Words and Definitions You
Need to Know
• Presumption: the inherent advantage in opposing change to the
status quo (or present system). The opposition to change enjoys
presumption. They want what already exists to continue to exist. If it
ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
• Advocate: The person or group who wants change. In debate,
they’re called “the affirmative.” The affirmative has the obligation to
provide sufficient evidence and argument to overcome presumption.
In other words, advocates have to prove that there is a need for
change in the status quo.
• Burden of proof: The affirmative has the burden of proof. He/she
must present sufficient reasons to overcome presumption. The
basic rule of burden of proof is that whoever asserts or wants
change must prove that 1) there is a need for change, 2) the
advocate’s plan will satisfy that need.
– Since the advocate brings for the claim, he/she has the burden
to prove it.
Inherency
• The advocate must demonstrate that there is some
cause in the status quo that is either creating the need or
preventing the status quo from solving the problem—
thus, it’s likely to continue. The debater must prove that
the essential elements of the case are inherent,
essential, or intrinsic in things.
• The affirmative must prove that the problem is inherent
in the status quo; the negative must prove that the value
objections or disadvantages are inherent in the
affirmative case.
– Example: Certain factors are inherent in various elements of the
case: “privacy” issues in politicians—a debater would
establish just what was inherent in the right to privacy
and why that is inherently more important than other
constitutional rights such as freedom of the press.
Inherency
•
During the research process consider the
following generic barriers to solving the
problem in that status quo.
•
There are 4 types of barriers:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Attitudinal
Physical
Economic
Political
Harms
•
The following are generic questions and
issues that will guide you in building your
argument/case:
1. What are the problems caused by the
resolution not being in place at the
current time?
2. Describe the extent and significance of
the problem/s.
3. Who is hurt by keeping the status quo?
To what extent? How many are hurt?
Stock Issues
•
Issues that typically arise in each type of argument and proposition. They’re just
standard questions that are applicable to any topic. We use stock issue analysis
as a means of understanding the issues in a proposition. They are called “stock”
because they serve as a generic guide to propositional analysis and are used to
organize an argument/case.
•
These are standard questions to ask, but they are not sufficiently specific to the
issues of any one particular proposition.
•
Both the affirmative and the negative use stock issues in their analysis. The
affirmative used them to discover the issues they will advance. The negative uses
them to anticipate the issues and claims they must refute and also in terms of the
disadvantages that the negative will promote and advance.
•
Some typical stock issue questions:









Is there a need for a change in the status quo?
Is the proposed change practical?
Is the proposed change desirable?
What does the proposition mean?
Which standards/criteria should be used to determine if the proposition is true or good or
bad or right or wrong?
How do we apply the standards/criteria?
What are the advantages of the solution?
What are the disadvantages?
Is the plan workable?
Prima Facie Case
• Is the Latin term for “first face.”
• It is the responsibility of the advocate or
affirmative side.
• It’s a case that “on the face of it,” or at first
glance, is strong enough to satisfy the burden of
proof on necessary stock issues.
• It is strong enough that the advocate can
temporarily suspend presumption; the
opponent’s or negative’s status quo advantage.
Prima Facie Case
• The advocate has established his/her prima
facie case of a proposition of fact if he/she has
met these stock issues:
– The advocate has define his/her terms in a specific
enough way that the audience can determine the
threshold of his/her burden of proof.
– He/she established the presence of a
phenomenon/problem/issue.
– He/she presented the effect significance of the
phenomenon.
– He/she demonstrated the inherent causes of these
effects.