For the last several decades, critic judges have generally utilized the stock issues perspective for the evaluation of debates. The stock issues perspective, as noted by Sproule, includes those issues which arise from a series of questions: Is there a need for a change; (HARM) can the plan meet the need; are there disadvantages to the plan; is the need significant (SIGNIFICANCE) and inherent to the present system (INHERNECY); is the plan practicable and workable; do the case and plan implement the resolution or are they outside the sphere of the resolution? (TOPICALITY)

From this perspective, the affirmative team must provide "yes" answers to all of these questions to win a debate. If the judge decides that the answer to any of these questions is "no," then a negative decision would be in order. In effect, once the judge has determined answers to each of the above questions, a rather mechanical series of decision rules come into play: If (1) is yes, then go to (2), if no, then vote negative; If (2) is yes, then go to (3), if no, then vote negative; etc. The stock issues perspective is generally straightforward, and since traditional, is generally well understood as a method of arriving at a decision in academic debate.

Proposition ideas:

"The Unites States should encourage the teaching of 'intelligent design' as an alternative to evolution."

"The United States should immediately begin full and open dialogue with North Korea."

"California should immediately return to its pre 'Delta Smelt' water levels."