Solvency (policy debate)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Part of the series Policy Debate |
|
| Organization | |
| Policy debate competitions |
|
| Format | |
| Structure of policy debate · Resolution |
|
| Participants | |
|
Affirmative · Negative · Judge |
|
| Types of Arguments | |
|
Stock Issues · Case· Disadvantage |
|
| Argumentative Concepts | |
Solvency is a stock issue in policy debate. It refers to the degree to which the affirmative plan or the negative counterplan solves the harms of the status quo. A good solvency mechanism will have a solvency advocate, which is a qualified professional in field of plan who advocates the plan. After the 1AC it is assumed that the Affirmative team can completly solve all of their harms unless they indicated otherwise. This solvency can be mitigated by defensive arguments, e.g. corruption will prevent the plan from being implemented to the extent neccessary to completly solve. A offensive argument, such as a Disad, might turn solvency. If the biproducts of the plan make the harms worse than they are in the Status Quo then solvency has been turned.
| Stock Issues |
|---|
|
Topicality| Solvency| Harms| Inherency| Significance |
