|
"STOCK ISSUES" As an Obstacle to Quality Debate Jeremy J. Ofseyer, University of North Carolina 1986 - Fertile
Ground : The Agriculture Debate |
|
This article is a call for deemphasizing the "stock issues" in competitive debate. While this goal may seem like theoretical blasphemy to many debaters and coaches, the decline of the "Stock Issues" paradigm has been a consistent trend in college debate and scholarly circles. I believe this trend reflects an emerging consensus that excessive emphasis on the "burdens" of the Stock Issue paradigm tends to decrease the quality of argumentation by imposing an unjustifiably rigid conceptual "straight jacket" on the issues in a debate. The Stock Issues (SI) paradigm is not clearly defined. Many would equate SI with the theoretical burdens articulated by Austin J. Freeley. These burdens include the requirement that the Affirmative case be topical, significant, inherent, and that the plan solves the specified harm area. While most would agree that these categories provide a useful and often accurate approach to dividing various debate issues, the claim that a specific threshold level of each requirement must be proven is far more controversial. In particular, I want to criticize the notion that an Affirmative should lose because it "doesn't have enough" of one of these burdens. This criticism implicitly suggests a defense of a "comparative advantage" approach as a theoretical alternative. I intend to argue that SI is theoretically unjustified (i.e., it is an inappropriate model for what a debate is or should be), that emphasis on SI decreases the quality of debates, and that debating from a SI perspective is strategically unwise from the point of view of the individual team. I. THEORETICAL JUSTIFICATION The theoretical appeal of SI lies in its intuitive approach to categorizing and separating the various questions debaters must address. The SIs neatly correspond to such basic questions as "Is there a significant problem in the present system?", "Why does that problem exist?", and "Can our proposal remedy the problem?". SI elevates these common sense questions to the status of theoretical burdens and, as a matter of convention, insists that a threshold level of each burden must be demonstrated by the Affirmative in order to constitute a prima facie case. I believe the view that a specific level of each burden must be demonstrated is indefensible and will inevitably lead to a theoretical absurdity. Initially, any attempt to distinguish an acceptable "amount" of significance, inherency, or solvency from an unacceptable amount is unavoidably arbitrary. The inability to "draw the line" between, for example, a significant or insignificant advantage is not necessarily decisive (i.e., while the transition between the colors on the spectrum can't be pinpointed, no one would argue that two adjacent colors are indistinguishable). However, in the context of a debate round, it is virtually impossible to resolve competing claims over whether or not "x" number of fatalities is a significant harm or whether "x" percent is a sufficient increment of solvency. The need to specify a threshold of each burden is engendered by the amorphous concept of "Presumption." The presumption in favor of the status quo is a common conceptual foundation in many argumentative paradigms, implying a high "burden of proof" on the part of the advocate. This line of reasoning is barrowed from the conservative philosophy of Edmund Burke. While a thorough explication and critical assessment of Burke's arguments are beyond the scope of this article, I would like to suggest a few of the reasons one might be hesitant about embracing the notion of "Presumption" as a rationale for using the SI paradigm. Initially, there is significant controversy among philosophers and political theorists over whether the legal concept of burden of proof should be applied to debates over policy reform. The distinctly conservative flavor of this reasoning involves certain normative assumptions which many would contest. For example, if we were debating social policy in a society with an "evil government" (e.g., Nazi Germany, South Africa, USSR, etc.), would a blind appeal to incrementalism, fear of change, or respect for the past be very persuasive? The same problem applies in the context of desperate times or circumstances. Should there be a presumption in favor of the status quo if we are faced with the threat of a depression, the escalation of the Nuclear Arms Race, or some sort of Malthuslan catastrophe? Does the existence of these problems justify questioning society's decision-making processes in other areas? Even if one disagrees with the previous reasoning and believes presumption should lie with the status quo, there is still no need to adopt a SI perspective. Many judges commonly claim they only vote on presumption in the case of a "tie" (whatever that is supposed to mean). In other words, if the affirmative literally has no advantage, they will opt for the present system. This view is distinct from insisting that the affirmative must show a specific increment of an advantage. I believe SI theorists confuse the issue by equating burden of proof as an evidence standard with their insistence on meeting a specific level of each burden. Burden of proof should be seen as an evidentiary standard which an advocate must meet in order to distinguish his claims from mere assertions. This does not mean that certain advantages are worthy of consideration while others are not. For example, a person could meet his evidentiary burden of proof by conclusively showing that the defendant's negligence caused his sprained ankle, even though many debaters would consider that an insignificant problem. Finally, this presumption in favor of the status quo can be integrated into other theoretical perspectives (e.g., policy making, hypothesis testing, etc.). In other words, belief in the notion of presumption need not force you to embrace the arbitrary standards for acceptable advantages embodied in SI theory. Finally, I believe that other argumentative resources exist which can replace dogmatic adherence to the SI approach. Most other debate paradigms incorporate some approach to defining and evaluating the various stock issues. Thus, while these theoretical "burdens" may be useful in various paradigms, there is no need to insist that a certain arbitrary level of prima facie burdens" be demonstrated. Instead, other argumentative tools exist to temper the abuses which can arise from affirmative cases with unusually small advantages. To illustrate this point I will suggest some alternatives available to the negative, which can replace impassioned pleas to the affirmatives burden of proof and which can also serve to check the proliferation of cases with trivial advantages. I believe such alternative arguments can easily be found for each of the prima facie burdens: SIGNIFICANCE: One
of the least interesting and often most offensive aspects of the INC is
the unimaginative significance press. This problem is typified by the
callous need of the INC to hear a precise "body count" before
he deems the affirmative case worthy of further discussion. The notion
that premature death (preferably tens of thousands of them) is the only
relevant social issue, is patently absurd, and reflects a simplistic and
insensitive version of utilitarianism. Instead, common sense suggests
that most problems which receive attention through the written word can
be construed as significant. The futility of debates over the meaning
of the word "significant" in past topics proves the difficulty
associated with specifying an "acceptable" level of significance.
This difficulty is compounded when one admits that more abstract values,
such as rights, aesthetics, quality of life, and cultural preservation
and growth, are considered worthwhile subjects for debate. INHERENCY: There is [sic] also some unusually bland debates over the extent of affirmative inherence. Contrary to what some 1NCS may claim, a pilot program in Pennsylvania is not a "national trend" and the absence of a Constitutional amendment prohibiting the affirmative plan does not imply the affirmative is advocating "existential inherency." The all too popular "me-too" approach to inherency (where the negative attempts to prove the inevitably false claim that the present system is adopting the affirmative plan) is possibly the most strategically useless argument available to the negative. Most of the problems associated with simplistic prima facie inherence requirements are due to mistakenly defining inherency as an obstacle to adopting the affirmative plan. Many silly and fruitless "presses" can be avoided if debaters view inherency as a reason that harms will continue absent resolutional action (which may be, but need not be, a description of an obstacle to plan adoption). Fears that such an approach will lead to rampant abuses of "existential" inherence are unfounded. it usually only requires an iota of imagination to find some attitude or situation which explains the need for resolutional action. Many of the previously mentioned approaches for dealing with "insignificant" advantages are also useful in responding to cases with limited inherency. One way to deal with a team which claims very limited inherency (in order to avoid links to disadvantages or to undermine their uniqueness) is to counterplan by mandating that all areas of the country assume the policy that presently only exists in a limited area. Resource priorities arguments and linear disadvantages can also be helpful. SOLVENCY: A great deal of flow paper is needlessly wasted over various partial solvency arguments. Questions of enforcement and implementation ("plank by plank" if the judge is really lucky) are typical examples of the uninteresting and usually unimportant partial "meet need." While these issues are often very important in the real world, they are rarely decisive in a debate round. One reason for this is that implementation problems usually suggest the need for reforms in the executive or judicial branch of government, instead of suggesting a reason for rejecting resolutional action. Most solvency arguments are only decisive (i.e., voting issues) in combination with some disadvantage. However, if the disadvantage link is contingent on the achievement of the affirmative advantage, then solvency arguments can serve to undermine disadvantage links. Solvency arguments are especially valuable in concert with disadvantages. For example, perception disadvantages (e.g., "New Right, Backlash") or plan specific disadvantages (e.g., Spending or Federalism) apply regardless of the extent of affirmative solvency. II. ROUND QUALITY The effects of SI on debate round quality are obviously intimately tied to the various theoretical rationale offered for and quality of discussion to the extent it provides a starting point for assessing various issues. This argumentative focus is a useful conceptual crutch for beginning research, organizing your affirmative case, and planning your negative attack. I am convinced, however, that excessive emphasis on stock issues encourages superficial debating. The "real" debate should be found in the published literature on a particular issue, not in a pre-fabricated set of questions derived from a perfunctory reading of Debate for Boys. The more debaters are encouraged to think about the issue and use their common sense, instead of relying on debate jargon, the more likely the debate will be interesting and productive. While the SI approach, if used as a starting point for discussion, may facilitate good debate, it also can serve as a wonderful way for debaters to avoid thinking about or (worse yet) actually contesting what the affirmative has said. When the INC spends four minutes of his/her speech asking unimaginative questions which incorporate these debate code-words, the goal of constructive dialogue is not advanced. Indeed, this "chinese menu" approach to debating can often discourage debaters from analyzing the interaction of arguments and attempting a holistic assessment of the pros and cons of alternative positions. If the debate is nothing more than a simplistic tallying of disjointed prima facie burdens it is unlikely to be much more than an uninteresting manipulation of debate jargon. In contrast, paradigms such as policy-making and hypothesis testing encourage an assessment of the pros and cons of competing positions with less emphasis on the code-words of the SI paradigm. III. STOCK ISSUES AND STRaTEGIC CONSIDERATIONS Nobody is likely to act on behalf of the overall quality of a debate if they do not believe it will help them strategically (the popularity of hypothesis testing amply illustrates this point). However, I believe deemphasizing the SI paradigm usually helps win rounds. Rigid adherence to the stock issues encourages a mindless bifurcation of speaker responsibilities which can often put the 1NC and 2NC at cross-purposes Debate arguments are strategically useful to the extent they work well in interaction with each other. Many common SI positions are strategically unwise because they have limited additive value. In other words, many significance, inherency, and solvency arguments only serve to cut into the link or uniqueness of the disadvantages. Thus, the negative is wasting its time when they make arguments which cut equally into the affirmative advantage and the negative disadvantage. As a rule, I believe each side's rebuttals are more effective and aesthetically pleasing (i.e., speaker points) if debaters think in terms of the interaction of the evidence and arguments instead of being straight-jacketed by a simplistic tallying of stock issues. One important warning: these predictions about the strategic value of the SI approach depends to a great extent on the debate judge who has the honor of evaluating your debate. On the one hand, SI debating will be a waste of time if the judge implicitly or explicitly adheres to a comparative advantage model. On the other hand, your progressive theoretical inclinations may be met with resistance (or worse yet, a lost ballot) from a judge who is wedded to the tried and true approach they learned in their Austin J. Freeley textbook. I do not want the generalize across diverse situation, so I recommend trying to get a sense of the judging philosophy you are expected to debate for in each round. Overall, if you are less concerned about winning in the short run and are more concerned with the intellectual evolution of the activity, then I encourage you to be a martyr on behalf of the comparative advantage approach to debate. JEREKY OFSEYER was
a four time National Debate Tournament participant, representing the University
of North Carolina - Chapel Hill. In 1986 be was named 5th speaker and
advanced to the quarterfinal round. In his senior year Jeremy reached
the finals of the largest national-level tournaments - Northwestern University,
University of Kentucky, and Wake Forest University - winning the latter. |