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

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

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

4. 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?

5. 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)?

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

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

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

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

12. 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