Stock issues I LL B LAME C URE C OSTS B ENEFITS. Stock issues ILL: What is the current problem? – Significant (quantitative) – Harmful (qualitative)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Mandated Community Service is in all Youth Justice Programs. Mandated Community Service – Requires the youthful offender to help the community. – The youth.
Advertisements

IT Control Objectives for Sarbanes-Oxley Presented by Doug Moore, Jefferson Wells International and Christine Chaney, Continental Airlines.
A Firm Foundation: CX Debate Basics (Part I) A N INTRODUCTION TO P OLICY D EBATE - The Minnesota Urban Debate League -
POLICY DEBATE Cross-Examination (CX). POLICY DEBATE  Purpose of policy debate is to compare policies and decide which is best  Affirmative: Supports.
Cross Examination (CX) Debate
Argument: Rogerian Developed by psychologist, Carl Rogers, in the 1950s Attempts to reach common ground between the speaker and the audience When composing.
China Debate Education Network: Analyzing a Debate Motion.
Argument Constructs Presumption: Lies in existing beliefs, values, or actions, which are taken for granted. Burden of proof: The responsibility to prove.
Debating Case and Disadvantages CODI 2014 Lecture 1.
The world is too big for us. Too much is going on, too many crimes, too much violence and excitement. Try as you will, you get behind in the race in spite.
Algebra Recap Solve the following equations (i) 3x + 7 = x (ii) 3x + 1 = 5x – 13 (iii) 3(5x – 2) = 4(3x + 6) (iv) 3(2x + 1) = 2x + 11 (v) 2(x + 2)
Building Government Cases. Preliminary Steps Follow critical decision making. –Analyze the proposition. Look at all alternatives with as much knowledge.
Lincoln-Douglas Debate An Examination of Values. OBJECTIVES: The student will 1. Demonstrate understanding of the concepts that underlie Lincoln-Douglas.
POLICY DEBATE Will look like CX on the sign up sheet.
Constructing a Case for a Proposition International Debate Education Association.
I.1 ii.2 iii.3 iv.4 1+1=. i.1 ii.2 iii.3 iv.4 1+1=
Kris Stroup, Longview Community College Constructing Opposition Arguments 2010 Advocacy Institute International Debate Education Association and Willamette.
Toulmin Model of Argument and Case Building
I.1 ii.2 iii.3 iv.4 1+1=. i.1 ii.2 iii.3 iv.4 1+1=
Debate Notes: Arguments Building the Affirmative and the Negative Constructive Arguments.
A rgument, Counter-argument, Refutation Drills Doris L. W. Chang Debate III:
Introduction to Debate -Affirmative- To access audio: Skype: freeconferencecallhd and enter # Or call and enter # © L.
1 Next Generation ISO Susan LK Briggs Presented to EFCOG/DOE EMS Implementation, Lessons Learned & Best Practices Training Workshop, 3/05.
Essay Outline Quick and Easy Guide to Writing a Correct Essay.
Constructive Speeches (1AC)- 6 MINUTES CX 1A to 2N- 3 MINUTES (1NC)- 6 MINUTES CX- 1N to 1A- 3 MINUTES (2AC)- 6 MINUTES CX- 2A to 1N- 3 MINUTES (2NC)-
The basics of health impact assessment (HIA): Part 1 Erica Ison Specialist Practitioner in HIA and HiAP Expert Adviser in HIA, WHO Network of European.
Propositions A proposition is the declarative statement that an advocate intends to support in the argument. Some propositions are stated formally, some.
Stock Issues of Proposition of Policy. Stock issues: are hunting grounds for arguments. They provide the general phrasing of potential issues that correspond.
China Debate Education Network Constructing Arguments for Leader of Opposition Note: Constructing arguments is not the only job of the First Opposition,
Robert Trapp, Willamette University Yang Ge, Dalian Nationalities University 2010 BFSU Tournament International Debate Education Association and Willamette.
The Stock Issues of Debate 5 Things Every Debater Needs, and Needs to Know!
The Affirmative And Stock Issues By: Matt Miller.
The Joy of Debate “A friend of mine once described himself as “hungry for rational opposition.” The words seemed to me to hit off very happily the state.
POLICY DEBATE Training Tomorrow’s Leaders How to Think Today!
Debate The Essentials Ariail, Robert. “Let the Debates Begin.” 18 Aug orig. published in The State, South Carolina. 26 Sept
Debate Ch. 18 Group One.
Judging Policy Debate Rich Edwards Baylor University July 2013.
MATH II – QUADRATICS to solve quadratic equations. MATH III – MATH II –
POLICY DEBATE. WHAT IS POLICY DEBATE? A structured format for fairly arguing a topic of policy TEAM DEBATE: two teams of two students each 8 speeches.
Judging Policy Debate Rich Edwards & Russell Kirkscey June 2015.
Hays Watson Head Debate Coach UGA.  It is the counterpoint to the Affirmative – instead of Affirming a particular course of action (i.e. the resolution),
Chapter 16,17,18 Negative Terms. Debate Terms-Negative Must directly clash with the affirmative Must directly clash with the affirmative Negative wins.
Constructing Opposition Arguments International Debate Education Association Prepared for IDEA Youth Forum Summer, 2010 Prepared by Robert Trapp Willamette.
Multiplication Timed Tests.
ΟΡΓΑΝΩΣΗ ΚΑΙ ΔΙΟΙΚΗΣΗ ΕΠΙΧΕΙΡΗΣΕΩΝ 3 Ο ΜΑΘΗΜΑ. ΟΙ ΜΕΓΑΛΕΣ ΕΠΙΧΕΙΡΗΣΕΙΣ Η δημιουργία μεγάλων επιχειρήσεων είναι ένα από τα χαρακτηριστικά του 20 ου αιώνα.
Affirmative vs. negative
KRITIKS Melissa Witt.
CROSS-EXAMINATION DEBATE: THE AFFIRMATIVE CASE
8th Annual Great Corporate Debate
© Mark Batik Jesuit College Preparatory School of Dallas
1.
Debate: The Basics.
Negative Strategies.
Debate as a pedagogical tool
The Affirmative Adapted from:.
The argumentative essay
Introduction to the aff
The argumentative essay
ОПЕРАТИВНА ПРОГРАМА “ИНОВАЦИИ И КОНКУРЕНТОСПОСОБНОСТ“ „Подобряване на производствения капацитет в МСП“
Policy Analysis in Cross-ex Debate
Intro to Debate.
ORDER AND PURPOSE OF POLICY SPEECHES
Solving Equations 3x+7 –7 13 –7 =.
DEBATE So you like to argue?.
Informative, Persuasive, and Impromptu Speaking all rolled into one!
Negative Attacks.
Stock Issues.
A Firm Foundation: CX Debate Basics (Part I)
Building Affirmative Case Template
Getting To Know Debate:
Presentation transcript:

Stock issues I LL B LAME C URE C OSTS B ENEFITS

Stock issues ILL: What is the current problem? – Significant (quantitative) – Harmful (qualitative)

Stock issues BLAME: Who/what is responsible for the ill? –Structural –Attitudinal –Inherency

Stock issues CURE: What can we do to correct for the ill? –Plan of action (policy) Agent- who should act Mandate- what they should do –Effect (will the cure solve the ill?) Topicality- does it address the root issue? Solvency- is it realistic?

Stock issues COSTS/BENEFITS: Now that we’ve solved for the ill, what other considerations must we account for? –What costs are associated with the cure (and are they acceptable?) –What additional benefits will accrue (in addition to solving for the ill)?

Constructing Cases Needs case I. Problem A. Ill-there is a significant problem B. Blame-the current policy is to blame II. Solution/Cure A. Plan of action- We need a new policy Agent- who should act Mandate- what should they do B. Effect-this policy will cure the ill realistically C. Potential costs are acceptable III. Benefits

Constructing Cases Comparative-advantages I. Plan of Action A.Agent B.Mandate II. Benefits A.Ill- a significant problem persists B.Blame- current efforts are insufficient C.Cure- the plan solves the ill better than the current policy D.Potential costs are acceptable III. Additional benefits

Constructing Cases Goal I. We share a common goal (statement of value) II. Ill/Blame-current policy is a violation of the goal/value III. Cure A. Plan of action 1.Agent 2.Mandate B. Effect IV. Benefits A. we achieve our goal B. We achieve additional benefits

Refutation Direct refutation –simply follow the constructive case and refute one or more stock issues

Refutation Defense with minor repairs –with minor changes the present policy can correct for the ills –the present system is protected from blame

Refutation Counter-proposals –there are significant ills –blame is established –the opposition’s cure is incorrect or insufficient –a counter-proposal better addressed ill

Refutation Defense of the existing policy -the present policy is not as bad as the affirmative argues -the ills are not as bad as suggested -the blame is not due to the present policy -the benefits of the current policy outweigh any disadvantages