Policy debate hinges on stock issues: key areas the affirmative must prove to win. These include topicality, significance, inherency, and solvency. The affirmative must show their plan addresses important harms, is needed, and can solve the problem.

The negative can win by disproving any stock issue. They might argue the plan isn't topical, the harms are insignificant, the problem isn't inherent, or the plan can't solve it. Understanding these issues is crucial for effective debate strategy.

Stock issues overview

• Stock issues are the key areas of clash in policy debate that the affirmative must prove to win the round
• The affirmative has the burden of proof to demonstrate that their plan is topical, addresses significant harms, is inherent, and can solve the problem
• The negative can win the debate by proving that the affirmative fails to meet any one of these stock issues

Significance vs insignificance

• Significance refers to the importance and scope of the harms being addressed by the affirmative plan
• The affirmative must prove that the harms are substantial enough to warrant action and that their plan can make a meaningful difference
• Insignificance is argued by the negative to claim that the harms are too small or that the plan's impact is minimal (poverty, climate change)

Inherency of harms

• Inherency means that the harms identified by the affirmative are built into the status quo and will continue without the adoption of the plan
• The affirmative must show that the current system or attitudes perpetuate the problem and that the harms won't be solved absent their proposal
• The negative can argue that the harms are not inherent by showing that trends, policies, or other factors are already addressing the issue (institutional racism, political gridlock)

Solvency of plan

• Solvency refers to the ability of the affirmative plan to solve the harms and achieve its intended benefits
• The affirmative must provide evidence and reasoning to demonstrate that their specific action is sufficient to overcome the inherent barriers and fix the problem
• Solvency can be challenged by the negative in several ways, such as arguing the plan is unworkable, has harmful side effects, or doesn't address key causes of the harm (universal healthcare, criminal justice reform)

Topicality

• Topicality is the stock issue that requires the affirmative plan to be within the scope of the resolution being debated
• The affirmative has the burden to prove their plan meets the resolutional terms and that their interpretation is reasonable
• Topicality is a prima facie burden, meaning the affirmative must win it to have any chance of winning the debate

Definitions of terms

• To determine topicality, debaters must establish definitions for the key terms in the resolution
• These definitions can come from dictionaries, legal contexts, or field-specific literature depending on the topic
• The affirmative and negative often propose competing definitions to include or exclude certain plans (domestic, substantially, democracy)

Interpretation of resolution

• Beyond the individual words, debaters must provide an interpretation of what the resolution as a whole means
• This involves explaining the scope and limits implied by the resolutional statement
• The affirmative interpretation should be broad enough to allow their plan but not so broad as to make the topic unlimited
• The negative can challenge interpretations that are too expansive or that permit plans outside the topic literature (health care vs all welfare)

Harms

• Harms are the problems or negative consequences that the affirmative argues their plan will address
• The affirmative must demonstrate that these harms are significant and ongoing in the status quo
• Harms exist in many forms such as threats to human life, barriers to justice, restrictions on rights, or economic costs

Quantifying impacts

• To establish the significance of harms, the affirmative should quantify the scope and magnitude of the problem
• This involves providing numerical evidence such as mortality statistics, financial figures, or populations affected
• Quantitative impacts are often more compelling than qualitative descriptions alone (22 million without health insurance)

Timeframe of impacts

• The affirmative should specify the timeframe for the harms they identify and when their impacts will occur
• Some harms are immediate and short-term while others are gradual or far off in the future
• The negative can argue that harms are not urgent if they are too distant and there is time for other solutions (deaths today vs speculative environment scenarios)

Brink vs slow change

• Affirmatives often argue that harms have reached a brink or threshold that makes them unsustainable and demands action now
• In other cases, harms are framed as slow, steady problems that will accumulate over time if not addressed
• The negative can argue a brink is not real or that harms are not changing fast enough to outweigh disadvantages of acting quickly (imminent economic collapse vs long-term wage stagnation)

Inherency

• Inherency focuses on the barriers in the status quo that prevent harms from being solved absent the affirmative plan
• The affirmative must demonstrate that these inherent barriers mean that their harms will continue regardless of current efforts
• Inherency exists in two main forms - structural and attitudinal

Structural vs attitudinal

• Structural inherency involves physical, legal, or institutional barriers that perpetuate harms and are built into the current system
• Examples include laws, constitutional constraints, or jurisdictional boundaries that limit the ability to address problems (federalism constraints on national education policy)
• Attitudinal inherency deals with entrenched beliefs, political resistance, or social biases that prevent effective solutions
• Examples are political partisanship, public apathy, or ideological divides that block change (persistent vaccine hesitancy)

Existential inherency

• Existential inherency argues that the absence of a law, program, or entity to solve the problem means harms will persist
• The affirmative argues there is no status quo mechanism to address the issue, so their plan is needed to fill the gap
• The negative can argue that just because something doesn't exist now doesn't mean it is inherent, as other solutions could be adopted (no mandatory rehab programs now but they could be implemented without the aff plan)

Significance

• Significance refers to the importance and scope of the harms being addressed by the affirmative
• The affirmative must demonstrate that their harms outweigh any disadvantages and are important enough to change the status quo
• Significance can be measured in several ways and compared to other issues or priorities

Scope of harms

• Scope deals with the breadth of the harms and how many people, places, or things are impacted
• The more widespread the harm, the greater the significance (global warming affects the entire planet)
• Harms that are limited to a small area or population are less significant in most cases (a disease outbreak on one college campus)

Qualitative vs quantitative

• Some harms are best expressed qualitatively by vividly describing the nature and severity of impacts (graphic depictions of animal abuse)
• Other harms are suited for quantitative expression using numerical measures and hard data (1 in 5 women experience sexual assault)
• A mix of qualitative and quantitative harms provides the most robust significance case

Prioritization of impacts

• Significance is also a matter of prioritizing between different types and categories of impacts
• Affirmatives will argue their harms should be a priority over other issues and that they preclude other harms
• Prioritization often involves comparing the timeframe, probability, and magnitude of impacts (short-term recession vs long-term growth, certain extinction vs speculative nuke war)

Solvency

• Solvency is the ability of the affirmative plan to solve the harms and achieve the advantages they claim
• The affirmative must show their specific action is sufficient to overcome inherent barriers and fix the problem
• Solvency can be viewed as a chain of internal links connecting the plan to the ultimate impacts

Sufficiency of action

• The affirmative plan must be sufficient in scope and strength to solve a significant portion of the harm
• Half-measures or limited policies are vulnerable to solvency deficits that leave the underlying problem in place (recycling vs banning single-use plastics)
• The negative will argue the plan does not go far enough to make a meaningful difference to the problem

Workability of plan

• Workability deals with the logistical ability to implement and execute the affirmative plan in the real world
• The affirmative should have evidence the plan is feasible to enact and can operate as intended (successful pilot programs, expert testimony)
• The negative can argue obstacles like funding issues, political resistance, or faulty mechanisms mean the plan is unworkable (Green New Deal)

Disadvantages vs advantages

• The ultimate solvency question is if the plan's ability to solve the harms and achieve advantages outweighs any disadvantages
• The affirmative will argue their case solves more harm than it causes and that solvency outweighs the risk of disadvantages
• The negative can argue small solvency deficits mean the plan is not worth the significant disadvantages it triggers (economic collapse from reparations)

Negative strategies

• The negative has several strategic options to win on the stock issues and defeat the affirmative case
• These strategies allow the negative to undermine the key pillars of the affirmative burdens and minimize their offense
• Negatives must choose the best tactics for the specific case while covering the major stock issues

Straight refutation

• Straight refutation involves directly clashing with the claims and evidence presented in the affirmative's case
• The negative will argue the affirmative harms are not real or significant, that inherency doesn't exist, or the plan can't solve
• Straight refutation is often used on significance and harms but requires specific evidence to disprove affirmative claims

Repairs to plan

• The negative can offer modifications or additions to the affirmative plan that boost its solvency or minimize disadvantages
• These repairs can range from minor tweaks to substantial overhauls of the action proposed by the affirmative
• Offering repairs allows the negative to acknowledge problems while still rejecting the affirmative's specific approach (adding means-testing to a universal program)

Counterplans

• Counterplans are comprehensive alternatives to the affirmative plan proposed by the negative as a superior option
• Counterplans are designed to be competitive by solving the same harms as the affirmative but avoiding disadvantages
• Counterplans can be used to disprove inherency by showing there are other solutions that don't require the action of the plan (states vs federal action)

Burden of proof

• The burden of proof in policy debate rests with the affirmative team to prove their case for changing the status quo
• The affirmative must provide sufficient evidence and reasoning to demonstrate they have met all the stock issues
• The negative can win by preventing the affirmative from meeting their burden on any of the key stock issues

Presumption vs risk

• There is a presumption in favor of the status quo in policy debate, as the current system is assumed to be working
• This means the judge will presume a negative ballot unless the affirmative proves their case and a reason to change
• The affirmative must overcome presumption by winning a risk that their harms are real and their plan can solve them better than the status quo or a counterplan

Preponderance of evidence

• The affirmative must win their arguments by a preponderance of evidence, meaning their claims are more likely to be true than false
• Preponderance is not a high bar - the affirmative does not need to have an overwhelming amount of evidence, just enough to tip the scales
• The negative can prevent a preponderance by denying claims, mitigating solvency, or winning disadvantages that outweigh the case (51% risk of solvency vs 49% risk of disadvantage)