Policy Analysis in Cross-ex Debate Policy Stock Issues Policy Analysis in Cross-ex Debate

Policy Stock Issues There are two types of stock issues: Those that relate to the rules of Debate Those that arise from policy analysis These issues must always be explicitly addressed: Harm Significance Adv vs. Disads Inherency Solvency These are always there but are often implicit However being explicit about them is always wise and a necessity if the opposing brings them up: Topicality Evidence Abuse

Why Do Something? Harm, Significance & Inherency Harm is the stock issue in policy debate which refers to problems inherent in the status quo. Significance is a stock issue in policy debate, it is that: The Harm must be significant enough to do something about! Advantages vs. Disadvantages What you do to solve the Harm (the plan) must not create more significant disadvantages than advantages In the process!

Inherency, harm must be inherent in the status quo That is it must require change in policy to solve it! Three types of inherency Structural inherency: Laws or other barriers to the implementation of the plan or causes of harms Attitudinal inherency: Beliefs or attitudes which prevent the implementation of the plan or causing harms Existential inherency: The harms exist and res ipsa loquitur, the status quo must not be able to solve the problem. It just is.

Solvency and “the Plan” The Affirmative must provide a specific Plan of action to solve the Harm. “The Plan” must solve the Harm Also The Plan must be doable: Jurisdiction: The Government agency responsible must have jurisdiction $$$: The Funds needed must be available Practical: The be actually able to be executed

Rules issues: Topicality The entire debate must stay on topic. This means that the affirmative’s case and negative’s rebuttal must address the resolution. You can violate Off Topic: The case simply has little or nothing to do with the topic Too Broad Affirmative can defend a seemingly too broad case by claiming the case is… Extra topical: The case interprets the topic too broadly but still addresses the resolution but as a part of the plan Effects Topicality: The case addresses the topic not by Intent but only by its effects (Can go with Extra Topicality) Too Narrow is usually covered as insignificant.

Topicality Violation Examples RESOLVED: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic and/or diplomatic engagement with the People's Republic of China. Off Topic: Plan: 10% tariff on products imported from Mexico. Extra Topicality: Example: Plan: 10% tariff on all imported products.” Effects Topicality: Example: Plan: A missile strike on North Korea

Evidence When a debater make a claim it must supported. Evidence (or grounds) must be given to support the claim, a warrant must link the grounds to the claim. Evidence can be: Demonstrable: If I claim there is gravity I can drop my pen Experiential: “you all know that things fall all the time, gravity exists. Authoritative: “Isaac Newton says…. This last is of course is Ethos, an argument from authority And it is most common in Policy Debate.

Evaluating Ethos Evidence Remember the Three Criteria for whether you should trust an authority: Competence/Expertise Is there a good reason to believe the “Authority” knows what they are talking about ? (degrees. credentials, Experience etc.) Honesty Is the “Authority” Honest? Bias Does the “Authority” have prejudices (perhaps even unknown to them) Bias toward the issue (a meteorologist working for an Oil company may have a bias on the issue of climate change Bias toward the audience (Does the authority have a bias against us?)

(Hopefully it does not) Abuse Abuse is a fundamentally unfair argument Entirely new arguments/contentions made in the rebuttals are abusive Ad hominem attacks are abusive Arguments that impose an impossible burden of proof are abusive Example: You cannot claim that "miracles exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."  Issues of Abuse are brought up only when Abuse occurs (Hopefully it does not)