Man on the Cliff

"Man on the Cliff" is an analogy relating to argumentation in Policy Debate. The analogy imagines the world in the status quo as a man, walking towards a cliff.

Affirmative strategies

The affirmative team has several responsibilities to the man on the cliff, each of which correspond to a STOCK issue. They have to show that:

• The man is walking towards the cliff (Inherency)
• Walking off the cliff will have negative consequences for the man (Harms)
• The affirmative plan will "push" the man away from the cliff, or cause him to start walking in the opposite direction (Solvency)
• It is important that the man not fall off the cliff (Significance)

Negative Strategies

The negative has several options for refuting the affirmative's plan that relate to the man on the cliff:

• The man is not in fact walking towards the cliff, but perhaps away from it. Or, he is not moving at all. (Inherency)
• Walking off the cliff will actually have positive consequences for the man (Harms)
• The affirmative plan will not be sufficient to push the man away from the cliff, and he will fall off anyway. (Solvency)
• The affirmative plan will push the man away from the cliff, but towards a greater peril (such as another, steeper cliff). (Disadvantages).
• Even if the man falls off the cliff, it doesn't matter (Significance)