Understanding "Stock Issues" in Debate

In this post, we will go over probably some of the most important vocab within policy debate -- the stock issues. These words may seem overwhelming, but they are really not that bad. Every traditional affirmative case will include the stock issues. On the simplest level, these are components that the AFF team must win in order to justify an AFF ballot. Understanding these words will help you become a better affirmative and negative. So, lets go over them now:

Harms --

The specific unfavorable aspects of the status quo that your proposal is attempting to address are known as harms. Harms can be viewed as the signs of a more serious problem. There may occasionally be several negative effects linked to a single primary cause.

For example, damages could include the absence of emergency infrastructure to deal with oil spills in the Arctic or the way that a lack of investment is enabling Russian militarism to go unchecked.

Advice -- Your case will be stronger the more specific your harms are. Don't merely state that "bad things are happening," but provide specific examples of what and how.

Inherency --

One of the most confusing stock issues for novices is inherency. What is preventing the issue from being resolved at this time? In order to justify your strategy, you must demonstrate that the status quo, or current system, isn't already working.

Inherency comes in various forms--

Structural: There are established laws or procedures that deliberately resist change.

Attitude: Decision-makers lack urgency or care too little.

Existential: For some reason, nothing is stopping action, but it still doesn't happen.

The U.S. has not made significant investments in Arctic development despite years of discussion because it is preoccupied with other international concerns, for instance.

Solvency --

Solvency is where you prove that voting affirmative will actually fix the harms that you present. For solvency, you will need evidence, studies, or real world examples that show how your plan will work. You need to show that your plan is practical and can work in the environment you are setting it out to be in.

Having strong solvency can really be the dagger in you winning a majority of your AFF rounds. Make sure to have answers to any arguments from the NEG (maybe about funding or the agent).

Topicality --

Topicality, "T", is about whether the AFF plan actually fits within the given resolution for the year. The negative can be like hey this team doesn't meet the resolution, so this means they are cheating which means you vote NEG.

For example, if the resolution is about expanding arctic development, but your plan just increases education within the area, you may be subject to some T arguments from the NEG. They will define their terms and then you will define yours. Kind of like solvency, have an AFF strategy for T debates with your own interpretation of the resolution.