Stock Issues

If you were to study an instrument by hiring a musician to give you private lessons, you would find that each instructor has their own personal approach to learning music. Learning to debate in front of an audience is similar. No two debate coaches emphasize the same thing. In order to account for the many different concepts that coaches have when teaching theory, I have treated this chapter as a survey of common theoretical issues that are important to the creation of an affirmative advocacy.

Imagine that you were tasked with watching hundreds of debates. Luckily, you do not have to endure such a task, but you might imagine that after a few dozen debates you would start to see similarities amongst the arguments. Scholars of ancient rhetoric studies explain that ancient students were able to identify recurring arguments, and that those recurring arguments are what we now call stock issues. So, in this section we are going to cover the common stock issues in contemporary debate. First we will explore some background information on stock issues, cover the stock issues for policy debates, and then discuss stock issues you find in value debates.

Stock Issues

Let’s start with what stock issues are not. They are not, as some people treat them, absolute rules about how to organize cases. The concept of stock issues means different things in different debates. The two most common forms of debate are policy and value. But regardless of what type of debate you participate in, you are going to experience what Aristotle called stasis. Stasis is the rest or halt which occurs between opposing arguments. It is likely that you are already personally familiar with this phenomenon. Think to the last time you were asked what you wanted to eat, or what you would like to do over the weekend. Did you spit out an immediate response? You probably took a little bit of time to weigh your options. Well, this happens several times in debates. But not only that, these moments of stasis often revolve around similar issues regardless of the topic. For instance, what to eat and what to do both require contemplating how much each option costs and the time involved. Therefore, time and money would be issues common to both questions. Common questions are the foundation of stock issues. In fact, the most inclusive definition of stock issues is that they are the questions which occur with frequency in the course of argumentation. Luckily, people have been having structured debates long enough to record the common questions in debate and have noticed some pretty clear patterns that you would benefit from knowing. For instance, one common question that arises in many debates is “How do we determine which arguments win the debate?” This question is at the root of the criterion stock issue. But beyond this similar stock issue, the patterns are different, for policy cases and value cases.

Policy Stock Issues

For policy cases there are three stock issues that debaters generally recognize (except for the criterion which is covered in another seminar) and the first is called harms. What are harms when we talk about stock issues? Imagine again you are in the ancient academy, where a type of question/answer approach dominates learning. If someone stands up and makes a proposal to levy a tax on citizens, what do you think the most common questions an opponent would have for the speaker? I think it is safe to say that one common question would be “what’s the problem?” In fact, that question is asked so often, that it would be smart to just assume you’re your opponent is going to ask the question, and include your answer in your first speech…right? Well that line of reasoning establishes our first stock issue.

1. Harms. The harms stock issue is an argument, or a set of arguments that attempt to persuade an audience that there are problems with the status quo. Status quo refers to the current state of affairs. I like to think of it as “status now,” just because it helps me remember. There are a couple of ways to show harms in the status quo, and a good debater employs the use of both tactics. Those tactics are qualitative and quantitative. Qualitative harms are based on data of particular people and events. They go into detail about the individuals that are currently suffering hardships: whereas, quantitative harms rely on statistical data to articulate the extent of human suffering. Both are compelling to audiences and should be use during the construction and delivery of your affirmative case. For instance, let’s say I wanted to articulate the harms of global warming. I could talk about how many inches oceans are set to rise because of melting ice caps, and that is a compelling story, but including information about specific cultures that live on low-lying islands and how they could be wiped out is also compelling to audiences. The first piece of data is quantitative, and the second is qualitative, but when they are used together they create a narrative that is greater than the sum of its parts.
2. Inherency. One of the most common questions of an affirmative proposal is “what’s the problem,” what is another? Can you think of another? You might be asking “is there a solution?” But before that question, there is a prior question that you ought to ask; “what is causing this problem?” This question establishes the stock issue of inherency. The inherency stock issue is an argument, or a set of arguments that attempt to persuade the audience that a problem will persist if no action is taken. I like to think of inherency in terms of the phrase “the harms aren’t going to fix themselves.” There are two types of inherency, structural and attitudinal.
   1. Structural inherency argues that there is a law, or policy that is creating the harms. For the global warming case, an argument could be made that the subsidies that are given to companies for fossil fuel extraction, and that the use of those fossil fuels contribute to global warming because of carbon emissions.
   2. Attitudinal inherency is the type of inherency that argues that there is a common behavior or attitude that perpetuates the harms. So, for the global warming case, one could argue that people generally prefer fossil fuel sources of energy because it is cheaper and more reliable. I would suggest having one focused, well-researched inherency story. Exploring every single cause to the problem begins to imply that your plan will address all of them, which is an unnecessary burden to take on. To firmly establish inherency, do it with depth rather than breadth. What I mean is, if my plan were to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies, I would focus on the structural inherency of subsidies and only subsidies. Talk about the history. Give figures about how significant the subsidies are. But there is no need to go into the popular attitude toward fossil fuel use because your case doesn’t deal with that issue. Remember, you are not obligated to fix all of the world’s problems, only to make the world better than the status quo. Inherency is your chance to focus your case on one thing that can be fixed.
3. Solvency. Finally, we can ask why the proposal will solve the problems. This question gives rise to the solvency stock issue. Solvency is an argument, or set of arguments that the proposed plan will solve the harms. While this sounds easy, some debaters take this stock issue for granted. As if identifying harms and inherency is all you need in order to justify a plan, but many plans with the best of intentions fail. In fact, solvency arguments are one of the most popular on-case arguments in debate, so put some energy into this stock issue. There are a couple of things an affirmative can do to craft a good solvency argument.
   1. First, you want to make sure that the solvency links to the plan. The link story should explain how the plan creates a series of effects. For instance, eliminating fossil fuel subsidies will cause companies to find ways to supplant that lost revenue, and they will seek renewable energy subsidies. Notice that your plan does not force the companies to seek renewable energy subsidies, but you can still argue that such behavior is likely if this plan were to pass. You might think that this logic is debatable, and you are right…it is.
   2. The second thing that affirmative debates can do to craft a good solvency argument is include a significant impact. In other words, there should an explanation that you solve for a significant amount of your harms. You might ask, “what is significant?” That is a good question without a good answer. What is or is not a significant argument is something that is often disputed in debates. My only piece of advice is to defend as much solvency as your research supports and no more. Do not make empty promises of a utopian future, those tend to bite you later in the debate. Use your judgment and argue for reasonably significant impacts.

Value Stock Issues

The stock issues for policy cases do not automatically translate into value cases, so debaters need to follow a different pattern. Furthermore, the stock issues for value debates are not as well-established as the stock issues for policy debates, so they are a little more abstract. Other than criterion, there are two stock issues for value cases, and the first is the value justification.

1. Value justification. A value justification simply means that the affirmative side warrants the value criterion in the debate. Remember, stock issues are derived from recurring questions, so one question that commonly arises in value rounds is “In what ways does the affirmative meet the value?” For example, if the resolution is that “Nuclear energy is better than renewable energy,” and the affirmative has argued in favor of a value criterion of quality of life, then any argument that nuclear energy improves the quality of life meets the value justification stock issue. These arguments could include how nuclear energy provides a stable source of energy for things like medical institutions and heating during cold seasons. For the same resolution, but a value criterion of security, typical arguments that meet the value criterion would be about how nuclear submarines are effective at repelling hostile attacks.
2. Value Objection. The second stock issue in value debates is the value objection. This stock issue answers the question “In what ways does the negative side fail to meet the value?” In this stock issue, the affirmative can debunk arguments that the negative might bring up against the affirmative, and show how the negative does not warrant the value criterion. Remember, you want to filter everything through whatever the value criterion is. For the nuclear energy resolution example, if the value is quality of life the affirmative could explain the unreliability and environmental harm of renewable energy. If the value is security, the affirmative could argue that there are currently no ways to power sophisticated naval vessels with renewable energy. Each of these arguments, of course, require research and evidence for support, but you can see how stock issues helps you frame the arguments you are going to develop even without evidence.

There are more stock issues that correlate with other debates in science, history, and other fields that are outside of the scope of this textbook. But at least you know the two most common sets of stock issues in order to help you plan a general strategy for most debate topics. Following stock issues is more than just abiding by debate rules; you are following a very long tradition in the study of argumentation and debate. You are answering common questions before they are asked. You are covering as many bases as possible before you opponent gets up to speak.