Solvency (policy debate)
Encyclopedia
Solvency
is a stock issue
in policy debate
, referring to the effectiveness of the affirmative
plan or the negative
counterplan
in solving the harms
or problems of the status quo
. A good solvency mechanism will have a solvency advocate: a qualified professional specifically advocating the proposed course of action. After the First Affirmative Constructive speech (1AC), it is assumed that the Affirmative team can completely solve all of their harms unless the speaker indicated otherwise.
This solvency can be mitigated by defensive arguments, e.g. corruption will prevent the plan from being implemented to the extent necessary to completely solve. An offensive argument (as opposed to a defensive argument) might change from one stock issue to solvency, one of which could be a Disadvantage. If the Negative team can prove that the effects of the plan make the harms worse than they are in the current situation, then the Affirmative team cannot guarantee positive benefits and therefore no reason exists as to why the plan should be adopted.
Solvency
Solvency, in finance or business, is the degree to which the current assets of an individual or entity exceed the current liabilities of that individual or entity. Solvency can also be described as the ability of a corporation to meet its long-term fixed expenses and to accomplish long-term...
is a stock issue
Stock issues
In the formal speech competition genre known as policy debate, a widely-accepted doctrine or "debate theory" divides the deliberative elements of proving the resolution as affirmative affirmative into four logical issues, called the stock issues...
in policy debate
Policy debate
Policy debate is a form of speech competition in which teams of two advocate for and against a resolution that typically calls for policy change by the United States federal government or security discourse...
, referring to the effectiveness of the affirmative
Affirmative (policy debate)
In policy debate, the affirmative is the team which affirms the resolution.The Affirmative side negates the negative.The affirmative team speaks first and last. They give four speeches:*First affirmative constructive...
plan or the negative
Negative (policy debate)
In policy debate, the Negative is the team which negates the resolution.The negative team speaks second and second to last. They give four speeches:*First negative constructive *Second negative constructive *First negative rebuttal...
counterplan
Counterplan
A counterplan is a component of debate theory commonly employed in the activity of parliamentary and policy debate. While some conceptions of debate theory require the negative position in a debate to defend the status quo against an affirmative position or plan, a counterplan allows the negative...
in solving the harms
Harms (policy debate)
Harms are a stock issue in policy debate which refer to problems inherent in the status quo. These problems may be either actual or potential...
or problems of the status quo
Status quo
Statu quo, a commonly used form of the original Latin "statu quo" – literally "the state in which" – is a Latin term meaning the current or existing state of affairs. To maintain the status quo is to keep the things the way they presently are...
. A good solvency mechanism will have a solvency advocate: a qualified professional specifically advocating the proposed course of action. After the First Affirmative Constructive speech (1AC), it is assumed that the Affirmative team can completely solve all of their harms unless the speaker indicated otherwise.
This solvency can be mitigated by defensive arguments, e.g. corruption will prevent the plan from being implemented to the extent necessary to completely solve. An offensive argument (as opposed to a defensive argument) might change from one stock issue to solvency, one of which could be a Disadvantage. If the Negative team can prove that the effects of the plan make the harms worse than they are in the current situation, then the Affirmative team cannot guarantee positive benefits and therefore no reason exists as to why the plan should be adopted.