg trying to open up to "net benefits" (all possible considerations) when weighing significance.

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2012 6:34 pm 
Offline
Easiest Person to Kill with a Witty Comeback

Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 2:36 am
Posts: 973
Home Schooled: Yes
Isaiah wrote:
Typically AFF should be trying to constrain to one value and neg trying to open up to "net benefits" (all possible considerations) when weighing significance.
Do you think negs should do this so they can run more DAs?

_________________
- Region 6 Alumnus


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2012 6:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 1389
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Austin, TX
Exactly. Whereas AFF wants to narrow consideration what they have prepped. So NEG is trying to lower the bar of consideration of what issues are important. Seen in this light, NB is a method of challenging a value/goal.

Obviously it's difficult to do so, since debating what is most important is an important part of a debate round. But usually that doesn't happen at much at intermediate levels.

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2012 6:44 pm 
Offline
Easiest Person to Kill with a Witty Comeback

Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 2:36 am
Posts: 973
Home Schooled: Yes
Isaiah wrote:
Exactly. Whereas AFF wants to narrow consideration what they have prepped. So NEG is trying to lower the bar of consideration of what issues are important. Seen in this light, NB is a method of challenging a value/goal.
I see why this is beneficial (and indeed, I've seen many good teams do this), but wouldn't it make for a better debate if the Neg simply provided a counter-value and argued why their value has a greater impact?

_________________
- Region 6 Alumnus


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2012 7:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 1389
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Austin, TX
Dr_Pepper wrote:
Isaiah wrote:
Exactly. Whereas AFF wants to narrow consideration what they have prepped. So NEG is trying to lower the bar of consideration of what issues are important. Seen in this light, NB is a method of challenging a value/goal.
I see why this is beneficial (and indeed, I've seen many good teams do this), but wouldn't it make for a better debate if the Neg simply provided a counter-value and argued why their value has a greater impact?

That's the approach I advocate, yes, if you have a negative philosophy (which I also advocate). If you are small picture and are running ten silly DAs, NB is your friend. Otherwise, you should really be arguing some big fat DA/position that fits a philosophy and hence goal/value. This can be the one AFF presented or a value you advocate over theirs.

And that's why I tend to write on ballots that people running NB don't know why they're doing it... they usually don't and would be much better served by something else.

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2012 8:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 10:16 pm
Posts: 42
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Lynnwood, WA
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.

Anyway, when I'm judging that's how I'll probably look at things.

_________________
Joseph Munson, Verve WA, STOA

2010-2011: Munson/Smidt
2011-2012: Munson/Smidt
2012-2013: Munson/Trawczynski
2013-2014: Munson/Smith


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2012 11:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 1389
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Austin, TX
parkSquirrel wrote:
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).

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2012 11:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 2:40 am
Posts: 1179
Home Schooled: No
Many argument standards are field-dependent, which explains why poets aren't in a position to judge good surgery and surgeons aren't (necessarily) in a position to judge good poetry. Members of a deliberative body (Congress, state legislatures, city councils, corporate boards of directors) mostly decide what programs to create and supply with resources. Members of a judicial body (courts, review panels) make decisions that are fundamentally different in type, and therefore require different criteria.

Congress, in deciding whether to subsidize high tech industry to make sure the cutting-edge innovations continue to be home-grown, applies the framework of net benefits to the proposal: will the advantages outweigh the disadvantages? A court, in deciding whether an accused defendant is guilty, should not consider the advantages vs. the disadvantages, but rather should consider only the conclusion entailed by the evidence. If a famous defendant is on trial, and finding the defendant not guilty will result in riots in the street, then a guilty verdict might well be net beneficial, but not guilty is the correct verdict if that's what the evidence and the law dictate.

Despite this difference, each can still use stock issues. Legislators can ask what the problem is, what feature of the problem makes it likely to persist, and whether the proposal will solve part or all of the problem. That obviously makes perfect sense. Juries can ask what injustice occurred, whether the injustice will be rendered moot or compensated by efforts already underway, and what the proper response of the court is, in reaching a verdict.

Net benefits, then, is field dependent, and doesn't work for decisions in all kinds of argument fields. Parents deciding whether to seek medical treatment for their sick children probably depart from net benefits in its strictest formulation and instead put what's best for the child above all other concerns. Stock issues, on the other hand, is an organized way of thinking from problem through solution, and fits nearly any deliberative setup. Stock issues is more of an approach to controversy analysis, a recipe for making a good decision, and net benefits is more of a rule for prioritizing one set of arguments above another set.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat May 19, 2012 7:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 10:16 pm
Posts: 42
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Isaiah wrote:
parkSquirrel wrote:
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)

_________________
Joseph Munson, Verve WA, STOA

2010-2011: Munson/Smidt
2011-2012: Munson/Smidt
2012-2013: Munson/Trawczynski
2013-2014: Munson/Smith


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun May 20, 2012 6:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 9:59 pm
Posts: 349
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: In my room, reading books
Flash of light wrote:
Dawn wrote:
what is the difference between net benefits and stock issues? it seems like they both boil down to the same idea: if the case is good, vote for it.

Functionally, there isn't a ton of difference. Practically, most self-described "stock issues judges" will vote a team down for losing a stock issue point, not a stock issue. For example, many judges will reject a case which is losing a solvency point which completely takes out one of its two advantages, but leaves the other intact.

Additionally, some SI judges just don't look at disads, which is absurd, since that's where the best debating happens, imo.


I'm confused. :?

To me it seems like the criterion of stock-issues and net-benefits are not exactly the same. To me it seems stock-issues are when a judge judges the affirmative team off of the four stock issues of: Topicality, Inherency, Significance, and Solvency. And if the aff. doesn't uphold all four then the neg. wins.

Under net-benefits, the judge judges the round off of more of a real-life application, and judges it on whether the aff case is an effective policy and if the policy is net-beneficial in real life. So how exactly are they the same thing?


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun May 20, 2012 7:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 10:16 pm
Posts: 42
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Lynnwood, WA
the main way they are the same is that both are ways to view whether or not the affirmative team's plan is worthwhile.

Stock issues judges vote mostly/solely on whether or not aff wins all the stock issues.

Net benefits judges vote aff if the plan is better than the status quo, and outweighs any DAs.

The reason they are functionally the same is the fact that judges take everything into account (which differs from criteria like justice or the free market) and vote based on the merits of all points argued in the round, but the paths they take to get there are slightly different.

_________________
Joseph Munson, Verve WA, STOA

2010-2011: Munson/Smidt
2011-2012: Munson/Smidt
2012-2013: Munson/Trawczynski
2013-2014: Munson/Smith


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun May 20, 2012 11:31 pm 
Offline
titles are too mainstream.
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 5:59 pm
Posts: 4579
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Wisconsin
chaching wrote:
So how exactly are they the same thing?


(i'll do my best to explain. but i'm really not anywhere near an expert on TP theory.)

the question of Net benefits is:
do the advantages significantly outweigh the disads?
but the judge also must consider whether a) those advantages are already a part of the system and/or b) if the plan will actually cause the advantages. if the aff fails on either of these points, the plan doesn't have a beneficial effect over the sq and should lose under the criterion of NB.

if you're judging off of stock issues, it's basically the same:
do the advantages significantly outweigh the disads? (significance)
are the advantages already a part of the system? (inherency)
will the plan actually cause the advantages? (solvency)

i guess stock issue judges would probably give more weight to topicality arguments. but i'm not sure if it'd make a difference either way.

_________________
Somehow Your blood makes You blind
To our divide
I am all Yours

David Roth wrote:
you make my life hell.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2012 5:35 pm 
Offline
i can haz title?
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 9:37 pm
Posts: 258
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: being liberally social
My question is, Why have a criterion at all? In TP there is always a implied criterion of Net-Ben. In my experience having a stated "criterion" needlessly bogs down the debate and puts the affirmative in a very vulnerable position if the criterion is to specific. To broad, (ie. stock issues) it creates a redundancy and really just wastes 30 sec. of the 1ac.

_________________
2009-2010 Mulder/Ruiz
2010-2011 Severin/Ruiz
2011-2012 Burchfiel/Ruiz
2012-2013 Burchfiel/Ruiz
2013-2014 Castro/Ruiz


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 10:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2010 5:37 am
Posts: 767
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Region 2, Washington
cjruiz wrote:
My question is, Why have a criterion at all? In TP there is always a implied criterion of Net-Ben. In my experience having a stated "criterion" needlessly bogs down the debate and puts the affirmative in a very vulnerable position if the criterion is to specific. To broad, (ie. stock issues) it creates a redundancy and really just wastes 30 sec. of the 1ac.


It's a good way to tie back your voting issues, or interweave your arguments with. I don't use "net benefits" as my criterion, I have one that is effectively the same though.

It's almost mandatory to use one if the affirmative team's criterion is very specific, unless you can actually prove the opposite of that criterion.

_________________
Potent Speaking: the only debate website exclusively dedicated to speaking tips. http://potentspeaking.com


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 28 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next

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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited